Introduction

Introduction
The Historiography of Eduyot and the Thesis
1. The Uniqueness of Eduyot
Mishnah Eduyot is unique among all the tractates of the Mishnah, in that,
unlike all of the others, it is not organized around one or several related topics. It is
composed rather of several collections of disputes which are noteworthy primarily
because of the infrequent appearance elsewhere in rabbinic literature of the tannaim
involved in the dispute (e.g., Shammai and Hillel, R. Dosa and the Sages) and of a
series of mishnayot, all (except one) beginning with the word he(id (so and so
“testified”) ,which record a variety of laws to which individual tannaim belonging to
the period of Yavneh attested. 1 This system of organization is rare elsewhere in the
1 The basic outline of the tractate is as follows:
1:1-1:4 Three debates between Shammai, Hillel and the Sages
1:5-1:7 Addendum to preceding section - a discussion of the need to
mention minority opinions.
1:8-1:12 Five debates which involve both Houses and Shammai
1:13-1:16 Four cases where Beit Hillel retract their opinion and agree with
Beit Shammai
2:1-4 Four testimonies of R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim
2:5-2:11 A series of collections of small groups of halakhot from
tannaim of Yavneh
3:1-3:8 Nine debates between R. Dosa and the Sages
3:9-3:14 Resumption of 2:5-2:11 (more small collections of halakhot
from the tannaim of Yavneh)
4:1-4:11 Leniencies of Beit Shammai and Stringencies of Beit Hillel –
twenty-two in all; the presentation is in an anonymous voice
5:1-5:5 Additional collections of the leniencies of Beit Shammai
attributed to four different tannaim of Usha
1

Mishnah. While there are a number of well known tangents in several tractates, e.g.,
the “’ein bein” series in mMeg, 2 the organization of which follows the literary form,
there are almost none organized solely by tradents 3 and certainly none comprise the
whole or even a major part of a single tractate. Furthermore, mEd has a higher
concentration of disputes recorded than any other tractate. The first and the third
through sixth chapters consist almost entirely of disputes, and the second and seventh
are mixed. Only the last chapter is mostly (although by no means entirely) spared
from argument. Disputes are fairly common in the Mishnah, but a significant portion
of them focus on particular details of an issue and follow an anonymous and
unanimous statement regarding the issue's broader principles. In mEd, however, the
disputes themselves comprise the entire Mishnah. Furthermore, almost every mishnah
5:6-5:9 Four testimonies of R. Akavia b. Mahallalel
6:1-8:5 Testimonies or collections of testimonies from various tannaim,
almost all from Yavneh
8:6 One comment each from R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua beginning
with the term " יתעמש"
8:7 One tradition (" ינא לבוקמ")
from R. Yehoshua in the name of R.
Yoh9anan b. Zakkai
As a general rule mishnah numbers cited in this study for mEd follow the enumeration
of MS Kaufmann. A table for cross-referencing these to the enumeration of the
modern printings can be found in Chapter Twelve.
2 1:4-11. Other examples include mShab 8:7-9:4, mH9ul 1:4-7 and mNid 6:1-10.
3 The only exception I am aware of is mKet 13:1-8, which collects the statements of
H9annan and Admon. The organizational principle of citing multiple statements of one
tradent is fairly common in the Bavli in situations where one finds a string of
authorities in a quotation, i.e. A says in the name of B, or when two authorities argue
regarding several topics. Cf. bMeg 3a, bBQ 12a. For a discussion of the phenomenon
in the Bavli, see Avraham Weiss, ‘Al HaYes[irah haSifrutit shel HaAmoraim, pp. 79-
134. It does not, however, exist in the Mishnah.
2

in mEd has a tanna named as its tradent, whereas most mishnayot elsewhere are
anonymous. Also absent for the most part is the give and take between tannaim
involved in a dispute. 4 Although the Mishnah as a whole tends to limit itself mostly to
a digest-like rendering of laws, there are frequent discussions in other tractates of the
Mishnah which are described at length. Finally, mEd is unique with respect to the
authorities who are cited in it. There is a large number of tannaim who appear only in
mEd, 5 or who rarely appear elsewhere but appear (multiple times) in mEd. 6 In
addition, the list of named authorities is dominated by tannaim of Yavneh, not of
Usha, as is the norm throughout the rest of the Mishnah. 7
It is not surprising then that the genesis of mEd has, almost from the time of its
creation, aroused the interest of rabbinic scholars. In the modern period as well, every
academic theory of the compilation and redaction of the Mishnah has had to grapple
with the reality of mEd and find some place within its framework to explain mEd’s
existence.
4 There are two notable exceptions to this rule. The first is in the section that deals
with disputes in which Beit Hillel retracted their opinion (in which the dialogue is
essential for the retraction) and the second is mEd 6:3 which seems to be a tangent
unrelated to the general theme of the tractate.
5 R. Yaqim )Ish Hadar, R. Nehunia b. Elinatan )Ish Kfar HaBavli among others.
6 R. Yehoshua b. Beteira, R. Dosa, R. Yose HaKohen among others.
7 I ignore in this discussion mAvot, the other sui generis tractate of the Mishnah.
mAvot, like all of the other tractates focuses on one topic (in a loose sense). All of its
mishnayot, however, are named and it too is dominated by pre-Usha tannaim. Due to
its unique nature, it contains virtually no disputes.
3

2. Historiography of the Talmudic Era
The earliest explanation proffered for the existence of Eduyot is found in the
opening passage of the tractate’s Tosefta:
הרות ירבדמ רבד שקבמ םדא אהיש העש הדיתע"
, ורמא הנביב םרכב םימכח וסנכנשמ
בער יתחלשהו י"
י םאנ םיאב םימי הנה ןכל'
'נש
אצומ וניאו םירפוס ירבדמ איצומ וניאו
דעו ןופצמו םי דעו םימ 'ענו
י"
י ירבד עמשל םא יכ םימל אמצ אלו םחלל בער אל ץראל
. ץקה הז 'י"
י רבד'
. האובנ וז 'י"
י רבד'
. 'ואצמי
אלו י"
י רבד תא שקבל וטטושי חרזמ
" . יאמשמו לליהמ ליחתנ"
ורמא . וריבחל המוד הרות ירבדמ רבד אהי אלש 'י"
י רבד'
When the Sages entered the academy in Yavneh they said, “There
shall come a time when a person will inquire regarding a matter of
Scriptural law and not find and [inquire] regarding a Rabbinic law
and not find as it is stated in Scripture (Amos 8:11-12) ‘Behold days
are coming, says the Lord in which I shall send a famine in the land;
not a famine for bread not a thirst for water, but rather to hear the
word of God. They will scurry back and forth to find “The Word of
God” and they will not find’. “The Word of God” refers to
prophecy. “The Word of God” refers to the eschaton. “The Word
of God” [indicates] that matters of Torah will be unrelated to one
another.” They said, “Let us begin with [the words of] Hillel and
Shammai”.
The Tosefta asserts here that the Sages of Yavneh were concerned that the lack of
organization found in Torah would one day lead to confusion for those who sought to
adhere to its precepts and thus they began to organize the material beginning with the
opinions of Hillel and Shammai with which Eduyot opens. However, it does not
explicitly claim that the story is the raison d’etre of the entire tractate. Indeed it might
well be argued that it refers only to the debates in the first three mishnayot which
contain the opinions of both Shammai and Hillel themselves (as opposed to the
Houses). Perhaps, one might argue that it also refers to the mishnayot of the middle
section of the first chapter, each of which contains the opinion of Shammai, or even to
4

