1 Ezek. 442. 2 The priest charged with opening the doors.
3 i.e. the wicket to the right did not lead into the Sanctuary but only to a corridor which, by turning to the left, led to the door-cell between the two sets of Sanctuary doors.
4 There were three stories of five each.
s The two lower stories had three cells each and the highest story two.
6 i.e. the cell into which the priest had entered from the northern wicket (on the right of the Sanctuary entrance) on his way in to open the Sanctuary doors.
7 The priest is supposed to be facing south.
8 i.e. the outer wall of the higher stories was thinner than that of the lower stories.
<J j Kings 6°. 10 Over the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies.
1 1 Here meaning the entire block of buildings, including the Porch, side-cells, and passage¬ way.
12 Of the walls; the lowest section of the wall above ground before its thickness was re¬ duced to lighten the upper works and to leave room for the larger cells of the upper stories. According to Maimonides this basement was the underground foundation.
Some kind of ornamental plasterwork surmounting the actual wall (Tif. Yis.); or the lowest set of roof-beams, which were carved and gilded (Bert.).
14 The sense is obscure. According to Maimonides it was an upper portion of thew'all so constructed as to carry off water and prevent its leaking inside the Sanctuary. According to Bert, and Tif. Yis. it was a second set of rafters writh broad sides, placed perpendicularly, and sustaining the uppermost rafters, which held the plasterwork of the ceiling.
two cubits, the roof-beams one cubit, and the plasterwork one cubit; and the height of the upper chamber was forty cubits, the wall-frieze one cubit, the place of drippings two cubits, the roof-beams one cubit, and the plasterwork one cubit; and the parapet three cubits and the scarecrow1 one cubit. R. Judah says: The scarecrow was not taken into account; but the parapet was four cubits.
7. From east to west was one hundred cubits. The [thickness of the] wall of the Porch was five and the Porch eleven; the wall of the Sanctuary six and its interior forty cubits; the dividing space2 was one cubit and the Holy of Holies twenty cubits; the wall of the Sanctuary six, the cell six, and the wall of the cell five. From north to south was seventy cubits. The wall of the passage-way was five and the passage-way three; the wall of the cell five and the cell six; the wall of the Sanctuary six and its interior twenty cubits; the wall of the Sanctuary six and the cell six; the wall of the cell six, the space for draining away the water was three cubits, and the wall five cubits. The Porch projected fifteen cubits to the north, and fifteen cubits to the south, and this was called the Chamber of the Slaughter-knives, for there they used to keep the knives. The Sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front, and it was like to a lion, as it is written, Ho, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped;3 as a lion is narrow behind and wide in front so the Sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front.
5. 1. The Temple Court was in all a hundred and eighty-seven cubits long and a hundred and thirty-five cubits wide. From east to west it was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits: the place which the Israelites trod4 was eleven cubits; the place which the priests trod5 was eleven cubits; the Altar thirty-two; between the Porch and the Altar was twenty-two cubits; the Sanctuary a hundred cubits, and eleven cubits behind the place of the Mercy Seat.
2. From north to south was a hundred and thirty-five cubits: the Ramp and the Altar measured sixty-two; from the Altar to the rings was eight cubits; the place of the rings was twenty-four; from the rings to the tables was four cubits; from the tables to the pillars four; from the pillars to the wall of the Temple Court was eight cubits; and the remainder6 lay between the Ramp and the wall and in the place of the pillars.
3. There were six chambers in the Temple Court, three to the north and three to the south. Those to the north were the Salt Chamber, the Parwah Chamber,7 and the Rinsing Chamber. In the Salt Chamber they put the salt for the offerings; in the Parwah Chamber they salted the hides of the animal-offerings, and on its roof was the place of immersion for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. The Rinsing Chamber [was so named] because there they rinsed the inwards of the animal-offerings; and a passage-way led from it to the roof of the Parwah Chamber.
4. Those to the south were the Wood Chamber, the Golah Chamber, and the Chamber of Hewn Stone. ‘The Wood Chamber’ — R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: I forget what was its use. Abba Saul [b. Batnith] said: It was the cham¬ ber of the High Priest and it lay behind the other two; and the roof of the 1 Sharp-edged rims set round the parapet which served to prevent birds perching there and bringing uncleanness.
* Between the two curtains. See Yom. 51. 3 Is. 291. ‘Ariel’ means ‘lion of God’, * The Court of the Israelites. 5 The Court of the Priests.
