Source Sheet for Mishnayos Mesechtas Chullin Part 1

(16) R. Elazar Hakappar says: Now what did we learn from deer and hart? It came (ostensibly) to teach, but it (in the end) it was found to be taught, viz.: Just as a beast (must be slaughtered) through shechitah, so, an animal (e.g., deer and hart), through shechitah, (but a bird [must be slaughtered through shechitah] only by ordinance of the scribes). Rebbi says: "as He commanded you" (Ibid. 21) apprises us that Moses was commanded as to gullet and windpipe (as being the loci of shechitah) and as to the (cutting of) the major portion of one (of these being the criterion for shechitah) in a bird and of both, in a beast.

(1) The biblical positive command is that if anyone wishes to eat the meat of cattle, beasts or birds, he must first perform the rite of sheḥitah; only thereafter he may eat it, as it is written: "You shall slaughter any of your cattle or sheep" (Deuteronomy 12:21).— —

(1) There are five things that spoil the sheḥitah act, and the essential sheḥitah requirement is to be cautious about each. They are: delay, pressing, digging, slipping, and tearing.

(1) The commandment of slaughter: That anyone who wants to eat ([domesticated] beast, [wild] animal or bird) meat first slaughter them as is fit, and that there not be [another way to] permit [it] besides slaughter. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:21), "you may slaughter from your your cattle or your flock [...], as I have commanded you, etc." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 75:7,16 is, "Just like consecrated [animals] are with slaughter, so too are the non-sacred [animals] with slaughter. [...] 'As I have commanded you' teaches us that Moshe, our teacher, was commanded as to the esophagus and the trachea and as to the [cutting of] the majority of one in a bird and the majority of two, in a beast." The understanding is not that it be such from the understanding of the verse, but rather that upon this commandment came the tradition that it was like this that he was commanded about all the matters of slaughter - as is known to us about the knife, the place of the slaughter [on the animal] on the esophagus and the windpipe and the rest of the matters.

(2) And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), "But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it" (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), "This is the law of the beast and the bird." Yet the sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter - as it is written, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), "if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them" - just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression, collection, is written about them as well - as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), "the collection of the locusts." And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - these are the fish - "and of any soul that swarms upon the earth" - these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish.

(3) I have already written at the end of the Order of Tsav about the prohibition of blood (Sefer HaChinukh 148) and at the beginning of Achrei Mot [about] the commandment of covering the blood (Sefer HaChinukh 187) all that I have known about the matter of distancing that the Torah distanced us from the blood of all flesh. And I say from the angle of the simple understanding that the commandment of slaughter is also from the same reason. Since it is well-known that the body's blood comes out of the neck more than from other places of the body, hence we were commanded to slaughter from there before we eat it. As [in this way] all of its blood will come out from there, and we will 'not eat the soul with the flesh.' And we can also say as a reason for slaughter from the neck with a checked knife, [that it is] in order that we not cause too much pain to living beings. As the Torah [only] permitted man - due to his status - to derive nourishment from them for all of his needs, but not to cause them pain for no reason. And the Sages have already spoken much about the prohibition of pain to living beings in Bava Metzia 32a and in Shabbat 128b, [as to] whether it is a Torah prohibition. And it appears to come out that it is a Torah prohibition (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13:13).

(4) From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 9a) that five things spoil the slaughter, if one of them happened during the slaughter. And these are them: pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing. The content of pausing is, for example, that he began to slaughter the esophagus, and before he slaughtered its majority, he interrupted [the] slaughtering. If he paused with this interruption the measure of enough [time] for another slaughter, his slaughter is disqualified. The understanding of another slaughter is the [time needed to] slaughter the skin and the benchmarks of another beast like it, and like that of small beast (lamb) for a chicken. And there are those that are stringent, that the measure is only enough for the slaughter of the majority of the [two] benchmarks with a beast, and the majority of one benchmark with a bird. But if he slaughters with a bad (meaning dull) knife, even if he goes back and forth the whole day, his slaughter is fit - except if he brings it back and forth after he slaughtered the majority of only one benchmark in a beast; as if he brings a bad knife back and forth on the minority that remains of it like the measure of pausing, his slaughter is disqualified.