all of the material which is attributed to the Houses (the end of the first chapter and the
leniencies of Beit Shammai found in the fourth and the beginning of the fifth chapter.)
Furthermore, while the Tosefta attributes this “beginning” to Yavneh, there are later
additions to the tractate attributed explicitly to the generation of Usha: R. Yose in 1:3,
R. Yehudah in 1:7 and 4:6 and the Sages of Usha at the beginning of the fifth chapter.
Nonetheless, the Tosefta appears to be a response, or at least a partial one, to the
unusual arrangement of this tractate.
The Bavli (bBer 27b-28a) describes at great length the deposing of R. Gamliel
from the presidency of the academy in Yavneh. 8 The sugya is a mixture of materials
attributed 9 to tannaitic sources with lengthy anonymous interludes and interpolations.
The tannaitic layer (in three parts) informs us that there was a debate between R.
Gamliel and R. Yehoshua over the obligatory nature of the evening prayers תלפת")
(" ? תושר תיברע and that the former publicly humiliated the latter over the matter. The
first part concludes by stating that the members of the audience were enraged and
ordered the meturgeman to stop broadcasting R. Gamliel’s speech. The second
8 See Appendix A for the entire text of the Bavli’s sugya presented in a layered format.
For a comparison of the two versions of the story as found in the Bavli and
Yerushalmi see Hermann Klüger, Genesis und Composition del Halacha-Sammlung
Edujot, pp. 7-27; Devorah Steinmetz, “Must the Patriarch know ‘Uqtzin? The Nasi as
Scholar in Babylonian Aggada,” AJS Review 23 (1998), pp. 164-82; Haim Shapira,
“The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel – Between History and Legend,” Zion 64 (1999),
pp. 5-38; Menahem ben Shalom, “The Story of the Deposition of Rabban Gamliel and
the Historical Reality,” Zion 66 (2001), pp. 345-70 and Shapira, ibid., pp. 371-8; and
Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 139-41.
9 Cf. footnote 18.
5

section states that on that occasion R. Gamliel’s restrictive policies for admission into
the academy were abolished and that many more benches had to be added to
accommodate the throngs who joined. The last tannaitic segment notes that “Eduyot
was taught on that day” (" תינשנ םויב וב תויודע")
and that every " םויב וב"
it refers to that
day. It concludes by noting that R. Gamliel, despite his having been deposed, did not
refrain from participating in the discussions in the academy and cites mYad (4:4 -
which begins with the expression " םויב וב"
and quotes R. Gamliel in the discussion) as
proof of R. Gamliel’s continuing involvement.
The anonymous layer of the sugya begins after the first tannaitic section with
an elaborate discussion of the deposing of R. Gamliel and the choice of his successor,
and the discussion between R. Elazar b. Azaryah and his wife as to whether or not he
should accept the position. Following the second tannaitic segment, we find a brief
comment that " ילספס המכ ופסותא אמוי אוהה"
, “on that day many benches were added [to
the study-hall]” followed by a statement attributed to R. Yoh9anan in which he cites
two earlier authorities as to how many benches were added. The stam continues with
the divine reassurance provided to R. Gamliel in a dream and a rejection (by the stam)
of the dream’s import. Finally, after the third tannaitic segment there is a lengthy
description of R. Gamliel’s apology and his reinstatement to the presidency. In
addition there is one line that is (almost seamlessly) interpolated into the third
6

tannaitic segment which has often been overlooked by scholars. 10 The last tannaitic
segment reads:
תינשנ םויב וב תוידע
הוה אמוי אוהה םויב וב ןנירמאד אכיה לכו
אלש שרדמה תיבב היולת התיהש הכלה התיה אלו
. הושריפ
The underlined sentence, as evidenced by its being Aramaic, is clearly a late
interpolation into the baraita.
Thus it appears that the Bavli understood that the mEd was (on the whole) a
product of that unusual day. MS Munich (95) has this even more explicitly:
11
. תינשנ אמוי
7
אנת
אוהה ןנירמאד םויב וב לכו תינשנ םויב וב תוידע תכסמ אנת
The word " תכסמ"
, “tractate”, appears in no other manuscript. Delving further into the
manuscript evidence, we find that two of the other three manuscript witnesses
read םויב וב תויודע אנאת"םונקת". 12 The oldest of the manuscripts, MS Florence (12 th
cent. Italian-Ashkenazic), also contains echoes of this reading:
אמוי אוההו הוה אמוי אוהה םויב וב ןנירמאד אכיה לכו תינשינ םויב וב תוידיע אנאת
13
. הושריפ אלש שרדמה תיבב הייולתש הכלה התיה אלו תוידיע ןיקתיא
10
Both Klüger (ibid., p. 8) and Epstein (Mevo)ot LeSifrut HaTannaim, pp. 422-3) fail
to note that the sentence concerning " םויב וב"
is a later interpolation.
11 The reading cannot be given too much weight considering that the order of the latter
two segments is reversed from that of all of the other manuscripts, suggesting some
reworking of this passage.
12 MS Oxford 366 (13 th cent. Spanish) and MS Paris 671 (15 th cent. Oriental).
13
The placement of the reference to Eduyot after the explanation of " םויב וב"
(as
opposed to before as appears in all of the other witnesses) appears to have been R.
Sherira Gaon’s version as well. Both versions (“French” and “Spanish”) have the
expression " תינשנ םויב וב תוידע"
. Interestingly though, while he prefaces his citation of

