Source Sheet for Mishnayos Mesechtas Yadayim Chapter 4

This source sheet is part of a series of source sheets providing background for Mishnayos Yadayim. The series can be found at

Chapter 4

The last Mishna of Chapter Three resolved a dispute whether Koheles and Shir HaShirim are M'Tamei Yadayim by introducing testimony that the issue was affirmatively resolved by majority vote among those present in the Yeshiva on the day Rabi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed Head of the Academy ("בו ביום"). The Gemara in Berochos 28a tells us, that following a dispute between Raban Gamliel and Rabi Yehoshua, Raban Gamliel is removed as Rosh Yeshiva and Rabi Elazar ben Azariah is installed as the new Rosh Yeshiva ( Raban Gamliel was very selective of whom he allowed to enter into the Beis Midrash--limiting the amount of students. Whereas, Rabi Elazar on the day he was installed as Rosh Yeshiva, dismissed the guard to the Beis Midrash; welcoming all students to attend. It was, therefore, on this day that two things happened. First, each Student recited the traditions he received from his Rebbeim providing a definitive account of the Mesorah--many of these were transcribed in Mesechtas Ediyot. Second, with so many Chachomim present, they were able to resolve many long-disputed matters via majority vote. Many of these resolutions are collected in Mishnayos containing the term בו ביום (notably, the terminology used in the prior Mishna and in Mishna 2 below, is different).

The first four Mishnayos of our Perek detail disputes resolved on בו ביום. Mishna 5 returns to discussing some technical rules relating to Tumas Seforim. Having completed the laws of Tumas Seforim, Mishna 6 transcribes a dispute between the Chachomim and the Tziddukim regarding the entire notion of Tumas Seforim. Mishnayos 7 and 8 conclude our Mesechta by describing other disputes between the Chachomim and Tzidukkim.

Sources for Mishnah 4:1

Our Mishnah introduces a series of Mishnayos taught on the day Rabi Elazar ben Azariya is appointed dean of the Yeshiva. in Yavneh. They are the "Bo Bayom" Mishnayos. The 5th Perek of Sotah (5:2-5) has another 4 Mishnah series that was taught on the same day.

Notably, the reference to Bo Bayom in Shabbos 1:4 is to another incident, namely, the day in Ben Guriyon's attic when the students of Beis Shammai overwhelmed the students of Beis Hillel.

(ב) בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, (ויקרא יא) וְכָל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל מֵהֶם אֶל תּוֹכוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר טָמֵא אֶלָּא יִטְמָא, לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, לִמֵּד עַל כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִי יְגַלֶּה עָפָר מֵעֵינֶיךָ, רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר, עָתִיד דּוֹר אַחֵר לְטַהֵר כִּכָּר שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. וַהֲלֹא עֲקִיבָא תַּלְמִידְךָ מֵבִיא לוֹ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא:

(ג) בּוֹ בַיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא (במדבר לה) וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת פְּאַת קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְגוֹ', וּמִקְרָא אַחֵר אוֹמֵר (שם) מִקִּיר הָעִיר וָחוּצָה אֶלֶף אַמָּה סָבִיב. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אֶלֶף אַמָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אֶלֶף אַמָּה. הָא כֵיצַד, אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִגְרָשׁ, וְאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִגְרָשׁ, וְאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים:

(ד) בּוֹ בַיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא (שמות טו), אָז יָשִׁיר משֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לַיי וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֵאמֹר, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֵאמֹר, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עַל כָּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר, כְּקוֹרִין אֶת הַהַלֵּל, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר לֵאמֹר. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, כְּקוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע וְלֹא כְקוֹרִין אֶת הַהַלֵּל:

