Shavuot 10: עון אחד הוא נושא, ואינו נושא שני עונות

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Mishnah (2b) states that Rebbi Shimon used to say that the Se'irim of Rosh Chodesh atone for a person who ate Kodshim that was Tamei. The Se'irim of the Regalim (Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukos) atone for a person who became Tamei and ate Kodshim or entered the Beis ha'Mikdash without knowing about his Tum'ah, either at the beginning or the end. The Se'irim of Yom Kippur atone for a person who was not aware initially that he became Tamei, but afterwards he became aware of it.

The Mishnah continues and relates that Rebbi Shimon was asked whether each day's Sa'ir may be offered on the other days. That is, if the Sa'ir that had been set aside to be brought on Yom Kippur was lost and another Sa'ir was offered in its place, and then the original Sa'ir was found on the Regel (or on Rosh Chodesh), may that Sa'ir (that was intended for Yom Kippur) be offered on the Regel or on Rosh Chodesh (RASHI DH Hayah)?

We continue attempting to understand the origin of the Goat to Azazel from intertestamental texts.

Shavuot 9: אותה נושא עון, ואין אחרת נושא עון

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (2a) taught that when a person who was tameh was unaware of his status and he entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, since he cannot bring a sacrifice for atonement (given that he was unaware that he had done anything wrong), sacrifices brought on holidays and on Rosh Ḥodesh (the New Moon) serve to offer him that atonement.

The source for this is the passage (Bamidbar 28:15) that describes how the sacrifice is a sin offering la-HaShem – to God – which is understood to refer to sins that only God is aware of.

The Gemara quotes another teaching derived from this passage. Reish Lakish says that the sacrifice brought on Rosh Ḥodesh makes reference to a sin offering la-HaShem because God says to the Jewish people that this sacrifice should be brought to atone for God having minimized the moon.

The idea that God made the moon smaller is discussed at length in the Gemara Ḥullin (60b) where the Gemara describes that originally both the light of the day – the sun – and the light of the night – the moon – were the same size, but that God made the moon smaller after it complained that two equal rulers could not exist together (see also Rashi on Bereshit 1:16).

see daf ditty chullin 60 for more.

We explore the cabalistic dimension of this with the work of Elliot Wolfson.

Shavuot 8: אם מת – מיתה ממרקת

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Two similar se’irim – sacrificial goats – are set aside for use in the Temple service on Yom Kippur, and are chosen by lottery to be brought as a sacrifice in the Temple or sent to be thrown off the cliff to Azazel (see Vayikra 16:5-22). The Gemara on today’s daf discusses the se’ir that was brought as a sacrifice in the Temple – what purpose did it serve? Although the baraita is certain that it comes to atone for sins that relate to entering the Temple in a state of ritual defilement, our Gemara considers other possibilities, as well.

we continue our exploration of vicarious suffering and the implication of the two goats.

Shavuot 7: ממקומו הוא מוכרע

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (2a) taught that the laws of yedi’ot ha-tumah – situations where a person forgot that he was ritually defiled and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food – are “two that are four.” That is to say that there are different situations regarding how the mistake was made – as noted he could have forgotten his status and either entered the Temple or eaten consecrated food – or he could remember his status but forget that the food was consecrated or that it was forbidden for him to enter the Temple in this state. These are the situations referred to by the Torah when it says (Vayikra 5:2-14) that the sinner must bring a korban oleh ve-yored – a “sliding scale” sacrifice where a wealthy person will bring goat or a lamb, a middle income person will bring a dove and a poor person will bring a meal offering.

The Gemara on our daf asks how we know that these laws apply specifically to the Temple and to food consecrated to the Temple, since the Torah itself simply says that the person erred, was ritually impure and was guilty, without specifying what he was guilty of. In response, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested a gezera shava – a method of comparing similar words that appear in two places in the Torah. Rabbi’s statement was praised by Rava, who said that Rabbi “drew up water from deep wells” in suggesting this.

We explore the notion of Yom Kippur effecting atonement per se through the sacrifice of the 2 goats.