The root s]ny when it appears in tannaitic literature in the connection with texts of
Torah implies some type of formulaic or/and redactional activity. 14 With such a
reading, the conclusion drawn above as to the Bavli’s view is quite probable. But the
alternative version, tqn, raises serious doubts as to what is being said here. This may
be a reference to the institution of “testimonies” or perhaps even the testimonies found
in mEd. But is far from clear that there is any reference here to the formulation or
redaction of the tractate per se. 15
Even if we assume the standard reading of " תינשנ"
, it is clear that the tractate as
it currently exists cannot have originated on that day. As has already been pointed out
the Bavli with the line תוידיעד אתכסמ ןוגכו"אינתיאד", according to the “French” version
it reads " אמקותיאד תויודע תכסמ ןכו"
.
14
For example, mTa 4:4 reads:
וב ןיא םיצע
ןברק הליענב וב ןיא ףסומ ןברק תירחשב דמעמ וב ןיא ללה וב שיש םוי לכ
וב ןיא ףסומ ןברק הנוש עשוהי 'ר
היה ךכ יאזע ןב ול רמא אביקע יבר ירבד החנמב
. יאזע ןבכ הנוש תויהל אביקע יבר רזח הליענב וב ןיא םיצע ןברק החנמב
In other contexts the word does mean to repeat, but it is never clearly used with such a
meaning in the context of studying texts of Torah. To suggest as Klüger does (ibid., p.
16, footnote) that it means ‘to repeat’, is to fail to grasp the nuances in tannaitic usage.
The example he cites ( 'באומ
תוברעב ונשנו יניסב ורמאנ')
refers to biblical commandments,
not rabbinic texts. Klüger is certainly correct that the term does not necessitate
adopting the Maimonidean position (see later pp. 11-15) that all of the material was
formulated anew on that day, but at the same time the language implies more than just
repeating its contents, (in Klüger’s words [p.17], “das Protokoll der Synode von
Edujot wurde verlesen” .)
15
R. Sherira Gaon in his epistle (“French” version, p.35) uses the expression " ןוקתיא"
in reference to the compilation of the Tosefta instead of the usual " ןצרתא"
(as found
even there in the “Spanish” version). Thus, it is possible that even the alternative
reading in the Bavli is a reference to redactional activity; if so, one might surmise that
the expression " תינשנ"
was probably a later updating of the text to a more common
usage.
8

y many, the additions of the tannaim of Usha were not made in Yavneh, nor were the
testimonies of R. Hanania Segan HaKohanim (2:1-4) or Yose b. Yo‘ezer (8:4) given
on that day. 16 The Bavli’s statement can only be understood as referring to a large
portion of the tractate, but not the entire work. 17
The Yerushalmi records nothing regarding the genesis of mEd. The story of
the deposing of R. Gamliel appears in the Yerushalmi as well (yBer 4:1 [=7:3]), but
there are a number of both major and minor differences, the most important, for our
purposes here, being that the Yerushalmi makes no mention of the teaching of mEd in
the context of the removal of R. Gamliel from the presidency. While the story of
mEd’s origin is attributed to a baraita, it is conceivable that the baraita here, especially
in light of its aggadic context, is an Amoraic baraita, 18 although there is no evidence to
date the baraita definitively as either early or late.
16 Epstein, Mevo)ot LeSifrut HaTannaim, p. 423. See S.Y. Rapaport (Kerem H9emed,
vol. 5, p. 176) who suggests that R. H9anania and Akavia lived through the
Destruction. Aside from the chronological problems with his proposal, he too
acknowledges that Yose b. Yo‘ezer’s testimony must have predated Yavneh.
17 The historicity of the Bavli’s account of the genesis of Eduyot is open to question,
but our interest here lies in determining what the Bavli’s view is, not whether Eduyot,
in fact, was produced on that day. Other parts of this sugya which deal with the
impeachment of R. Gamliel appear to be a retelling of the Yerushalmi’s account of the
same events through the prism of Babylonian life. However, the origin of Eduyot, as
we note in the next paragraph, is not addressed at all in the Yerushalmi and thus it is
unclear whether the account of Eduyot’s genesis stems from the Bavli’s retelling or if
it is an independent tradition incorporated into the sugya. For a comparison of the two
stories, see the sources cited above in footnote 8.
18 For a discussion of these baraitot see Albeck, Mavo LaTalmudim, pp. 46-50, and
Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, pp. 261-2.
9

3. Historiography of the Medieval Period
The first comments in the medieval period about the composition of mEd are found in
the famous Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon. R. Sherira’s general theory about the
composition of the Mishnah is that in the period preceding R. Yehudah HaNasi
(henceforth Rabbi), there was no formal arrangement of the Mishnah. Each teacher
taught his students the traditions (which contained few unresolved debates) using his
own formulations. 19 What Rabbi did, for the most part, was choose material from the
“Mishnah”s of his predecessors (primarily R. Meir’s) and incorporate it into a
formalized structure that we call “the Mishnah”. Obviously, he added some material
of his own as well as some explanatory glosses. 20 The only case of a tractate which
was already redacted prior to Rabbi’s time was mEd. He writes:
יתפרצ חסונ
והומקואד אמויב אינתיאד תוידיעד אתכסמ ןוגכו
וב לכ ונשנ םויב וב ןנירמאד הירזע ןב רזעלא 'רל
. תינשנ םויב וב תוידע ףאו
ימיב ונתיאד ינאדימ ןיכה רתב הוגב 'ר
ןל אנתו
תיב ילוקמ םירבד השש רמוא יסוי 'ר
ןוגכ ויבא
סח רמאד הדוהי 'ר
ןוגכו ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש
. הדנתנ לאללהמ ןב איבקעש םולשו
ונת תוה ןוהימעטד ג"
עא תורחא אתאתכסמ לבא
אינתד הינימ תיא אתכליהל ןוניצרת 'ר
ןנבר ןוהל
19 Epistle Rav Sherira Gaon (ed. B.M. Lewin), pp.22, 26.
10
ידרפס חסונ
'ר
םקותאד אמויב אמקותיאד תויודע תכסמ ןכו
םויב וב תויודע ףא ןנירמאד הירזע ןב רזעלא
'רל
הובתואד אמויב םויב וב לכ לכ ונינשו תינשנ
. הבישיב הירזע ןב רזעלא
ויבא ימיב ונתאד ילמ יכה רתב הוגב 'ר
ןל אנתו
ש"
ב ילוקמ םירבד השש רמוא יסוי 'ר
ןוגכ
ו"
ח הדוהי 'ר
רמא ןוגכו 'וכו
ה"
ב ירמוחמו
תלעננ הרזע ןיאש הדנתנ לאללהמ ןב איבקעש
לארשיב םדא לכ לע אטח תאריבו המכחב
. לאללהמ ןב איבקעכ
ונת ווה ןוהימעטד ג"
עא אתיינרחא אתייכסמ לבא
והינמ תיא אתכלהל ןוניצרת
'ר
יאמק ןנבר ןוהל
20
Ibid. p.26. As an example, he cites:
. הווהב םימכח ורבידש אלא םדא לכו םיגוזב םיאצוי םיכלמ ינבו םירשקב ןיאצוי םינבה
The underlined text, according to R. Sherira, was Rebbi’s addition.