(5) The matter of pressing is one who presses the knife, like one who cuts a radish, at the time of the slaughter - meaning to say that he does not bring the knife back and forth - in this manner, the slaughter is disqualified (Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 3:11)

(6) The matter of submerging that we have received in the tradition is that the knife must stay revealed at the time that we slaughter. And because of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 30b) that if one covers the knife under one benchmark and slaughtered the second, or even if he covered it under the skin and slaughtered the benchmarks, or even [if he did so] under the tangled wool or even under a cloth (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 3:9, 10) that is very stuck to the neck, the slaughter is disqualified. But it if is not very stuck, it is not disqualified by [a cloth].

(7) The matter of sliding is that which we received that even though the slaughter is from the neck, there are well-known boundaries upon the neck within which the slaughter is fit, but not below [the lower] boundary and not above [the higher one]. And the boundary of the place of slaughter on the windpipe is from the slant of the Adam's apple and below (Chullin 19a) to the top of the small protrusions of the lungs - not until the bottom of the protrusions that are connected to the lungs, but rather their tops. And this measurement is the entire part of the neck that the beast stretches out at the time that it grazes naturally without duress. And on the esophagus (Chullin 44a), one leaves the grasp of a hand above. And below, the measurement is until the esophagus gets 'hairy' - meaning to say that many perforations are found there, in the likeness of the stomach. And some (see Rashi and Tosafot on Chullin 44a) say that the understanding of the grasp of a hand is enough for three fingers, and some say [it is] enough that one grabs it with two fingers from the two sides of the neck, and that is the measurement of the width of one finger. And that measurement is with a [domesticated] beast and a [wild] animal, but with a bird, everything is according to its largeness or smallness. And they said in the Gemara (Chullin 19a) that [in the case of] one who began the slaughter of the windpipe and slaughtered a third, and afterwards moved the knife from the place of slaughtering - meaning above the slant of the Adam's apple - and cut a third, and after that brought the knife back to the place of slaughtering and slaughtered a third, the slaughter is disqualified. As we always need in this law of sliding that the majority of the death of the beast be with slaughter and that at the time of the leaving of life from it - meaning the middle third - that then, the majority is with [proper] slaughter. Anything that is like that is fit; [but if was done] in another matter, it is disqualified. And this [particular] matter of sliding is only found with the windpipe and above adjacent to the slant of the Adam's apple. As below, adjacent to the protrusions of the lungs, its [disqualifying] piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all. And so too, with the esophagus - whether above or whether below - its piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all.

(8) Anyone who is not an expert in these four things that disqualify the slaughter is not permitted to slaughter (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 4:1). And if he did slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter. And even if after he slaughtered, they asked him if he was careful about them and he said, "Yes, yes," there is no substance to his words - as since he did not know them at first, maybe he was negligent about them and it is not remembered [by him] at all.