Shavuot 6: תרי מלכי ולתרי איפרכי

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the Mishna (2a) described that mar’ot nega’im – shades of leprous marks – are “two that are four.” That is to say that the two signs of plagues of leprosy mentioned in the Torah (see Vayikra 13:1-2) – a se’et or a baheret – each have toladot – other, lower level signs of this plague – that are similar to them in color. According to the Gemara, a se’et is the color of the white wool of a newly born lamb, and its tolada is the color of the membrane of an egg. A beheret is the intense white color of snow and its tolada is white like the lime plaster of the Temple sanctuary walls.

On our daf, we find that the Sages attempt to offer parallels to this hierarchy by describing the relationship between a king and his underlings. Rava rejects the suggestions made by the other Sages arguing that the only true parallel is the relationship between two kings who are on the same level – like Shevor Malka, the king of Persia, and the Roman Caesar. In response, Rav Pappa asked him which of the two is greater. Rava replied that Rav Pappa’s question makes it sound as though he was living in a forest his whole life, since everyone knows which currency is more widely accepted in the world.

We explore medical therapies in talmud.

Shavuot 5: ידיעת בית רבו שמה ידיעה

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It was stated above: How do we know one is only liable if he knows originally, forgets, and then remembers? The verse says: “But it became concealed,” “But it became concealed” twice. [This teaches us that he is only liable to bring a korban if he was aware that he was tamei, forgot, committed the transgression, and then became aware of it. Accordingly, he maintains that a korban is only brought if he was unaware that he was tamei, not if he was unaware that it was kodesh.]

These are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rebbe says: This is not needed.

we explore the life and work of a great scholar of mishnah and tosefta Prof Shaul Lieberman (OBM).

Shavuot 4: רבי דריש כללי ופרטי

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The verse repeats the word "v'Ne'elam" when it discusses Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah. The verse first says, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Tamei" (Vayikra 5:2), and then it says again, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada" (5:3). Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi disagree about the intention of the verse.

RASHI explains their disagreement as follows: Rebbi Akiva learns from the first word of "v'Ne'elam" that one is liable only for He'elem Tum'ah but not for He'elem Mikdash. He derives from the second phrase, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada," that there was a Yedi'ah that preceded the Ha'alamah, because the phrase "v'Hu Yada" should be read before the second "v'Ne'elam" and after the first, which implies that he forgot after he first knew.

We continue our exploration of the editing of the Mishnah.

Shavuot 3: הלכה כסתם משנה

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Gemara on our daf, the juxtaposition of these two tractates is based on stylistic concerns.

One of the last Mishnayot in Massekhet Makkot teaches the law restricting the way a Jewish man can cut his hair, and there, too, we find that two laws of hair-cutting extend to a number of laws, similar to the list of “two that are four” rules in our Mishna (see yesterday’s daf).

One of the issues os the attribution of the stam mishnah : As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. Since the mishna here is unattributed and assumes that one is flogged for taking a false oath, Rabbi Yoḥanan should rule that this is the halakha.

We explore latter day scholars (Frankel, Guttman, Lieberman, Halivni) on the question of anonymous authorship in the Mishnah exposing a broader tension between historical recovery and legal continuity.

Shavuot 2: וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא תַּרְתֵּי – תְּנָא כּוּלְּהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Our new Massechta begins with a mishnah that states that oaths can be of two types: to do something, or not to do it. For example, "I will eat this bread" or "I will not eat this bread." These are the oaths explicitly mentioned in the Torah. However, one can derive the same two types of oaths as related to the past, where the person swears that he did something, or didn't do it. All four types, if made inadvertently, require the offender to bring a variable-type offering, which depends on his means.

(Here the Talmud digresses from oaths to discuss other cases of "two that are in reality four." It will not come back to oaths until after eighteen pages.)

But why study oaths right after Makkot (lashes)? Because one of the last subjects in Makkot was multiple penalties for one transgression, and "two that are four" is formulated similarly.