. הוה דכ
אינתד הינימ תיאו ןושארה הזה ןושלכ
11
ינת הוהד והינמ תיאו ןושארה ןושלב ינת הוהד
. אזחדכ והל
… and the tractate of Eduyot which was established/taught on the day
which R. Elazar b. Azaryah was appointed as we say, “Also Eduyot
was taught on that day” and we have learned, “Every “bo bayom” was
on the day they established R. Elazar b. Azaryah in the yeshiva”.
Rabbi taught within it (i.e. Eduyot) matters which were taught
in the time of his father such as, “R. Yose says, six matters are from the
leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House
of Hillel etc.” and such as “R. Yehudah said, heaven forbid that Akavia
b. Mahallalel was excommunicated as the gates of the Temple
courtyard are never closed upon any member of the Jewish people [who
possesses] wisdom and fear of sin like Akavia b. Mahallalel.
But other tractates, even though their contents were already
taught, Rabbi [Yehudah the Prince} arranged them according to the
halakha: some he taught (i.e. worded) following the earlier language
and some as he saw fit.
R. Sherira’s comments here do not go beyond anything that was already stated
in the Bavli’s account about mEd itself; they become significant only in that according
to R. Sherira there was no official collection of mishnayot until Yavneh, nor would
there be another redaction until Rabbi, and thus the original mEd becomes the first
formally redacted tractate of our Mishnah. In the course of his comments, R. Sherira
Gaon acknowledges later additions to the tractate, but he does not discuss any of the
material which predates Yavneh. Following his general approach, however, it would
be quite simple to assume that the earlier mishnaic material had been formulated
already and was incorporated into the new formal structure of mEd on that day in
Yavneh.
In his introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides writes:

רבד , תועובשה בויחו האקלהה ד"
בל רוסמש המו םיניידהו םינידה לע רבדל רמג רשאכו
, םינמאנ םישנא םהב ודיעהש תוכלהה לכ ךל רוסמל וז אתכסמ ינינע בורו , תוידע לע
21.
ד"
ב ינפב אלא תודע ןיאש יפל , םינידה יגוסמ איה ירהו , השעמל
הכלה םתודעש יפל
When he completed speaking about the laws and the judges and that
which is in the jurisdiction of courts, lashes and the imposition of oaths,
he spoke about “testimonies”. Most of the topics of this tractate are to
transmit to you all of the laws to which trustworthy men testified
because their testimony is accepted law, and it belongs to the category
of “laws” since testimony is given only in front of a court.
The essence of the tractate according to Maimonides, as its name implies, is the
“testimonies” contained within it. 22 He makes no mention of the material that does not
fit this description or of the circumstances that surrounded the compilation of the
tractate. In his commentary to mEd (1:3), after explaining the third debate of
Shammai and Hillel which contains the “testimony” of the weavers, he writes:
תקולחמ םה םגש יפל תודע םהב ןיאש פ"
עאו וז ינפל הינשהו הנושארה הכלהב ליחתהו
םעט תתל
רזח ךכ רחאו , תוכלהה שלשב םהמ דחא םוש ירבדכ הכלהה ןיאו ללהו יאמש
תוכלה איבה ךכ רחאו , ךכל המודה לכ איבהו השעמל םניאש פ"
עאו םהירבד תרכזהל
ללה תיב ורזחש תוכלהה איבה ךכ רחאו , לכה תעדכ אלש תורבס ןהב ומצע יאמשל שיש
23.
אתכסמה תרטמ םהש תוידעל רזחו קרפה תא םייסו , יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל
He began with the first and second laws before this even though they
contain no “testimony” because they too are the subject of debate
between Shammai and Hillel and the law is in accordance with neither
of them in the three laws. Then he explained why their opinions,
21 Commentary to the Mishnah, “Introduction”, (ed. Kapah9), p. 16.
22 Maimonides assumes here that the nature of “testimony” on a tradition is the same
as “testimony” to a fact in a civil or criminal case. While the term he(id certainly
implies a parallel, I am unaware of any post-tannaitic context in which the transmitting
of abstract legal opinions constitutes formal “testimony”, i.e. that it would require two
witnesses and drishot va-h9aqirot.
23 The standard printed edition of Maimonides’ commentary contained an extra phrase
repeated which confused the later commentators. See Tosafot Yom Tov, ad loc. and
Rapaport, Kerem H9emed, ibid., p. 179.
12

despite not being accepted, were mentioned and then transmitted
anything similar [in topic]. Subsequently he cited laws in which
Shammai rules differently from others, and then he cited the laws in
which Beit Hillel reversed themselves to rule like the opinions of Beit
Shammai. Then, finishing the chapter, he returned to the “testimonies”,
which are the purpose of the tractate.
Maimonides reiterates here that the primary purpose of the tractate is the
“testimonies”, while explaining why the other material was placed here despite not
conforming to the larger agenda. Here again, he makes no mention of the historical
circumstances that gave rise to the tractate.
Finally, at the end of Maimonides’ commentary to the second chapter, in
explaining why all of the mini-collections of Yavneh material are found in the chapter,
he writes:
ףסונ , תודע ןהב ןיאו אתכסמה ןינעמ ןניאש יפ לע ףאו ןאכ ולאה םירבד ריכזהש םעטהו
םה וז אתכסמב רמאנש רבד לכש ךל רמואש המ אוה הנשמב םמוקמב ובתכנ רבכש ךכל
ואשנו , וריכזהש המ םהמ וריכזהו , םהמ ודיעהש המב ודיעהו ןהב ורבדש תוכלה םלוכ
'ר
ובישוהש םוי אוהו , ומצעב דחא להקבו דחא םויב םהב ונתנו ואשנש המב ונתנו
רמואש םוקמ לכ ןכו . םונקת םויב וב תוידע םרמא אוהו הבישיב הירזע ןב רזעלא
םינינעמ תוכלה וז אתכסמב אצמת ךכ םושמו
. רמוא אוה םוי ותוא לע 'םויב
וב'
הנשמב
. והרכזו הז עד . םינוש
The reason these things are mentioned here, even though they do not
conform to the agenda of the tractate and they contain no “testimony”,
and furthermore are already found in their [proper] place in the
Mishnah is that which I tell you that every “statement” mentioned in
this tractate is from the laws about which they “stated”, the
“testimonies” about which they “testified”, and the give-and-take about
the things they discussed on one day and in one assembly, and that is
the day on which they installed R. Elazar b. Azaryah [as the head] in
the Academy, and this is [the meaning of] what they said, “Eduyot was
established 24 on that day.” And any place where it says bo bayom in
24
Maimonides’ text apparently contained the version of MSS Oxford 366 and Paris
671. Kapah9 (ibid. footnote 66) notes that R. Yaakov Emden emended this reading to
" תינשנ"
to conform to his reading in the Bavli.
13