(ה) בּוֹ בַיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן הוּרְקְנוֹס, לֹא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב יג) הֵן יִקְטְלֵנִי לוֹ אֲיַחֵל. וַעֲדַיִן הַדָּבָר שָׁקוּל, לוֹ אֲנִי מְצַפֶּה אוֹ אֵינִי מְצַפֶּה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם כז) עַד אֶגְוָע לֹא אָסִיר תֻּמָּתִי מִמֶּנִּי, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּאַהֲבָה עָשָׂה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִי יְגַלֶּה עָפָר מֵעֵינֶיךָ, רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁהָיִיתָ דוֹרֵשׁ כָּל יָמֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַמָּקוֹם אֶלָּא מִיִּרְאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם א) אִישׁ תָּם וְיָשָׁר יְרֵא אֱלֹקִים וְסָר מֵרָע, וַהֲלֹא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ תַּלְמִיד תַּלְמִידְךָ לִמֵּד שֶׁמֵּאַהֲבָה עָשָׂה:

(2) On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is unclean) but yitma’, (shall make unclean). This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.”

(3) On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town on the east side” (Numbers 35:5). But another verse states, “from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around” (vs. It is impossible to say that it was a thousand cubits since it has been already stated two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say that it was two thousand cubits since it has been already stated a thousand cubits! How then is this so? A thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for the Sabbath-limits. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: a thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for fields and vineyards.

(4) On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord and said saying” (Exodus 15:. For the Torah did not need to say “saying”, so why did the Torah say “saying”? It teaches that the Israelites responded to every sentence after Moses, in the manner of reading Hallel; that is why it says “saying”. Rabbi Nehemiah says: as is the reading the Shema and not Hallel.

(5) On that day Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcanus expounded: Job only served the Holy One, blessed be He, from love: as it is said, “Though he slay me, yet I will wait for him” (Job 13:15). And it is still evenly balanced whether to read “I will wait for him” or “I will not wait for him”? Scripture states, “Until I die I will maintain my integrity” (Job 27:5), this teaches that what he did was from love. Rabbi Joshua [ben Hananiah] said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you had expounded all your life that Job only served the Omnipresent from fear, as it is said, “A blameless and upright man that fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8) did not Joshua, the student of your student, teach that what he did was from love?

(ד) וְאֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַעֲלִיַּת חֲנַנְיָה בֶן חִזְקִיָּה בֶן גֻּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁעָלוּ לְבַקְּרוֹ. נִמְנוּ וְרַבּוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל, וּשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים גָּזְרוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם:

(4) And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures.

Although our Mishnah preserves a dispute regarding the Midras status of the medium size mixing bowl, the Mishnah in Keilim 20:2 and 24:3, are in line with the ruling in our Mishnah. The question whether a vessel automatically switches to its secondary use is also discussed in Keilim 20:4.

The Mishnah in Eduyos 1:11 discusses whether standalone chair that is placed into the mixing bowl is susceptible to Tumas Midras.

(ב) חֵמֶת חֲלִילִין, טְהוֹרָה מִן הַמִּדְרָס. עֲרֵבַת פִּיסוֹנוֹת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מִדְרָס. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, טְמֵא מֵת. עֲרֵבָה מִשְּׁנֵי לֹג וְעַד תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, טְמֵאָה מִדְרָס. הִנִּיחָהּ בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְפְּחָה, טְמֵאָה טְמֵא מֵת. בַּקָּדִים וְנִסְדְּקָה, מְקַבֶּלֶת מִדְרָס. זֶה חֹמֶר בִּשְׁיָרֵי כְלֵי עֵץ מִבִּתְחִלָּתָן. וְחֹמֶר בִּשְׁיָרֵי כְלֵי נְצָרִים מִבִּתְחִלָּתָן, שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּתָן אֵינָם מְקַבְּלִים טֻמְאָה עַד שֶׁיִּתְחַסֵּמוּ. נִתְחַסְּמוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ שִׂפְתוֹתֵיהֶן כָּל שֶׁהֵן, טְמֵאִין:

(2) A bagpipe is not susceptible to midras uncleanness. A trough for mixing mortar: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras uncleanness , And Bet Hillel says it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. If a trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav is split, it becomes susceptible to midras uncleanness. If he left it out in the rain and it swelled it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness alone. [If he left it out] during the east wind and it split, it is susceptible to midras uncleanness. In this respect the law is stricter in the case of remnants of wooden vessels than in [that of such vessels] in their original condition. It is also stricter in regard to the remnants of wicker vessels than [to such vessels] as are in their original condition, for when they are in their original condition they are insusceptible to uncleanness until their rim is finished, but after their rim has been finished, even though their edges fell away leaving only the slightest trace of them, they are unclean.