598 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM three of them was on the same level. ‘The Golah Chamber* — the Golah cistern1 was there, and a wheel was set over it, and from thence they drew water enough for the whole Temple Court. ‘The Chamber of Hewn Stone* — there used the Great Sanhedrin2 of Israel to sit and judge the priest¬ hood; and if in any priest a blemish was found he clothed himself in black and veiled himself in black and departed and went his way; and he in whom no blemish was found clothed himself in white and veiled himself in white, and went in and ministered with his brethren the priests. And they kept it as a festival-day for that no blemish was found in the seed of Aaron the priest. And thus used they to say: ‘Blessed be God, blessed be he! for that no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. And blessed be he that chose Aaron and his sons to stand and serve before the Lord in the House of the Holy of Holies!* 1. i. [The blood of] a bird that is a Sin-offering is sprinkled below [the red line]4 and [the blood of] a beast that is a Sin-offering is sprinkled above. [The blood of] a bird that is a Whole-offering5 is sprinkled above [the red line], and [the blood of] a beast that is a Whole-offering is sprinkled below. If [the blood of] either of them was sprinkled otherwise the offering is invalid. This is the rite prescribed in the offering of a pair of birds: if ffiey were an offering of obligation the one must be offered in the manner prescribed for a Sin-offering and the other in the manner prescribed for a Whole-offering; but if they were Vow-offerings or freewill-offerings both must be offered in the manner prescribed for Whole-offerings. When are they accounted Vow-offerings? When he says, ‘I pledge myself to a Whole-offering*. And when are they accounted freewill-offerings? When he says, ‘This shall be a Whole-offering*. Wherein do Vow-offerings differ from freewill-offerings? [In nothing] save that with Vow-offerings he is answerable for them [and must replace them] if they die or are stolen, but with freewill-offerings he is not answerable for them if they die or are stolen.6 J Lit. 'nests’. It is used of the pairs of birds, 'two turtle doves or two young pigeons’, prescribed as obligatory offerings in expiation of certain offences and of certain conditions of uncleanness: Lev. 5,■,• (transgression arising out of the ‘oath of testimony’, or contact with carrion or dead creeping things, or with uncleanness issuing from humankind, or rash vows); Lev. 12' (a woman after childbirth); Lev. 14**, ut (the Bird-qfferings of the leper); Lev. 1 e1**, *** (a man and a woman who have suffered a flux); and Nura. 6” (a Nazirite who has failed to fulfil his vow in cleanness). One bird of each pair must be specially assigned and offered as a Whole-offering (see Zeb. 6‘; 7*; 74) and the other must be specially assigned and offered as a Sin-offering (see Zeb. 6*1 *■ 3; 7‘), and they must each be killed, and the blood sprinkled and the bodies disposed of in the manner specially prescribed for each of these two categories of offering; otherwise the offering is invalid. Birds sjngly or in one or more pairs could also be brought as a freewill-offering or in fulfilment of vows, when they must be dealt with in the manner prescribed for Whole-offerings (Lev. tM). Confusion was easily possible between the birds assigned to the three categories of (o) Whole-offering (voluntary), (i) Whole-offering (obligatory), and (c) Sin-offering (obligatory). Cases of such confusion present complicated problems (cf. p. 157, n. 7, on Petahiah who ‘was over the Bird- offerings’; see also Ab. 3“). The tractate Kinnim gives only the bare answers to some of these problems and does not provide the arguments leading to their solution. The attempts of the commentators to expound the text of the Mishnah (particularly ch. 3) are lengthy, laborious, and sometimes tentative and uncertain; and since they are incapable of being summarized lucidly they are here omitted in the annotations.
« See Midd. 3*; cf. Zeb. 7'. * See Zeb. 7*.
2. If a Sin-offering was confused with a Whole-offering or a Whole¬ offering with a Sin-offering, even if it was but one [of the one kind] among ten thousand [of the other kind], they must all be left to die. If [a bird that was assigned as] a Sin-offering was confused with [unassigned birds that were] offerings of obligation, there remain valid only as many as the number of Sin-offerings among the offerings of obligation; so, too, if [a bird that was] a Whole-offering was confused with [unassigned birds that were] offerings of obligation, there remain valid only as many as the number of Whole-offerings among the offerings of obligation, no matter whether the offerings of obligation were the more and the freewill-offerings the fewer, or the freewill-offerings the more and the offerings of obligation the fewer, or whether they were equal.