the Mishnah it is referring to that day. Therefore, you will find in this
tractate various topics. Know this and remember it.
Here Maimonides invokes the Bavli’s account of mEd being a product of the day of R.
Gamliel’s impeachment to explain the presence of so much extraneous material in the
tractate. In doing so, he goes beyond the account of the Bavli by asserting that all of
these “testimonies”, “statements” and “discussions” were first formulated and
presented on that day. 25 A strict reading of the Bavli does not state that the
“testimonies” and “statements” were first discussed on that day, but merely that the
tractate was “established”. This might refer only to the organization and redaction of
material, not to its original formulation. And as noted earlier, some of the testimony
was clearly given in an earlier period. Maimonides, however, probably took his cue
from the second tannaitic segment in the Bavli’s account which asserts that after R.
Gamliel’s impeachment, the doors of the academy were opened to all. The only hint
in the material found in mEd of such an occurrence, as already noted by Rashi, 26 was
the testimony of the weavers (mEd 1:4) about which the Tosefta comments:
27
ןיאו ידרג אלא הדירי תונמוא ךל ןיא אלהו ןתונמוא םשו ןהיתומוקמ םש ורכזוה המלו
םהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא המ אלא תופשאה רעשכ םלשוריב יוזב םוקמ ךל
. העומש םוקמב ורבד לע םדא דימעי אלש המכו המכ תחא לע העומש םוקמב
25 Klüger, ibid. p. 14.
26
bShab 15a, s.v. םיידרג ינש.
27
This is the reading of MS Erfurt; the scribe probably mistook a vav for a yud. MS
Vienna contains the expected " הדורי"
.
14

Why were their place of origin and profession mentioned? Behold there
is no lower profession than a weaver and no place in Jerusalem more
despised than the dung gate and [nonetheless] the eminent Sages did
not adhere to their opinions in light of a [conflicting] report, how much
more so that an [ordinary] individual should not adhere to his opinion
in light of a [conflicting] report. 28
If one assumes that this story is an example of everybody being allowed into the
academy, then clearly the formulation (at least of this mishnah) took place on that day.
At the same time, a careful reading of his comments suggests that Maimonides did not
believe that any redaction of mEd took place until it was done by Rebbi, i.e. the
contents all dated from that day in Yavneh, but the literary composition (or at least
redaction) was first undertaken by R. Yehudah. This position is consistent with his
general view of the Mishnah which he hints at in his Introduction to the Mishnah, i.e.
that R. Yehudah alone was responsible for the formulation and compilation of the
Mishnah. 29 Furthermore, Maimonides appears to be the first to venture an opinion on
a matter which we shall focus on later, i.e. the compositional relationship between the
material found both in mEd and elsewhere in the Mishnah. In passing, he notes that
28 I translate here loosely following Rashi’s reading of the passage, and what was
probably the actual intent of the Tosefta. Although it is possible to interpret
differently, it seems highly probable that Maimonides shared this interpretation.
29
In his words (ed. Kapah9):
. . . הרותב תובותכה תוצמה לכ רואיב תללוכה הנשמה רובחב לחה תועומשהו תורבסה
לכ ףסא רשאכו
( ט 'מע)
. . . ךכ רמוא ינולפו ךכ רמוא ינולפ םתקולחמ יפכ םעבקו
הששל וקלח ןכלו םיקלחל התוא קלחל ךירצש האר וז תינכת יפל הזה רפסה תא רבחל בשח רשאכו
( גי 'מע)
. . . םיקלח
ארקו יוארה יפכ ויגוסל םהמ קלח לכ קלחל האר תוצמה לכ ללכ םיללוכה םיקלחה תשש לכ רקס רשאכו
לכבש קלח כ"
חא . קרפ עטק לכל ארקו םיעטקל םהמ גוס לכב םירבדה קלח כ"
חא אתכסמ םהמ גוס לכל
'מע)
. הכלה םינטקה םיעטקה םתואמ עטק לכל ארקו םדמללו םרכזל םילק והיש רתוי םינטק םיעטקל קרפ
(
די-גי
15

the material appears in mEd despite already appearing elsewhere in the Mishnah.
This statement assumes that the parallel material elsewhere in the Mishnah was not
copied from mEd. Following Maimonides logic of the composition of the Mishnah, it
appears that he believes that the individual units were formulated independent of any
specific context and were then placed in the relevant tractates as they were created. If
so, material which appears in mEd and elsewhere, in effect, derives from a common
source: Rebbi’s proto-Mishnah.
The last of the medieval commentators to speak about the composition of mEd
was Menah9em HaMeiri in his introduction to the tractate in his Beit HaBeh9irah: 30
תודע ךרד םהל ועדונ םירזופמ םירבד םהש לבא עודי ןינע לע יונב וניא אתכסמה ןינעו
שרדמה תיבב ורכזוה םירדסה השש לכ ינינעל םיפתתשמ םינוש םינינעב םהילודג יפמ
. תינשנ םויב וב תוידע ורמאש ומכו אישנ
הירזע ןב רזעלא 'ר
ובישוהש םויב
The topic of this tractate does not relate to a specific topic but it is
composed of diverse matters which became known to them through the
testimony from their great [scholars] about various topics connected to
all of the six orders [of the Mishnah] which were mentioned in the
study hall on the day which they appointed R. Elazar b. Azaryah as the
president, as it is stated. “Eduyot was taught on that day”
30
The Beit HaBeh9irah bears a special relationship with the tractate of Eduyot. In the
Bavli, the term for the tractate is " אתריחב"
. The Meiri writes that he chose the name of
his work because of its similarity in certain respects to the tractate. In his words:
רדגמ אצא אלש דע ןתמו אשמו ץוריתו אישוק תבורעת ןיאב םיררבנ םירבד ללוכ הז ירובח בור תויהלו
והוללכיש המ לכ לבא ונמדקהש ומכ דומלתב שוריפב ורכזוה אל תושדחמ תוארוהב יתלוז הנוכתה תאז
ינא ךדבע ןינעב ונראיבש ומכ הלבק ךרד ל"
ר ךרד םהה םירבדה תתמא תעדוהב ןיוכא דומלתה ירפס
ל"
ר אתאריחב דצה הז לע תוידע תכסמ וארקש וניתובר ירבדב תעדיש המ םע ךיתודע העדאו ינניבה
רמאמ ןיאב םירחבנ םירבדו תודעו הלבק ךרד םיחמומ יפמ םילבוקמ םירבד וב םיללכנה םינינעה תויהל
. הריחבה תיב הזה רובחה םש דצה הז לע יתארק ןתמו אשמהו תוקולחמהו תוכובמה
יניממ םהב ףרטצמ
His observation about the general absence of give-and-take found in mEd has been
noted at the beginning of this chapter (p. 3).
16