(9) And besides these four things that we mentioned that every slaughterer needs to know, the sages obligated us to know a fifth thing - and even though it is not from the laws of slaughtering [per se] - since this matter always comes up at the time of slaughter, and the beast is made into a carcass with the thing. And if the slaughterer does not know it, he will be feeding carcasses to everyone. And therefore they also said about this [that] it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of any butcher that does not know it. And this is the prohibition that is called tearing. And its matter is that the windpipe and the esophagus - both of them or even one of them - is torn from the place of their connection with the jawbone and the flesh upon it. And [it is] when they are torn from there completely, or even it they are not torn completely, but rather their majority dangles - [then,] behold it is forbidden. And that is when it is fully detached (Chullin 44a) - meaning to say [that] when we forbid it when its majority is dangling, it is to say that all of it is in this manner, that the dangling is from this [side] and that [side]. As [with] anything that is [detached] in this manner, even that [part of it] which is connected is not connected well, and so, they are considered completely torn. But if the benchmarks were dangling from one side - meaning to say it was detached and torn from the jawbone only in one place - even though the majority was torn - since the tear is only in one place, the minority is connected with a lasting connection [and] that minority saves [it] and it is fit; even though [the tear] is in the majority of the benchmark and there is only [a minority] remaining. And all the more so do we render it fit when the whole benchmark is connected to the flesh on the jawbone, even though the jaw is cut and completely taken out from the place of its connection in the head - the connection of the flesh with the benchmark saves [it]. And it comes out that tearing forbids when the benchmarks are torn in many places, this way and that, in the majority. But in any case, [if it is only] in one place, the prohibition of tearing does not [apply]. And this tearing that we said does not make a beast into a 'torn' (terminally ill) animal. Rather, so have we learned from the tradition, that torn benchmarks cannot be slaughtered - meaning to say that the commandment of slaughter would not be [fulfilled] with torn benchmarks. And hence one who slaughters torn benchmarks - behold, it is as if he did not slaughter, and as if the beast died on its own, such that it is a carcass. And even though they made a bird fit with [only] one benchmark - as we said - so long as one is torn before he slaughtered the other, the slaughter does not permit it and it is forbidden. So have we learned from the tradition. Every one of Israel must know the five laws that we mentioned - pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing - to be an expert in them, before he slaughters. And it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of anyone who is not an expert in them and slaughtered [regardless]. And even if we ask him afterwards and he says, "I am sure that I slaughtered properly," we do not listen to him at all.

(10) And one who wants to slaughter also needs to know the matter of checking the knife - that the Sages required him to check with the fingernail and with the flesh in a knife's three [relevant] directions (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 1:23). And if we feel a nick in it - even the smallest amount - the slaughter [done with such a knife] is forbidden. And it is permitted to slaughter with anything that cuts well that does not have a nick in it at all. And if the knife is found to be nicked after the slaughter, we say that it got nicked with the skin and that the benchmarks were slaughtered with a nicked knife. And we say this when bones were not cut with the same knife after the slaughter - meaning to say that the knife did not touch anything from which it is possible for it to be nicked. But if we know with certainty that something from which it is possible for it to be nicked touched the knife after the slaughter, we assume the nick is from that thing. And anytime we are in doubt if it touched something that [could] nick it or not, we assume it is from the skin. This is what appears [to come out] nicely from the disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Chasda in this matter at the beginning of the first chapter of Chullin 10a. And [also] the law of that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 3b) that we assume anyone who is found proximate to [the involvement with] slaughter to be an expert. And even if he is in front of us, we do not have to test him, as we rely on the assumption. And there are some commentators that said that if they are in front of us, we do test them. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Chullin in the first two chapters (see Tur Yoreh Deah 1-28).

(11) And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females, as even females are warned not to eat from a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird without proper slaughter. And [women] have permission to slaughter - and their slaughter is fit for any person - if they know the laws of slaughter and are expert in them. And the Sages said (Chullin 2a) that even the slaughter of minors is fit, so long as an adult who is an expert in the laws of slaughter sees them slaughter properly. Yet the Sages warned us (Chullin 12a) not to give them to slaughter at the outset, since they commonly blunder, due to their limited intellect, and a loss will be found in the matter.