3. This applies only when offerings of obligation and freewill-offerings are confused one with the other; but if offerings of obligation only are confused one with another, the one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other to another, or two [pairs] to one [woman] and two to another, or three [pairs] to one [woman] and three to another, then half of them remain valid and half become invalid. If one [pair] belonged to one [woman] and two to another, or even three to another or ten to another or a hundred to another, only the lesser number [among the two groups that are confused] remain valid, no matter whether they are of a single class or of two classes, or whether they belonged to one woman or to two women.
4. What is meant by ‘a single class’? [If one pair of birds was brought by a woman because of] a birth,1 and [the other pair by the same woman because of] another birth; or [if one pair was brought because of] an issue,2 and [the other pair by the same woman because of] another issue, they count as ‘a single class’. What is meant by ‘of two classes’? [If two pairs were brought by the same woman because of] a birth and an issue. What is meant by ‘two women’? [If the several pairs were brought] by the one woman because of a birth and by the other woman because of a birth, or by the one woman because of an issue and by the other woman because of an issue, they count as ‘a single class’. ‘Of two classes’? [If the several pairs were brought] by the one woman because of a birth and by the other woman because of an issue. R. Jose says: If two women bought their pairs of birds jointly or gave the price of the pairs of birds to the priest, he may offer which he will as a Sin-offering and which he will as a Whole-offering, no matter whether [the pairs of birds were brought because of occasions that fall] within one class or two classes.
2. 1. If a single bird from a pair that were yet unassigned flew away, or if it flew among other birds that had been left to die,3 or if one of the pair died, another may be taken to complete the pair. If it flew among another pair [yet unassigned] that were set aside as offerings, it becomes itself invalid and renders invalid also its fellow in the pair; for the pigeon that flies away becomes itself invalid and renders invalid also its fellow in the pair.
. 2. Thus if two women had each two pairs and the one that belonged to the first woman flew among them that belonged to the second, by its flying away it renders invalid one [of the birds from which it flew]; if it flew back, by its flying back it renders invalid yet another. If it again flew away and then flew back, and yet again flew away and then flew back, it can effect no 600 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM further loss, since even if they were all confused together, there are never less than two pairs [which may validly be offered].
3. If one woman had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six, and another seven, and one [bird] flew from the first to the second, then one from thence to the third, then one from thence to the fourth, then one from thence to the fifth, then one from thence to the sixth, then one from thence to the seventh, and then [one from each] flew back [in like order], each renders one other invalid by flying away and one by flying back; thus the first [woman] and the second will have none left [that can validly be offered]; the third will have one pair, the fourth will have two, the fifth will have three, the sixth will have four, while the seventh will have six. If again one [from each] flew away, and one flew back [in like order], each renders one other invalid by flying away, and one by flying back; thus the third [woman] and the fourth will have none left [that can validly be offered], the fifth will have one pair, the sixth will have two, and the seventh will have five. If again one [from each] flew away and one flew back [in like order], each renders one other invalid by flying away and one by flying back; thus the fifth [woman] and the sixth will have none left [that can validly be offered], and the seventh will have four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman [this third time] has suffered no further loss. But if one from among birds that had been left to die flew among any of these, all must be left to die.
4. If one bird from a pair that were yet unassigned flew among a pair that were assigned, another may be taken to complete the pair. If one [from the pair that were assigned] flew back, or if, at the first, one from the pair that were assigned flew [among the other pair], all must be left to die.
5. If at the one side were Sin-offerings and at the other Whole-offerings, and in the middle [birds] yet unassigned, and from the middle one flew to the one side and one to the other, no loss ensues, since it can be said that the bird [from the middle] that flew to the Sin-offerings was to be a Sin-offering, and that [which flew from the middle] to the Whole-offerings was to be a Whole- offering. If [one from the side] flew back to the middle, those that are in the middle must be left to die, but those on the one side can still be offered as Sin-offerings and those on the other as Whole-offerings. If it returned, or if another bird flew from the middle to the sides, then all must be left to die. They may not use turtle-doves to make up pairs with young pigeons, or young pigeons to make up pairs with turtle-doves. Thus if a woman offered a turtle-dove as her Sin-offering and a young pigeon as her Whole-offering, she must bring another turtle-dove as her Whole¬ offering; if she had offered a turtle-dove as her Whole-offering and a young pigeon as her Sin-offering, she must bring another young pigeon as her Whole-offering. Ben Azzai says: They should decide by what is first offered. If a woman had offered her Sin-offering and then died, her heirs must bring her Whole-offering; but if she had [first] offered her Whole-offering and then died, her heirs need not bring her Sin-offering.