The Meiri mentions the passage from the Bavli, but does not clarify what exactly
happened that day. The matters discussed in mEd were known on the basis of reliable
“testimony”, but he does not specify whether the “testimony” was testified to that day,
or merely that the already existing “testimony” of mEd was “mentioned” in the study-
hall that day. 31
4. Nineteenth Century Scholarship
In his Moreh Nevukhei HaZeman, Nachum Krochmal identifies mEd as a
portion of the Mishnah the initial arrangement of which is early and identifiable. 32
After R. Eliezer was banished from the academy, Krochmal argues, many other
bearers of ancient traditions (particularly those of Beit Shammai) were pushed out as
well. As a result of the loss of these traditions, the scholars had to resort to casuistry
to restore that which had been lost. 33 When R. Gamliel was finally deposed the
academy’s doors were once again opened to all and mEd was begun as an effort to
reclaim those lost traditions. Krochmal writes:
31 The Meiri and Ra)avad attempt in a number of places in their commentary to
explain why certain non-testimonial mishnayot are found in mEd. Their explanations,
however, focus on the literary and thematic aspects, and shed no light on their view of
the historical background of the tractate’s composition.
32 Moreh Nevukhei haZeman, pp. 173-4.
33
Ibid. p. 173. He writes:
שדחל ידכב , םיבותכל םישדוחמ םישרדמ שופחבו שרדל תודמה ןויעב רתוי וליגרה ףוסבלו וחרכוה זאו
.
םילופלפמ תוכלה ריזחהלו
17

ויהש תונשיה תויודעה הב ועבקנש השדח תכסמ זא הגראנ המלו ךיא ןיבנו עדנ התעמ
. הבישיל םירזוחה םינשיה לש ןתוא םג , םדיב
Hence we understand how and why a new tractate was woven together
at that time, as the ancient testimonies which they possessed as well as
those of the older ones who returned to the academy were fixed.
He concludes by noting that material was added in subsequent generations, citing the
examples (5:2, R. Yehudah in 5:7) first noted by R. Sherira Gaon in his epistle.
S. Rapaport, digressing in the middle of a lengthy discussion regarding the
interpretation of mEd 1:5-6, suggests a novel theory as to the creation of mEd. 34 He
notes that when a person would assert that such-and-such a sage advocated a particular
position, his testimony would only be accepted if he were known as a trustworthy
individual. 35 Before R. Gamliel was impeached, he had enforced a strict admission
policy in the academy; thus, all of the people who would transmit teachings in the
academy were, by definition, of outstanding character. Only after R. Gamliel was
deposed and all were allowed to participate did a concern over the reliability of
tradents become a concern. As a result, when somebody would transmit a tradition he
had to be thoroughly vetted ( תוריקחו תושירד)
just as a court might vet witnesses in a
34 Rapaport, Kerem H9emed, vol. 5, pp. 170-197.
35
The only evidence that I am aware of in early Rabbinic literature that addresses this
issue is found in the Bavli in several places (bYev 87a, 98a, bQid 70b and bBekh 38b)
and states:
הרמא השעמ םדוק םא , אבו הכלה הרומש םכח דימלת לכ בר רמא אנוה בר רמא
. ול ןיעמוש ןיא ואל םאו ול ןיעמוש
By inference, whenever the tradent has no vested interest (i.e. supporting action that
he has already undertaken), his report can be accepted.
18

civil or capital case. 36 He further suggests that in nine of the ten instances in which R.
Yehoshua “testifies” he does so with a second “witness” because of a reluctance to
accept his testimony as it might appear as of conflict of interest since he was at the
center of the upheaval. 37 According to Rapaport, the primary purpose of the tractate
was to collect all of the “testimonies” that emerged from that fateful day in Yavneh.
He views the first chapter as an introduction to the tractate as it teaches many basic
principles of the halakhic process, and that the tractate fundamentally begins with the
second chapter. 38 The sequence of enumerated collections that make up most of the
second and third chapters he attributes as an aside to R. H9anania’s collection of “four”
testimonies, and the leniencies of Beit Shammai (chapter four and half of five) as an
appendix to the first chapter. In effect, he asserts that the original tractate of mEd was
comprised of 2:1-4 and 5:6 until the end. 39 Furthermore, in contrast to Maimonides,
he asserts that the non-testimonial material was not discussed on the same day as the
testimonies were given. In addition, he does not cite the opening of tEd in his
discussion, nor does it seem to play any role in his account.
Halevy, is the first one to fuse both rabbinic accounts to form a picture of the
origin of mEd. Halevy’s general theory about the Mishnah is that there was a core of
36 mSan 4:1.
37 Rapaport, ibid. 174.
38
Ibid. 183. " אתכסמה ןינע רקיעמ ליחתמ 'בה
קרפה"
.
39 Ibid. 183-5.
19

the Mishnah ( הנשמה דוסי)
which dates back long before the earliest tannaitic sages
mentioned in the Mishnah. 40 When issues were raised (and disputed) later they were
then added to this core. He also posits a three-year period during the early period in
Yavneh where discussions and clarifications of the issues which divided the Houses
played a central role. 41 This notion emerges from a combination of the introductory
tosefta of Eduyot combined with a statement attributed to the amora Shmuel cited in
bEruv 13b:
ללה תיבו יאמש תיב וקלחנ םינש שלש לאומש רמא אבא יבר רמא
. ונתומכ הכלה םירמוא וללהו ונתומכ הכלה םירמוא וללה
. ללה תיבכ הכלהו ןה םייח םיהלא ירבד ולאו ולא הרמאו לוק תב האצי
R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: For three years the House of
Shammai and the House of Hillel argued ,these saying that the law was
in accordance with them and those saying that the law was in
accordance with them. A voice came forth and said: “These and those
are the words of the living God, but the law is in accordance with the
House of Hillel”.
Halevy believes that all of the material in mEd (except for the “testimonies”), be it
mishnayot that mention the Houses or the numbered collections of the sages of
Yavneh in the second and third chapters, existed already as part of the core of the
mishnah. Our collection in mEd, he claims, represents a selection of that material
from elsewhere in the Mishnah. 42 In his words:
40 Yitzh9ak HaLevi, Dorot HaRishonim, vol. 2, pp. 144-62.
41 ibid., vol. 4, p.213-6.
42 The fact that there is material that appears only in mEd renders this approach
problematic. Halevy himself attempts to respond to this problem. See Dorot
HaRishonim, vol. 4, p. 229 and footnote 6.
20