(12) And one who transgresses this and is not careful about eating the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happen to them or that was slaughtered with a knife that was not checked has violated this positive commandment, besides having violated the negative commandment of "You shall not eat any carcass," [for which] he is lashed for eating a kazayit of them - as we shall write in this Order, with God's help (Sefer HaChinukh 572). And they, may their memory be blessed, also said in the second chapter of Chullin 32a, "Everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass"; meaning to say, any time that the beast is disqualified in the place [on its body] of slaughter - which are the benchmarks - such as if one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happened to it, or if he slaughtered it with a knife that was not checked, behold, that is called a carcass. "And anything, the slaughter of which was proper and something else caused it to be disqualified, is called 'torn'"; meaning to say, if none of the disqualifications occurred regarding the slaughter, the checking of the knife or the benchmarks, but rather something else caused it to become disqualified - such as it becoming 'torn' with one of the eighteen well-known [ways of being] 'torn,' that I mentioned earlier (Sefer HaChinukh 73) - behold, that is called, 'torn,' which is to say that he gets lashes on account of a 'torn' animal. And even though there are lashes for both of them, the difference to us that comes of it is regarding the warning. And the matter of that which we learned, that everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass, is not that the main carcass that is mentioned in Scripture should be that which is made into a carcass by its slaughter. As it is certainly an animal that died on its own due to a sickness or with some matter [that causes it to die] that is called an undifferentiated carcass. Rather the author of the Mishnah is coming to teach that anything that is not slaughtered properly is considered like it died on its own.

(4) Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local altars) were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites.

(5) When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local altars) were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere.

(6) When they came to Shiloh, bamot were forbidden. [The Tabernacle] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a base of stones with a ceiling of curtains, and that was the “resting place” [referred to in the Torah]. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe [were eaten] wherever [Shiloh] could be seen.

(7) When they came to Nov and to Givon, bamot were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices in all of the cities of Israel.

(8) When they came to Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden and were never again permitted, and that was the ‘inheritance’. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe within the walls [of Jerusalem].

(2) Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone.

(3) Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

(8) If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he carried nevelah (carrion), or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].

(10) He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

(9) The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible. The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible. As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages.

(1) The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

(1) All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot. Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).

(1) All [persons] are fit to evaluate or to be made the subjects of evaluation, are fit to vow [another's worth] or have their worth vowed: priests, Levites and [ordinary] Israelites, women and slaves. The tumtum and the hermaphrodite are fit to vow [another's worth], or to have their worth vowed, and are fit to evaluate, but they are not fit to be made the subjects of evaluation, for the subject of evaluation must be definitely either male or female. A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor are fit to have their worth vowed or be made the subject of evaluation, but they are not fit to make either a vow [of another's worth] or to evaluate, because they have no intelligence. A person less than one month old may have his worth vowed but not his valuation.

(4) Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten?

(3) They handed it over to him who was to lead it away. All were fit to lead it away, but the priests made a fixed rule not to permit an Israelite to lead it away. Rabbi Yose said: it once happened that Arsela led it away, although he was an Israelite.

(5) Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood they do not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.

(4) All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

(6) All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian.

(2) One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped.

(3) One who immerses [unclean] vessels on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may use them. But if intentionally, he may not use them. One who separates tithes, or cooks on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may eat it. But if intentionally, he may not eat it. One who plants on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may keep the tree. But if intentionally, he must uproot it. But if during the sabbatical year, whether [it was planted] unwittingly or intentionally he must uproot it.

(2) If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses and killed it or sold it according to the evidence of two others, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole it and then killed it for use in healing, or for food for dogs; or if he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in the Temple Court [intending to eat it] as common food, he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. In these last two cases Rabbi Shimon exempts.