(ג) שָׁלֹשׁ עֲרֵבוֹת הֵן. עֲרֵבָה מִשְּׁנֵי לֹג וְעַד תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, טְמֵאָה מִדְרָס. שְׁלֵמָה, טְמֵאָה טְמֵא מֵת. וְהַבָּאָה בַמִּדָּה, טְהוֹרָה מִכְּלוּם:

(3) There are three different types of baking-troughs:If a baking-trough of a capacity from two log to nine kav was split it is susceptible to midras uncleanness; If it was whole it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And if it holds the prescribed measure it is free from all uncleanness.

(ד) עֲרֵבָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁנִּפְחֲתָה מִלְּקַבֵּל רִמּוֹנִים, וְהִתְקִינָהּ לִישִׁיבָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, עַד שֶׁיְּקַצֵּעַ. עֲשָׂאָהּ אֵבוּס לַבְּהֵמָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקְּבָעָהּ בַּכֹּתֶל, טְמֵאָה:

(4) If a large trough was so damaged that it could no longer hold pomegranates and he fixed it to be used as a seat: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it remains clean unless its rough parts have been smoothed. If it was turned into a feeding bowl for cattle, even if it was fixed to a wall, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

(יא) כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא. כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:

(11) A bride’s stool from which the covering-boards have been taken: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounce it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even the framework of a stool [by itself is liable to become] unclean.” A stool which has been set in a baker’s trough: Beth Shammai pronounces it [liable to become] unclean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it not [liable to become] unclean. Shammai says: “Even one made therein [is liable to become unclean].”

Rabbi Akiva uses the term "K'Shmah" in our Mishnah. He uses a similar term in Shevi'is 1:8

(ח) עַד אֵימָתַי נִקְרְאוּ נְטִיעוֹת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיָּחֹלּוּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, בַּת שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, נְטִיעָה כִשְׁמָהּ. אִילָן שֶׁנִּגְמַם וְהוֹצִיא חֲלִיפִין, מִטֶּפַח וּלְמַטָּה כִּנְטִיעָה, מִטֶּפַח וּלְמַעְלָה, כְּאִילָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן:

(8) Up until when are they called saplings?Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: until they are permitted for common use. But Rabbi Joshua says: until they are seven years old. Rabbi Akiba says: [the word] sapling, [it goes] according to its name. A tree which had been cut down and then produced fresh shoots: if one handbreadth or less, they are regarded as saplings, if more than a handbreadth they are regarded as trees, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Sources for Mishnah 4:2

Our Mishna is a combination of the first and third Mishnayos of Mesechtas Zevachim. The Mishnah in Pesachim 6:5 discusses the consequence of Shechting a Korban Pesach with the wrong intent.

(א) כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת, בְּכָל זְמָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף הָאָשָׁם. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, בְּכָל זְמָן. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַחַטָּאת בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא, וְהָאָשָׁם בָּא עַל חֵטְא. מַה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אַף הָאָשָׁם פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ:

(1) All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.

(ג) הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בְשַׁחֲרִית בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר, כְּאִלּוּ נִשְׁחַט בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר. בֶּן בְּתֵירָא פּוֹסֵל, כְּאִלּוּ נִשְׁחַט בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן, בְּיוֹם שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה בַיְשִׁיבָה, שֶׁכָּל הַזְּבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים מִשּׁוּם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. וְלֹא הוֹסִיף בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים:

(3) A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

(ה) הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בְשַׁבָּת, חַיָּב עָלָיו חַטָּאת. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין, חַיָּב. וְאִם רְאוּיִין הֵן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם הַפֶּסַח שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר לִשְׁמוֹ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ, חַיָּב, זְבָחִים שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁשִּׁנָּהוּ לְדָבָר אָסוּר, תֹּאמַר בַּזְּבָחִים, שֶׁשִּׁנָּן לְדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין לִשְׁמָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמָן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְאֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קִצְבָּה, תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָּה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם אֵמוּרֵי צִבּוּר, פָּטוּר:

(5) If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Joshua said him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable.