3. 1. This1 applies only if the priest had inquired;2 but if the priest had not inquired and one pair belonged to one woman and one to another, or two to one woman and two to another, or three to one and three to another, 1 Namely the substance of paragraphs 2 and 3 of ch. 1.
2 Lit. ‘If he had bethought himself’, namely, to ask the women which pair belonged to which, and which of the pair was assigned as the Sin-offering and which the Whole-offering.
if he sprinkled the blood of them all above [the red line], half are valid and half invalid; if below [the red line], half are valid and half invalid; if [he sprinkled the blood of] half of them above and the other half below, half of them [whose blood was sprinkled] above are invalid and half are valid, and half of them [whose blood was sprinkled] below are valid and half are invalid.
2. If one pair belonged to one and two to another, or even three to another or ten to another or a hundred to another, and he sprinkled the blood of them all above [the red line], half are valid and half invalid; if below, half are valid and half invalid; but if [he sprinkled the blood of] half of them above and of half of them below, the greater part are valid. This is the general rule: If the pairs of birds can be divided into two equal parts so that some of those belonging to one woman do not perforce have their blood sprinkled above and some of them below, half are valid and half invalid; but if the pairs of birds can only be divided into two equal parts in such a way that some of those belonging to one woman must perforce have their blood sprinkled above and some [perforce] below, the greater part are valid.
3. If the Sin-offerings belonged to one woman and the Whole-offerings belonged to the other, and he sprinkled the blood of them all above [the red line], half are valid and half invalid; if he sprinkled the blood of them all below, half are valid and half invalid; if the blood of half of them was sprinkled above and the blood of half of them below, both are invalid, for I can suppose that the Sin-offering had been offered above and the Whole¬ offering below.
4. If there was a Sin-offering and a Whole-offering and one pair of birds unassigned and one assigned, and he sprinkled the blood of them all above [the red line], half are valid and half invalid; if below the line, half are valid and half invalid; if [he sprinkled the blood of] half of them above and the blood of half of them below, none is valid excepting what was un¬ assigned; and this pair must be shared between them.
5. If [birds assigned as] Sin-offerings were confused with [unassigned birds that were] offerings of obligation, there remain valid only as many as the number of the Sin-offerings among the offerings of obligation. If the [unassigned] offerings of obligation were twice the number of the Sin- offerings, half are valid and half invalid; if the Sin-offerings were twice the number of the [unassigned] offerings of obligation, there remain valid as many as the number of the [unassigned] offerings of obligation. So, too, if [birds assigned as] Whole-offerings were confused with [unassigned birds that were] offerings of obligation, there remain valid only as many as the number of Whole-offerings among the offerings of obligation. If the [unassigned] offerings of obligation were twice the number of the Whole- offerings, half are valid and half invalid; if the Whole-offerings were twice the number of the [unassigned] offerings of obligation, there remain valid as many as the number of the [unassigned] offerings of obligation.
6. If a woman said, ‘I pledge myself to a pair of birds if I bear a son’, and she bore a son, she must bring two pairs, one for her vow and one1 as her offering of obligation. If [before she had assigned them]2 * she gave 1 In fulfilment of Lev. 126.
2 Which two out of the four birds were to be Whole-offerings in fulfilment of her vow, and which of the remaining two was to be the Sin-offering and which the Whole-offering.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM them to the priest, who. should sprinkle the blood of three of the birds above the line and one below, and he did not do so but sprinkled the blood of two of them above and the blood of two of them below, and he had not [first] inquired, she must bring another bird of like kind1 which he must offer above. If she brought one of a different kind she must then bring a second of that kind. If she had said expressly which kind she would offer for her vow, she must bring three more of like kind. If she brought them of a different kind she must bring still four more. If she had determined in her vow [to bring her offering of obligation and her Vow-offering at the same time and of the same kind] she must bring five more of like kind. If she brought them of a different kind she must bring six more. If she gave them to the priest and it was not known what she gave and the priest went and sprinkled their blood and he did not know in what manner he had sprinkled it, she must bring four more birds for the Vow-offering and two more for her offering of obligation, and one more as the Sin-offering. Ben Azzai says: Two more as Sin-offerings. R. Joshua says: This it is of which they have said, ‘While [a beast] lives it has but one voice; after it is dead its voice is multiplied sevenfold’. How is its voice multiplied sevenfold? Its two horns become two trumpets, its two leg-bones become two flutes, its hide becomes a drum, its entrails are used for lyres, and its chitterlings for harps. Moreover some say: Also its wool is used for the [High Priest’s] blue pomegranates.2 R. Simeon b. Akashya says: The older the elders of the ignorant grow, the more they lose their understanding; as it is written, He removeth the speech of the trusty and taketh away the understanding of the elders.3 But it is not so with the elders that are learned in the Law, for the older they grow the more stable grows their understanding, as it is written, With aged men is wisdom and in length of days understanding * 1 A turtle-dove if the others had been turtle-doves, or a pigeon if the others had been pigeons.