(4) If he stole [an ox or a sheep] according to the evidence of two witnesses, and slaughtered it or sold it according to the evidence of one witness or according to his own evidence, he makes twofold restitution, but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. Rabbi Shimon says: “If they were Holy Things which must be replaced [if damaged or lost] he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution; but if they were Holy Things which need not be replaced, he is exempt.” 1. If a man stole [an ox or a sheep] and sold it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and sold it for idolatrous use 3. or stole it and slaughtered it on the Day of Atonement; 4. if he stole what was his father’s and slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died; 5. if he stole it and slaughtered it and then he dedicated it to the Temple 6. he must make fourfold or fivefold restitution. 1. If he stole [an ox or a sheep] and slaughtered it on the Sabbath, 2. or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatrous use, 4. or stole what was his father’s and his father died, and he afterward slaughtered or sold it, 5. or if he stole it and then dedicated it, and afterward slaughtered it or sold it, 6. he makes twofold restitution but not fourfold or fivefold restitution. In the cases mentioned in mishnah two the person is liable for fourfold and fivefold restitution and in mishnah four he is not. Using the line by line comparison we should be able to see why the law is different in each individual case. In case 1, if the person slaughtered the ox or sheep on the Sabbath he is obligated for the death penalty. Since one can only receive one punishment per crime, he is not fined additionally for having slaughtered the animal. If, however, he had only sold the animal, he would not be obligated for the death penalty and therefore he would owe the fine. The same is true for case 3. Selling an animal for idolatrous use is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty, and therefore he is obligated for the fine. On the other hand, slaughtering for idolatrous use is a capital crime and therefore he receives a death penaly and not a fine. We learn in case 4 that if he stole his father’s animal and did not slaughter or sell it until after he dies he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. Since at the time of the slaughtering or selling part of the animal was his as an inheritance he is not obligated. (We will see a similar law in the next mishnah). If, however, he had sold or slaughtered the animal before the death of his father, he would be obligated. Similarly in case 5 if he sold and slaughtered the animal after having dedicated it, he is selling or slaughtering an animal that is no longer really belongs to him. He is therefore not obligated for the fine. If, however, he slaughtered or sold the animal and then dedicated it, he will be obligated for the fine. Rabbi Shimon makes a clarification on this last law. The “Holy Things” to which he refers are animals dedicated to the Temple. There are two types of such dedications. If the owner says that “this animal is dedicated”, then he must bring this animal. If the animal gets lost or dies the owner is not obligated to bring another animal in its place. In such a case, if a thief should steal and slaughter or sell the animal he is not obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. If, however, the owner dedicated the animal by saying “I dedicate an animal”, then he if the original animal is lost he must bring another. In such a case if the thief should slaughter or sell the animal he will be obligated for fourfold or fivefold restitution. (This last law is difficult and is explained in other ways as well).

(7) There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted. There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted. There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted. What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”

(4) How was the hatat of a bird sacrificed?He pinches off its head behind its neck, but he did not sever it. And he would sprinkle its blood on the wall of the altar. The residue of the blood was drained out on the base. Only the blood belonged to the altar, while the rest of it belonged to the priests.

(5) The elders of Jerusalem departed and went away. The elders of that city bring “a heifer which has never been worked” (Deuteronomy 21:3). And a blemish does not disqualify it. They bring it down to a hard (etan) wadi “etan” is understood in its literal sense of “hard”. Even if it is not “hard”, it is valid [for the ceremony]. They break its neck with a hatchet from behind. The site may never be sown or tilled, but it is permitted to comb flax and chisel rocks.

(7) If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.

(4) A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.

(5) There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.

(2) [As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. [As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. [As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. [One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment.

(4) The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege. Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.

(3) Lambs no more than one year old, And rams no more than two years old. And all these years are reckoned from day to day. One that is thirteen months old is not valid, neither as a ram nor as a lamb. Rabbi Tarfon called it palges. Ben Azzai called it noked. Rabbi Ishmael called it parakhrigma. If a man offered it he must bring for it the libation of a ram, but it is not counted as his offering. One that is thirteen months old behold it is a ram.

(9) They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.

(1) These blemishes [named above], whether permanent or transitory, make human beings unfit [to serve in the Temple]. There are more than this concerning human beings: kilon, liftan, makkaban, one whose head is angular or shekifas . A hunchback: Rabbi Judah considers him fit, Whereas the sages consider him unfit.