Sources for Mishnah 4:3

Our Mishnah presupposes that Amon and Moav are not subject to the laws of Shmittah. The Mishnah in Shevi'is 7:7, however, apparently understands that Shemittah does apply to Eivar HaYarden. See Tosfos, Yevamos 16a s.v. Amon for an attemp to reconcile these two sources.

(ב) שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַבִּעוּר, יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְהַגָּלִיל. וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת. גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן, וְגָלִיל הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וְהָעֵמֶק. מִכְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה וּלְמַעְלָן, כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְגַדֵּל שִׁקְמִין, גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן, וּמִכְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה וּלְמַטָּן, כָּל שֶׁהוּא מְגַדֵּל שִׁקְמִין, גָּלִיל הַתַּחְתּוֹן. וּתְחוּם טְבֶרְיָא, הָעֵמֶק. וּבִיהוּדָה, הָהָר וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה וְהָעֵמֶק. וּשְׁפֵלַת לוּד כִּשְׁפֵלַת הַדָּרוֹם, וְהָהָר שֶׁלָּהּ כְּהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. מִבֵּית חוֹרוֹן וְעַד הַיָּם מְדִינָה אֶחָת:

(2) There are three territories in respect to the law of removal [of sheviit produce]: [these are]: Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee, and there are three territories in each one. Upper Galilee, lower Galilee, and the valley. From Kefar Hananiah upwards, the region where sycamores do not grow, is Upper Galilee. From Kefar Hananiah downwards, where the sycamores do grow, is Lower Galilee. The borders of Tiberias are the valley. Those of Judea are: the mountain region, the plains [of the south], and the valley. The plains of Lod are like the plains of the south, and its mountain region is like the king's hill-country. From Bet Horon to the sea is considered as one land.

Sources for Mishnah 4:4

There is one additional mention of Amon in the Mishnah, Sotah 8:1.

(א) מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר אֶל הָעָם, בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָה מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כ) וְהָיָה כְּקָרָבְכֶם אֶל הַמִּלְחָמָה וְנִגַּשׁ הַכֹּהֵן, זֶה כֹּהֵן מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, וְדִבֶּר אֶל הָעָם, בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ. וְאָמַר אֲלֵיהֶם (שם) שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם קְרֵבִים הַיּוֹם לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֵיכֶם, וְלֹא עַל אֲחֵיכֶם, לֹא יְהוּדָה עַל שִׁמְעוֹן, וְלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן עַל בִּנְיָמִין, שֶׁאִם תִּפְּלוּ בְיָדָם יְרַחֲמוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דה"ב כח) וַיָּקֻמוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְשֵׁמוֹת וַיַּחֲזִיקוּ בַשִּׁבְיָה וְכָל מַעֲרֻמֵּיהֶם הִלְבִּישׁוּ מִן הַשָּׁלָל וַיַּלְבִּשֻׁם וַיַּנְעִלּוּם וַיַּאֲכִלוּם וַיַּשְׁקוּם וַיְסֻכוּם וַיְנַהֲלוּם בַּחֲמֹרִים לְכָל כּוֹשֵׁל וַיְבִיאוּם יְרֵחוֹ עִיר הַתְּמָרִים אֵצֶל אֲחֵיהֶם וַיָּשׁוּבוּ שֹׁמְרוֹן. עַל אוֹיְבֵיכֶם אַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים, שֶׁאִם תִּפְּלוּ בְיָדָם אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עֲלֵיכֶם. אַל יֵרַךְ לְבַבְכֶם אַל תִּירְאוּ וְאַל תַּחְפְּזוּ וְגוֹ' (דברים כ). אַל יֵרַךְ לְבַבְכֶם, מִפְּנֵי צָהֳלַת סוּסִים וְצִחְצוּחַ חֲרָבוֹת. אַל תִּירְאוּ, מִפְּנֵי הֲגָפַת תְּרִיסִין וְשִׁפְעַת הַקַּלְגַּסִּין. אַל תַּחְפְּזוּ, מִקּוֹל קְרָנוֹת. אַל תַּעַרְצוּ, מִפְּנֵי קוֹל צְוָחוֹת. כִּי יי אֱלֹקֵיכֶם הַהֹלֵךְ עִמָּכֶם, הֵן בָּאִין בְּנִצְחוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם, וְאַתֶּם בָּאִים בְּנִצְחוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם. פְּלִשְׁתִּים בָּאוּ בְנִצְחוֹנוֹ שֶׁל גָּלְיָת, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ, לְסוֹף נָפַל בַּחֶרֶב וְנָפְלוּ עִמּוֹ. בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן בָּאוּ בְנִצְחוֹנוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹבַךְ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ, לְסוֹף נָפַל בַּחֶרֶב וְנָפְלוּ עִמּוֹ. וְאַתֶּם אִי אַתֶּם כֵּן. כִּי יי אֱלֹקֵיכֶם הַהֹלֵךְ עִמָּכֶם לְהִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְגוֹ', זֶה מַחֲנֵה הָאָרוֹן:

(1) When the anointed for battle addresses the people he speaks in the holy tongue, as it is said, “And it shall be, when you draw near the battle, that the priest shall approach” (Deuteronomy 20:2) this refers to the anointed for battle. “And speak to the people” (ibid) – in the holy tongue. “He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are about to join battle with your enemy” (vs. “with your enemy” but not against your brother, not Judah against Shimon nor Shimon against Benjamin, that if you fall into their hand they shall have mercy on you, as it is said, “Then the men named above proceeded to take the captives in hand, and with booty they clothed all the naked among them they clothed them and shod them and gave them to eat and drink and anointed them and provide donkeys for all who were failing and brought them to Jericho, the city of palms, back to their kinsmen. Then they returned to Samaria” (II Chronicles 28:15). Rather against your enemies do you march, so that if you fall into their hand they will have no mercy on you. “Let not your courage falter, fear not, and do not tremble or be in dread of them” (Deuteronomy 20: “Let not your courage falter”-- at the neighing of the horses and the brandishing of swords; “Fear not” --at the crash of shields and the tramp of the soldiers shoes; “Do not tremble” -- at the sound of trumpets; “Or be in dread of them” -- at the sound of battle cries. “For it is the Lord your God that goes with you”--they come [relying] upon the might of flesh and blood, but you come [relying] upon the might of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came [relying] upon the power of Goliath (I Samuel 17:4 ff.), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. The Ammonites came [relying] upon the power of Shobach (II Samuel 10:16-18), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But with you it is otherwise, “For it is the Lord your God is that goes with you” this refers to the camp of the ark.

Sources for Mishnah 4:5

Targum, translations, were an important part of Torah learning during the Second Beis HaMikdash. Numerous Mishnayos reference these Targumim and their interplay with Torah reading and learning. See Megillah 2:1, 4:6 and 4:10. In Megillah 1:8 and 4:6 we also find the heightened level of Kedusha for "Ashuris" the alphabet in which our current Sifrei Torah are written. Finally, our Mishnah mentions Ksav Ivri, an ancient script (used by the Samaritans), we find reference to this script in Gittin 9:8.

(ח) אֵין בֵּין סְפָרִים לִתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים נִכְתָּבִין בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן, וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֵינָן נִכְתָּבוֹת אֶלָּא אַשּׁוּרִית. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּסְּפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית:

(8) There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.