ורדסנ רבכ ללה תיבו יאמש תיב לש תואקלחמה לכ רבדש ומצע לע חיכומ הז לכ אלהו
ןכ לעו לכ יפב םירודסו לכל םיעודי רבכ ויהו הנשמה דוסי לצא םמוקמב הז ינפל הברה
יאמש תיב ילוק לכ תא דוחיב הזל הרדסנ רשא 'סמהבו
םירוריבה ימיב ורדס קדצב
םירבדה בור ךותמ םסרופמו עודיה ללכה ןמ אצויה רבדה ונייה , ללה תיב ירמוחו
. םירודסה
43
Behold all of this demonstrates that the matter of all of the debates of
the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel were ordered long
before this [i.e. the period of Yavneh] in the context of the “Core of the
Mishnah” and were know to all and arranged for all. Therefore it is
proper that in the “Days of the Clarifications” [the three-year period in
Yavneh] they ordered (in the tractate which had been ordered for this
specifically) all of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the
stringencies of the House of Hillel, i.e. the exceptions to the wellknown
rule [extrapolated] from the previously arranged data.
The account in the Bavli, according to Halevy, refers only to the last three chapters of
the tractate which are comprised almost entirely of “testimonies”, which were added to
the already existing collection of material from the Houses. Thus according to
Halevy, the core of mEd should be viewed as an anthology of material collected from
elsewhere in the mishnah, whereas the testimonies which eventually gave the tractate
its name were a later addition which represents a collection original to mEd. 44
Graetz 45 posits that the primary purpose of the convocation in Yavneh
described in the Tosefta was to resolve the various debates which had arisen and to
establish a unified halakha. R. Gamliel, he argues, determined that such unity was
43 Ibid. p. 228.
44
The Aramaic name of the tractate, אתריחב, is understood by some as “selected”
( םירחבומ)
which would suggest that the tractate is in some way an anthology. For
more on the tractate’s name see Epstein, Mevo’ot LeSifrut HaTannaim, pp. 443-4.
45 Divrei Yemei Yisrael, pp. 177-9 and p. 172, footnote 1.
21

necessary to ensure the survival of the Jewish people who were, at that point, living in
very difficult times. The original mEd (he does acknowledge later additions) was a
product of that day, and, as indicated by its unique organizational model, the earliest
collection of Mishnaic material created.
R. David Z. Hoffmann 46 adopts a particularly interesting view on the
composition of mEd. He asserts that the original method of organization was
midrashic, i.e. organized following Scripture, but that long before Yavneh there
already existed a “Mishnah Rishonah”, a topically organized collection of formulated
mishnayot upon which subsequent generations built. He suggests that the original
mEd referred to by the Bavli contained all issues that were in doubt and this probably
46
D.Z. Hoffman, The First Mishnah and the Controversies of the Tannaim, pp. 92-94.
In his words:
Originally this (sic. the Eduyot collection referred to in BT Berakhot
28a) has probably contained halakhot in doubt. Our treatise of Eduyot
contains only a selection from that collection. Most likely all
controversies between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel has been in the
old collection. R. Yehudah haNasi has distributed them to the
respective treatises and has only accepted into Eduyot the יאמש תיב ילוקמ
ללה תיב ירמוחמו [leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit
Hillel] according to the various presentation by later Tannaim (Eduyot
IV,1 - V,5). ......
The total number of eduyot in the whole treatise amounts to forty, that
of all halakhot (except the ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ [leniencies of
Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel] ) to one hundred. It can
hardly be assumed that these round numbers are accidental. This is
rather a proof for the claim that our treatise of Eduyot represents only a
part of the old collection from which a certain number have been
selected.
Unstated and unexplained is the fact that some of this material was duplicated while
most of it was removed completely from mEd.
22

included all of the controversies of the Houses. Our mEd, he posits, is a carefully
culled selection from the original which contains one hundred testimonies aside from
the leniencies of Beit Shammai. 47 Following his larger theory of the Mishnah, he sees
the tractate as, in some sense, aiming at a revision of the “Mishnah Rishonah”.
Dünner espouses a view both similar to and very different from Hoffman’s
theory. 48 He believes (like Graetz) that the purpose of the convocation in Yavneh was
to restore and unify the halakha and that all of the laws, whether subject to debate or
agreed upon by all, were first taught formally on that day. Thus, when mEd was
originally composed, it contained all of the Mishnah at that time. Only later, as the
Mishnah was expanded, most of the material which had been originally composed
there was removed and placed it elsewhere in the Mishnah. The mEd which we
possess is a remnant of the original which was selected as a commemoration of the
original tractate and the events which surrounded it. He and Hoffmann are the only
ones who posit that the mEd which we possess is an abridged version of the original
tractate.
47 Unfortunately, he needs to resort to forced explanations to make sure that the facts
fit his theory. To arrive at this number, he suggests omitting mEd 1:11 since it is not
found in MS Munich and presumably was taken from mMS and duplicated in mEd.
He seems to be unaware that MS Munich is replete with errors, especially of lines
missing because of homoiteleuton/archton and that every other witness, including MS
Kaufmann and Parma 138 all contain the mishnah. Also, he counts one of R. Akiva’s
additions to R. H9anania (in 2:1-3) but not the other.
48 “Einiges über Ursprung und Bedeutung des Traktates Edojoth,” MGWJ 20 (1871),
pp. 33-42, 59-77. A summary of his view can be found in Albeck’s Mavo LaMishnah,
Appendix Aleph, pp. 257-9.
23

5. Twentieth Century Scholarship
Albeck 49 theorizes that the first formal redaction of the Mishnah took place in
Yavneh with the original layers of mEd, and that later, as other tractates of the
Mishnah were redacted, the material was taken from mEd and duplicated in the
thematically appropriate locations. He assumes that any Mishnah which is found in
mEd and not duplicated elsewhere in the thematically relevant tractate is a later
addition to mEd and was not known to the redactors of the other tractate. 50 Hence,
according to Albeck, duplicate Mishnayot originate in mEd and are then placed
elsewhere, and thus would belong to a pre-redactional period. Based upon these
assumptions, Albeck concludes that only parts of the first five chapters were found in
the original collection of mEd. His thesis, however, rests on several unproven
assumptions: first, that mEd represents the first attempt at redaction of tannaitic
materials, and that the redaction of other tractates follows later; second, that the
redactors of the various tractates of the Mishnah worked in different schools and were
not necessarily aware of the material in the hands of the other schools; third (partially
in agreement with Hoffmann), that there was a programmatic decision to duplicate all
of the mishnayot of mEd in their relevant tractates; finally, that the editor who should
have collected the finished tractates of the various schools (and who could then have
49 Untersuchungen über die Redaktion der Mischna, p.112 and more clearly in his
introduction to his commentary on Eduyot, pp. 275-277.
50 Albeck, commentary to Eduyot, p. 277.
24