(4) The following are the psalms that were chanted in the Temple.On the first day they used to say, “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Psalms. On the second day they used to say: “Great is the Lord and highly to be praised, in the city of our God. His holy mountain” (Psalms. On the third day they used to say: “God stands in the congregation of God, in the midst of the judges he judges” (Psalms. On the fourth day they used to say: “O Lord, God to whom vengeance belongs. God to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth” (Psalms. On the fifth day they used to say: “Sing aloud unto God our strength, shout unto the God of Jacob” (Psalms. On the sixth day they used to say: “The lord reigns, he is clothed in majesty, the Lord is clothed, He has girded himself with strength” (Psalms. On Shabbat they used to say: “A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” (Psalms. A psalm, a song for the time to come, for the day that will be all Shabbat and rest for everlasting life. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Tamid! 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. Tamid may have been one of the more unusual tractates that we have ever learned. Instead of disputes between sages, heaps of logic and laws, we get an intricate description of the Temple service. Indeed, although the language is clearly rabbinic Hebrew, its descriptive style is more characteristic of the Bible than of rabbinic literature. It is likely that these descriptions, or at least parts thereof, come from Temple times. They were preserved because the rabbis fervently hoped that the Temple would be rebuilt during their own lifetimes. While we may or may not share in this wish, I think we can all appreciate the respect in which they held this ceremony. Despite the fact that it was performed each and every day, twice every day, they don’t seem to have lost their sense of wonder at the intimate connection that they received with God through the sacrificial process. I hope you have enjoyed Tamid. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Middot (the last tractate in Seder Kodashim!).

(1) In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber. And the Levites in twenty-one places: Five at the five gates of the Temple Mount; Four at its four corners on the inside; Five at five of the gates of the courtyard; Four at its four corners on the outside; One at the offering chamber; One at the chamber of the curtain, And one behind the place of the kapporet.

(1) Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. If they were broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean.

(6) There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity.The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metal vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.

(8) A pen-knife, a writing pen, a plummet, a weight, pressing plates, a measuring-rod, and a measuring-table are susceptible to impurity. All unfinished wooden vessels also are susceptible to impurity, excepting those made of boxwood. Rabbi Judah says: one made of an olive-tree branch is also clean unless it was first heated.

(4) With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]:Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening. Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages. The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.

(6) One who makes grape-skin wine, and he put water on by measure, and he finds [afterwards] the same quantity, he is exempt from tithe. Rabbi Judah makes him liable. If he found more than the measure, he must give [tithe] for it from another place, in proportion.

(3) One who bought a domesticated animal for a shelamim offering or a wild animal for non-sacrificial eating, the hide becomes hullin [non-sacred], even though the value of the hide exceeds the value of the flesh. Sealed jars of wine [which were bought] in a place where they were usually sold sealed, the jars are hullin. Walnuts and almonds, their shells become hullin. Grape-skin wine: before it has fermented it cannot be bought with second tithe money, but after it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money.

(5) One who bought water or salt, or produce still joined to the soil, or produce which cannot reach Jerusalem, he has not purchased maaser [sheni]. One who bought produce unwittingly, the money must be restored to its former place. But if intentionally, the produce must be taken up and be consumed in the [holy] place, and when there is no Temple, it must be left to rot.

(2) These invalidate the mikveh and do not raise it up to [the required quantity]: Drawn water, whether clean or unclean, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling, and grape-skin wine before it becomes vinegar. How do they make the mikveh invalid and do not raise it up [the required quantity]? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less a kortov, and a kortov of these fell into it, it does not raise it up [the required quantity]; And if there were three logs of any of these, they would invalidate the mikveh. But other liquids, and the juice of fruits, brine, and liquid in which fish has been pickled, and grape-skin wine that has fermented sometimes raise it up to [the required quantity] and sometimes do not raise it up. How so? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a seah of any of these fell in it, it does not raise it up to [the required quantity]. But if the mikveh contained forty seahs and a se'ah of any of these was put in and one seah was removed, the mikveh is still valid.

(6) The following are liable [to pay] the kalbon (surcharge): Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not priests or women or slaves or minors. If a man paid the shekel on behalf of a priest, or on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave, or on behalf of a minor, he is exempt. If a man paid the shekel on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow he is liable for one kalbon. Rabbi Meir says: two kalbons. If one gave a sela and received a shekel, he is liable to pay two kalbons.

(7) If one paid the shekel on behalf of a poor man or on behalf of his neighbor or on behalf of his fellow-townsman, he is exempt [from the kalbon]. But if he loaned [it] to them he is liable. Brothers who are partners who are obligated for the kalbon are exempt from the tithe of beasts. But when they are liable to the tithe of beasts they are exempt from the surcharge. And how much is the kalbon? A silver ma'ah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: half a ma'ah.