(א) הַקּוֹרֵא אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה לְמַפְרֵעַ, לֹא יָצָא. קְרָאָהּ עַל פֶּה, קְרָאָהּ תַּרְגּוּם, בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן, לֹא יָצָא. אֲבָל קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ לַלּוֹעֲזוֹת בְּלַעַז. וְהַלּוֹעֵז שֶׁשָּׁמַע אַשּׁוּרִית, יָצָא:

(1) If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

(ו) קָטָן קוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה וּמְתַרְגֵּם, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ פּוֹרֵס עַל שְׁמַע, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו. פּוֹחֵחַ פּוֹרֵס אֶת שְׁמַע וּמְתַרְגֵּם, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא בַתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו. סוּמָא פּוֹרֵס אֶת שְׁמַע וּמְתַרְגֵּם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה מְאוֹרוֹת מִיָּמָיו, אֵינוֹ פּוֹרֵס עַל שְׁמַע:

(6) A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.

(י) מַעֲשֵׂה רְאוּבֵן (בראשית לה), נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה תָמָר (בראשית לח), נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה עֵגֶל הָרִאשׁוֹן (שמות לב), נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם. וְהַשֵּׁנִי (שם), נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים (במדבר ו), מַעֲשֵׂה דָּוִד (שמואל ב י״א:כ״ז) וְאַמְנוֹן (שמואל ב יג), לֹא נִקְרָאִין וְלֹא מִתַּרְגְּמִין. אֵין מַפְטִירִין בַּמֶּרְכָּבָה (יחזקאל א), וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַפְטִירִין בְּהוֹדַע אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (יחזקאל ט״ז:ב׳):

(10) The incident of Reuven is read but not translated. The story of Tamar is read and translated. The first part of the incident of the golden calf is both read and translated, but the second is read but not translated. The blessing of the priests, the stories of David and Amnon are not read or translated. They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. R. Eliezar says: they do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel as a haftarah.

(ח) גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָנִית, יְוָנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְלֹא כָתַב עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. וְכָךְ הָיוּ נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין. כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. גֵּט מְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר. וּבְגוֹיִם, פָּסוּל. וּבְגוֹיִם, חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְךָ, וְכָשֵׁר:

(8) A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. [If a man signs], “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. [If he signs,] “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. [If he signs,] “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid).

Sources for Mishnah 4:6

Bones on non-kosher animals do not carry Tumah Niveia. Taharos 1:4.

(ד) וּבַבְּהֵמָה, הָעוֹר וְהָרֹטֶב וְהַקִּפָּה וְהָאֲלָל וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְנָכְרִי וְהִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת, מְטַמְּאָה טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיז אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ. רִבָּה לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין, מִמַּה שֶּׁרִבָּה לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת:

(4) The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. [Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness.

In explaining why the bones of people are Tamei, the Tziddukim explain because we are concerned that people will fashion the bone in Tarvodos, spoons. We see this reference in Keilim 17:12

(יב) וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְמִדָּה גַסָּה, מְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, כִּמְלֹא תַרְוָד גָּדוֹל שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים. וּגְרִיס נְגָעִים, כַּגְּרִיס הַקִּלְקִי. הָאוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּכּוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה, כָּמוֹהָ וּכְגַּרְעִינָתָהּ. וְנוֹדוֹת יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן, שִׁעוּרָן כְּפִיקָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וּמָאוֹר שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בִידֵי אָדָם, שִׁעוּרוֹ כִמְלֹא אֶגְרוֹף גָּדוֹל, זֶה הוּא אֶגְרוֹפוֹ שֶׁל בֶּן בָּטִיחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, יֶשְׁנוֹ כְרֹאשׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל אָדָם. וְשֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בִידֵי אָדָם, שִׁעוּרוֹ כִמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה, שֶׁהוּא כְפֻנְדְּיוֹן הָאִיטַלְקִי, וּכְסֶלַע הַנֵּירוֹנִית, וְכִמְלֹא נֶקֶב שֶׁבָּעֹל:

(12) And sometimes they stated a large measure:A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

Sources for Mishnah 4:7

The first dispute between the Peirushim and Tziddukim described in our Mishnah is about the nature of flowing water in the context of Tumah. Specifically, based on Machshirin 5:9, most understand our Mishnah to be describing a situation where you are pouring a liquid from a pure vessel into an impure vessel, the question being asked is why doesn't the upstream water become Tamei by virtue of being connected to the impure vessel. Albeck, however, suggests that it may well be that the Mishnah is really referencing Taharot 8:9 where, ostensibly, the Mishnah suggests that even when the Tumah is at the source, the rest of t he water will remain Tahor. The Peirushim's rebuttal makes more sense in this context as they also reference a situation where the Tumah is at the source.