SIXTH DIVISION TOHOROTH (‘cleannesses’) KELIM OHOLOTH NEGAIM PARAH TOHOROTH MIKWAOTH NIDDAH MAKSHIRIN ZABIM TEBUL YOM Y AD AIM UKTZIN KELIM1 (‘VESSELS’) 1. i. These Fathers2 of Uncleanness, [namely] a [dead] creeping thing, male semen, he that has contracted uncleanness from a corpse, a leper in his days of reckoning,3 and Sin-offering water too little in quantity to be sprinkled,4 convey uncleanness to men and vessels by contact and to earthen¬ ware vessels by [presence within their] air-space;5 hut they do not convey uncleanness by carrying.** 2. They are exceeded by carrion and by Sin-offering water sufficient in quantity to be sprinkled, for these convey uncleanness to him that carries them, so that he, too, conveys uncleanness to garments by contact,7 but the garments do not become unclean by contact [alone].8 3. They are exceeded by him that has connexion with a menstruant, for he conveys uncleanness to what lies beneath him in like degree as [he that has a flux conveys uncleanness] to what lies above him.9 They are exceeded by the issue of him that has a flux, by his spittle, his semen, and his urine, and by the blood of a menstruant, for they convey uncleanness both by contact and by carrying. They are exceeded by [the uncieanness of] what is ridden upon [by him that has a flux], for it conveys uncleanness even to what lies beneath a heavy stone. [The uncleanness of] what is ridden upon [bv him that has a flux] is exceeded by what he lies upon,10 since [the uncleanness caused by] contact with it is equal to [the uncleanness caused by] carrying it. [The uncleanness of] what he lies upon is exceeded by [the uncleanness of] him that has a flux; for it is he that conveys uncleanness to what he lies upon, while what he lies upon does not convey the like un¬ cleanness to that upon which it lies.
4. [The uncleanness of] the man that has a flux is exceeded by the un¬ cleanness of the woman that has a flux, for she conveys uncleanness to him that has connexion with her. [The uncleanness of] the woman that has a flux is exceeded by [the uncleanness of] the leper, for he renders [a house] unclean by entering into it.11 [The uncleanness of] the leper is exceeded by [the uncleanness of] a barleycorn’s bulk of bone [from a corpse], for it conveys seven-day uncleanness.12 These are all exceeded by [the unclean- 1 Usually rendered ‘vessels’. The word has, however, the wider sense of ‘articles of utility’, including clothing, implements, and utensils of all kinds. The tractate deals with every kind of vessel’s susceptibility to uncieanness, at what stage in their manufacture they become susceptible, and how damaged they must be to be regarded as insusceptible to uncieanness.
* i.e. such that cause uncieanness in other things which thereby become ‘offspring of uncieanness’. ‘Fathers of uncieanness’ can convey uncieanness to men and vessels; whereas ‘offspring of uncieanness’ can convey uncieanness only to foodstuffs and liquids. For the general principles underlying paragraphs 1 to 4, and for a summary classification of all the uncleannesses dealt with throughout this Sixth Division of the Mishnah, see Appendix IV.
s i.e. the contained hollow within a jar or other earthenware utensil; whereas what touches the outside of an earthenware jar does not render the inside unclean.
6 Even without contact. Moving and not merely supporting the burden is meant by the term ‘carrying’. The uncieanness is conveyed even if the object is only moved by a stick.
7 Some texts omit ‘by contact’.
* i.e. they do not become unclean except at the time when he is actually carrying the uncieanness.
9 i.e. what lies beneath him suffers the lesser degree of uncieanness (derived uncieanness of first grade) suffered by what lies above (without touching) him who has a flux, whereas what the latter lies on becomes itself a primary uncieanness or ‘father of uncieanness’ (App.
11 App. IV. 1 2c. This applies to a leper certified unclean or not yet pronounced clean, and not (as in par. 1) to the leper who counts the seven days before bringing his offerings Iness of] a corpse, for it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing,1 which un¬ cleanness is conveyed by naught else.