(3) An animal bought or given as a present is exempt from the law of cattle tithe. If brothers became partners, though they are still bound to pay the kalbon [surcharge], they are exempt from the tithe of cattle. And when they become liable to tithe of cattle, they are exempt from paying the kalbon. If they acquired from the estate, they are bound [to tithe them]. But if not, they are exempt from tithing. If they first divided up the estate and then again became partners, they are bound to pay the kalbon and are exempt from tithe of cattle.

(8) Wherever there is the right of sale there is a fine and wherever there is a fine there is no right of sale. In the case of a minor there is the right of sale and there is no fine; In the case of a young woman there is a fine but no right of sale. In the case of a girl who has reached majority age there is no right of sale and there is no fine.

(1) Beth Shammai says: Only those who are betrothed may exercise the right of refusal; But Beth hillel says: Both those who are betrothed and those who are married. Beth Shammai says: [A declaration of refusal may be made] against a husband but not against a yavam; But Beth Hillel says: Either against a husband or against a yavam. Beth Shammai says: [The declaration] must be made in his presence, But Beth Hillel says: Either in his presence or not in his presence. Beth Shammai says: [The declaration must be made] before the court, But Beth Hillel says: Either before the court or not before the court. Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: [A girl] may exercise the right of refusal while she is a minor even four or five times. Beth Shammai said to them: “The daughters of Israel are not ownerless property! Rather, either she makes a declaration of refusal and then waits until she is of age, or she makes a declaration of refusal and marries again [immediately]. Section one: According to Beth Shammai only those who are betrothed are allowed to make a declaration of refusal and thereby leave their husbands without a get. Beth Hillel says even if she was married she may do so. According to the Talmud, Beth Shammai allows only the betrothed woman to refuse because if the married woman also was able to refuse, men would not want to spend the money involved in marrying a minor, lest she later refuse the marriage. Section two: If the minor girl was married off by her mother or brother and then her husband died, according to Beth Shammai she cannot make a declaration against her yavam. Rather she must wait until she reaches majority age and then request halitzah. However, according to Beth Hillel she may make such a declaration against the yavam as well. However, even though she has annulled her marriage to the yavam’s brother, she cannot at a later point marry the yavam, since she was at one point his brother’s wife. Section three: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of him. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section four: According to Beth Shammai, she must make the declaration of refusal in front of a court. According to Beth Hillel, this is not necessary. Section five: According to Beth Hillel, as long as she is still a minor, she may be married off as many times as her brothers and mother wish and she may later refuse as many marriages as they offer. Beth Shammai offers a moral objection to this possibility, for through it a girl could be betrothed (but according to Beth Shammai not married) to several men without ever having received a get. Rather she either waits until she is an adult or makes a declaration of refusal and then marries immediately, at which point she could no longer refuse, according to Beth Shammai. Note that this last section is phrased differently than the previous sections. According to some mishnaic commentators, since Beth Shammai explains their position the halakhah is according to them in this section. In all of the other sections, the halakhah follows Beth Hillel, as it usually does.

(2) Which minor must make the declaration of refusal?Any whose mother or brothers have given her in marriage with her consent. If they gave her in marriage without her consent she need not make any declaration of refusal. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Any child who is unable to take care of her token of betrothal need not make any declaration of refusal. Rabbi Eliezer says: The act of a minor has no validity at all, rather [she is to be regarded] as one seduced. The daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest may not eat terumah, and the daughter of a priest [who was married] to an Israelite may eat terumah.

(4) If a deaf yavam submitted to halitzah or if a deaf yevamah performed halitzah, or if a halitzah was performed on a minor, the halizah is invalid. If a minor yevamah performed halitzah she must again perform halitzah when she becomes of age; if she does not again perform it, the halitzah is invalid.

(5) They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight. Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine. And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane. On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.