Makkot 24: עקיבא ניחמתנו, עקיבא ניחמתנו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva were going on the road. They heard the voice of a large number of Romans emanating from a large building that was one hundred twenty mil away. They started crying, while Rabbi Akiva started laughing. They asked him: Why are you laughing?

He asked them: Why are you crying? They replied: These are evil people who are bowing down to sculptures and offering sacrifices to idolatry, and they are sitting securely and quietly in their land. In contrast, the footstool (i.e. house) of Hashem our God was burned in fire, and we should not cry?!

Rabbi Akiva responded: This is exactly why I am laughing. If He does good things for those who go against His will, certainly He will do great things for those who fulfill his will! Another time when these four sages were together, they walked to Yerushalayim. When they got to Mount Scopus, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox coming out of the area of the Holy of Holies, and they started crying while Rabbi Akiva started laughing.

In the last page of massechet Makkot we are left exploring the paradoxical humor as well as consolation of these last aggadot.

Makkot 23: אֵין מַעֲמִידִין חַזָּנִין אֶלָּא חֲסֵירֵי כֹחַ וִיתֵירֵי מַדָּע

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Mishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.

The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen.

Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing. Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth. The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him. The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.

He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes with his one hand and with his whole force.

As we end this massechta we finally deal with the mechanism of flogging.

Makkot 22: ״במספר ארבעים״

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As the name of the tractate – Massekhet Makkot – and the name of the perek – Elu hen ha-lokin – imply the focus of the Gemara’s discussion is on the punishment of makkot – lashes.

The Mishna on our daf asks: How many lashes will a person receive if he is found guilty and sentenced to lashes?

According to the Mishna, the standard penalty of makkot is 39 lashes, although the defendant is first examined to ensure that he can withstand that punishment.

If he cannot then he will be given as many as the court believes that he will be able to endure (although it will always be a number divisible by three, since the lashes were given in groups of three). Rabbi Yehuda teaches that the convicted man receives 40 lashes, as is clearly written in the Torah – see Deut 25:4.

Makkot 21: כל מקום שיש שם מכה – מכתו מוכיח עליו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learn about tattoos in a new Mishna. It states that one who imprints a tattoo by inserting dye into the recesses carved into the skin is liable to receive lashes. However, if one receives a tattoo without carving the skin, or without imprinting with a dye - ink, kohl, or any other lasting substance, he is not liable. However, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that one is only liable if G-d's name is written in the tattoo based on Leviticus (19:28). That verse suggests that G-d is concerned that people do not inscribe anyone else's name of the Lord.

We explore the Torah attitude for the prohibition and the struggle these days for those wishing to beautify with skin art.

Makkot 20: שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Among the negative commandments in the Torah, we find that Jewish men need to be careful about the way that they cut their hair. According to the Torah (Lev 19:27) – lo takifu pe’at roshkhem ve-lo tash’ḥit et pe’at zekanekhah – a man cannot round off the edges of his head, nor can he destroy the growth of his beard.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that the prohibition against rounding off the edges of one’s hair applies to the two sides of his head, while the prohibition regarding the beard relates to five different points – two on each side and one on the chin. The former forbids cutting the hair at the temples so that the back of the ear and the forehead are “evened out”; the latter forbids the points on the face where there is an accumulation of hair.

It should be noted that these are among the few negative prohibitions in the Torah that do not apply to women.

We explore shaving and the modern day dispensations thereof.

Makkot 19: ״כי ירחק ממך המקום״ – ממילואך

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, one of the tithes that was separated by the farmer is ma’aser sheni – a portion of the harvest that is taken by its owner to Jerusalem, where he can eat it on his own or give it to others, but it must be kept tahor and only eaten within the precincts of the city.

That was true during Temple times. What would the halakha be today, when the Temple is no longer standing?

The Gemara on our daf brings a baraita where Rabbi Yishmael rules that the law of separating ma’aser sheni still exists, but that it is no longer eaten in Jerusalem. Rather, after separating the tithe, we apply the biblical law that allows the farmer to redeem the ma’aser sheni. When the Temple stood, the money was taken to Jerusalem where it would be exchanged for food that had to be eaten in the city. Today, since the tithe cannot be eaten, the coin that was exchanged for the tithe is destroyed.