(ט) כָּל הַנִּצּוֹק, טָהוֹר, חוּץ מִדְּבַשׁ הַזִּיפִין, וְהַצַּפָּחַת. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סוֹלֶדֶת לְאַחֲרֶיהָ:

(9) A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards.

(ט) מַקֵּל שֶׁהִיא מְלֵאָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשִּׁיקָהּ לַמִּקְוֶה, טְהוֹרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיַּטְבִּיל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. הַנִּצּוֹק וְהַקְּטַפְרֵס וּמַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ, אֵינָן חִבּוּר לֹא לַטֻּמְאָה וְלֹא לַטָּהֳרָה. וְהָאֶשְׁבֹּרֶן, חִבּוּר לַטֻּמְאָה וְלַטָּהֳרָה:

(9) If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.

In the second half of the MIshnah the Peirushim and Tziddukim have a dispute over a person's liability for his slave's damages. Bava Kamma 8:4 teaches that a person is not responsible for their damages. However, there are mitzvos for which he is responsible for them, such as the Korban Pesach (see Pesachim 8:7).

(ד) חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה. הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן חַיָּב, וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים פְּטוּרִין. הָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה, פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה. הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן חַיָּב, וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּאֲחֵרִים, פְּטוּרִין, אֲבָל מְשַׁלְּמִין לְאַחַר זְמָן. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה הָאִשָּׁה, נִשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד, חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם:

(4) It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.

(ז) אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר. אֲפִלּוּ חֲבוּרָה שֶׁל מֵאָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין חֲבוּרַת נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים:

(7) They may not slaughter the pesah for a single person, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Yose permits it. And even a company of a hundred who cannot eat as much as an olive, one may not slaughter [a pesah] for them. And one may not form a company of women and slaves and minors.

Sources for Mishnah 4:8

The Mishna in Gitin 8:5 suggests that it was customary to date Jewish divorce contracts (Get) using the year of the then reigning non-Jewish sovereign (i.e., in the third year of the reign of King "so and so"). This was done to keep good relations with the government in power. See also Rosh HaShana 1:1.

(ה) כָּתַב לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת שְׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת, לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת מָדַי, לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת יָוָן, לְבִנְיַן הַבַּיִת, לְחֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, הָיָה בַמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב, בַּמַּעֲרָב וְכָתַב בַּמִּזְרָח, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְאֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתֻבָּה וְלֹא פֵרוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, לֹא עַל זֶה וְלֹא עַל זֶה. אִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, תַּחֲזִיר. וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ, וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה זַכָּאִין לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִפְסֶלֶת מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. בַּת לֵוִי, מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. בַּת כֹּהֵן, מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְאִם מֵתוּ, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. שִׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָהּ:

(5) If the get was dated by an unfit kingship, by the empire of Medea, by the empire of Greece, by the building of the Temple or by the destruction of the Temple, Or if being in the east he wrote “in the west”, or being in the west he wrote “in the east”, She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. If his name or her name or the name of his town or the name of her town was wrongly given, she must leave both husbands and all the above consequences apply to her.

(א) אַרְבָּעָה רָאשֵׁי שָׁנִים הֵם. בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים וְלָרְגָלִים. בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי. בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים וְלַשְּׁמִטִּין וְלַיּוֹבְלוֹת, לַנְּטִיעָה וְלַיְרָקוֹת. בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאִילָן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ:

(1) There are four new years:The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals. The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: the first of Tishri. The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables. The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says: on the fifteenth of that month.