We explore the centralization of cult worship in Jerusalem form a literary historical and theological viewpoint.

Makkot 18 :בכורים הנחה מעכבת בהן

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Rebbi Eliezer states that one must place the fruits of Bikurim next to the Mizbe'ach in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikurim. In contrast, reading the Parshah of Bikurim, although it is a Mitzvah, is not essential to fulfilling the Mitzvah of Bikurim; if one fails to read the Parshah of Bikurim, one still fulfills the Mitzvah of Bikurim.

In a different statement, Rebbi Eliezer says that if a person separates his Bikurim before Sukos but does not bring the fruit to the Beis ha'Mikdash until after Sukos, he should leave them to rot. Apparently, this is because one cannot read the Parshah of Bikurim after Sukos. This statement implies that the reading of the Parshah is an integral part of the Mitzvah, and without it one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikurim at all.

The Mishna (17a) discusses situations where people eat these tithes in a forbidden manner or a forbidden place. For example, if a kohen eats bikkurim before they were formally presented with the appropriate formula (see Devarim 26:3-10) he has transgressed a negative commandment and will be liable to receive malkot (lashes).

We explore the bikkurim ritual and differences between Ex and Deut.

Makkot 17: דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that some certain acts are punished with forty lashes:

· Food sanctified as bikurim, first fruits brought to feed the priests, called kodshei kodoshim cannot be given to a zar and cannot be taken outside of the Temple courtyard

· Kodshei kalim are permitted in all of Jerusalem even to common people

· One must recited a specific set of kriah, verses, before eating bikurim

· Bikurim must be eaten within its permitted boundaries

· The pesach, main animal sacrifice, cannot have a bone broken

· Those who break these laws and those who leave the sacrifice overnight are not punished with lashes

· One who takes a mother bird from her chicks or eggs is lashed

The Gemara questions why we would be stringent with some halachot and not with others. Those who eat certain categories of food outside of the wall of the city will be punished with lashes. Why wouldn't others be punished similarly for an equivalent transgression?

Makkot 16: נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Among the people listed in the Mishna as deserving the punishment of malkot (lashes) are people who eat animals that are not kosher, including animals that were killed improperly, those that were sick when they were slaughtered, as well as insects and other creepy-crawly creatures.

The most basic prohibition appears in Sefer Vayikra (20:25) lo teshaktzu et nafshoteikhem (“you shall not make your souls detestable”). While the passage in the Torah clearly relates to eating shekatzim – insects and similar disgusting creatures – some of the Sages applied the prohibition to other settings, as well.

Makkot 15: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf records two arguments between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan which, it says, are dependent upon each other. The first argument involves a case in which a person transgresses a "Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh." One opinion maintains that in order to be guilty of transgressing the Lav in the fullest extent, the transgressor must never perform the Mitzvas Aseh associated with it. If the transgressor eventually does the Mitzvas Aseh, then he rectifies his transgression.

Therefore, as long as he can still perform the Aseh, he will never receive Malkus for transgressing the Lav ("Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo"). The other opinion argues that the person is in full violation of the Lav the moment that he transgresses, and he can receive Malkus for it. However, if he rushes to atone for his transgression he can avoid the punishment of Malkus ("Kiyemo v'Lo Kiyemo”).

Makkot 14: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה מוֹחֲלִין

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (13a) someone who engages in a variety of incestuous relationships is liable to receive malkot. The Gemara on our daf tries to establish whether someone who engaged in a number of different forbidden unions would receive a separate punishment for each one, or, perhaps, a single punishment would suffice for all.

The Gemara quotes a baraita that relates that this question was not raised in the beit midrash, rather that Rabbi Akiva posed the matter to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua when he chanced upon them in the itliz in the city of Emmaus (the city was situated about 30 kilometers west of Jerusalem and was a popular vacation spot thanks to its thermal pools). According to the baraita, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua could not answer this question directly, and their attempts to cite comparable cases with clear rulings as precedent were rejected.