distributed the materials he found in the mEd that he received, which by then should
have resembled our version fairly closely, to the other relevant tractates) did no editing
(or a poor job of editing), or was unaware of the program in the previously mentioned
third assumption, i.e. to duplicate all the mishnayot of mEd in their thematically
relevant locations.
J.N. Epstein does not treat our issue systematically, but makes a number of
comments about individual mishnayot scattered throughout his Mavo leNusah9 Ha-
Mishnah. In addition, E.Z. Melamed published the notes of Epstein, which include an
introduction to mEd, in his Mevo’ot leSifrut haTannaim. Epstein dismisses the
account in bBer 28a regarding the origin of our mEd and links the tractate to the
account given in tEd 1:1. He discusses the individual units of mEd and identifies them
according to the tannaitic school of origin, an approach consistent with his general
view of the Mishnah, i.e. that an early Mishnah existed even before Yavneh, that
different tannaim had their own versions of it and that our Mishnah is comprised of
traditions drawn from the various collections of the tannaim of Usha which were
available to Rebbi.
Finally, Jacob Neusner briefly outlines his view of mEd (in diametric
opposition to Albeck’s general approach) as a collection of materials drawn from
elsewhere in the Mishnah. He writes:
That every single entry has a primary place somewhere else and a
secondary place in this tractate is clear, since all comfortably fit into
some other, topical context. None is so formulated as even to pay
attention to the present one. That is why the redactor has had to resort
throughout the bulk of his work to an explicit redactional formulary,
25

e.g., announcing the number of units to follow. There is nothing but
that common number, and what it enumerates, to justify the
agglutinations which make up this anthological tractate. 51
6. An Overview and the Thesis
The assumptions of modern scholarship of the Mishnah have undergone
serious challenges in the last several decades. The original approach to the modern
study of the Mishnah began with the assumption that much of the material found in
our Mishnah was formulated before the generation of the redaction and that the
redaction was not the first attempt at collation and organization of the materials.
Scholars differed on what material was early, on what earlier processes of redaction
occurred and on what the redaction of the Mishnah entailed. 52 Shared, however, was
the assumption that the formulation of material as we possess it and the redaction of
those same materials may be discerned in the Mishnah texts which we possess.
Recent scholarship, however, has challenged the viability of the enterprise of
determining the contents and shape of Mishnaic material which may have existed prior
to the redaction. Neusner has asserted, based upon his studies of the order of Teharot,
that the syntactical patterns of the Mishnah are uniform throughout, and hence our
51 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages, p.80.
52 We speak here of the redaction only in a relative sense. Since Epstein has
demonstrated clearly that material has worked its way (consciously or otherwise) into
the Mishnah as a result of amoraic discussions and other phenomena, we cannot speak
of a final redaction in an absolute sense. There is, however, sufficient evidence to
assume that the Mishnah we possess is primarily the product of a redaction which took
place during the lifetime of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, and most likely under his
direction.
26

Mishnah, both in terms of formulation and in terms of redaction, is the product of a
single generation of tradent-redactors. Neusner does not claim that no formulation and
redaction took place earlier, but simply that the material of our Mishnah has been so
thoroughly edited and leveled as to prevent us from discerning any evidence of prior
formulations or redactions. In his own words:
Mishnah’s formulation and its organization are the result of the work of
a single “generation” of tradents-redactors: tradents who formulate
units of thought, and redactors who organize aggregations of said units
of thought. Mishnah is not the product of tradents succeeded by
redactors. It is not possible upon the basis of objective literary
evidence revealed by the Mishnah itself to specify much which in
formulation derives from the period before that of the redaction itself. 53
This wholistic approach presents a serious (and welcome) challenge to previously
accepted scholarship and raises serious doubts about the utility of many earlier studies
which rested upon a number of reasonable but unproven assumptions. Furthermore, if
correct, it would imply that to speak of a pre-redactional history of the Mishnah, or
any specific tractate therein, would be pointless, and certainly unprovable. However,
this challenge itself is not without serious problems. While perhaps correct that many
traces of earlier material have been obliterated by the later redaction, there is some
obvious evidence of pre-redactional activity which it ignores, and which has great
relevance to our tractate in particular. This evidence points to both aspects of earlier
activity: formulation and redaction. For example:
ה:
ה הרפ
ילכב םיללג ילכב וליפא םישדקמ םילכה לכב
ןיא הב ןישדקמ הניפסבו המדא ילכבו םינבא
27
ב:
א םידי
ילכב םיללג ילכב וליפא םידיל ןינתונ םילכה לכב
ןיא
המדא ילכב םינבא
53 “Redaction Formulation and Form: The Case of Mishnah,” JQR 70 (1979), p. 142.

ץחמה ילושב אלו םילכה תונפדב אל ןישדקמ
ינפמ וינפחב אלו תיבחה תפוגמב אלו
תאטח ימ ןיזמ ןיאו ןישדקמ ןיאו ןיאלממ ןיאש
ליתפ דימצב ןיליצמ
ןיא ילכב אלא
םילכ אלא סרח ילכ דימ םיליצמ ןיאש םילכ אלא
28
ץחמה ילושב אלו םילכה תונפדב אל םידיל ןינתונ
ינפמ וינפחב וריבחל ןתי אלו תיבחה תפוגמב אלו
תאטח ימ ןיזמ ןיאו ןישדקמ ןיאו ןיאלממ ןיאש
דימצב ןיליצמ ןיאו ילכב אלא םידיל םינתונ ןיאו
אלא שרח ילכ דימ ןיליצמ ןיאש םילכ אלא ליתפ
. םילכ
Examining the first part of each formulation, it is apparent that the two mishnayot here
were formulated by using the same basic form and simply substituting different details
in the relevant places: mPar speaks of " םישדקמ"
whereas mYad speaks of " םידיל ןינתונ"
.
In the second half of the mishnah mPar mentions several rituals which require a
“vessel”, all of which relate to the topic of mPar. mYad, on the other hand, contains
the entire list found in mPar (all of which are irrelevant to mYad) as well as one item
( םידיל ןינתונ)
which relates to the topic of mYad. From this it is clear that the
formulator of mYad has taken a prior formulation regarding the laws of the red heifer
and has, where possible, preserved the earlier formulation. If these two mishnayot had
been formulated at the same time, one would have expected either mPar to also
mention the ritual washing of the hands or mYad to omit any reference to the rituals
surrounding the waters of the red heifer. Clearly, the editor of mYad cannot claim
responsibility for this formulation and hence we can identify an earlier source (mPar)
which was used in the later formulation of this mishnah in Yadayim. The presence in
mEd of so much material which can be found elsewhere in the Mishnah, in verbatim
or near-verbatim form, provides fertile ground to test whether or not earlier sources or
formulations may be discerned within the finished work.

Regarding the obliteration of traces of earlier redactional activity, one may
point to any number of places in the Mishnah where units of material are organized
not by topic, as is the bulk of the Mishnah, but by some other associative form. To be
fair, proponents of the wholistic approach have noted these aberrations and have
dismissed them as the exploration of diverse possibilities of formation which were
then abandoned. 54 This explanation, however, rests upon circular logic. If one
assumes that the redactors of the Mishnah have done such a thorough job of levelling
extended syntactical units throughout the Mishnah, it is difficult to imagine that they
experimented with other organizational forms and, after abandoning them, left
whatever work they had done as a monument. One can only reach that conclusion by
assuming that which one is attempting to prove, i.e. that the redactors have obliterated
all traces of redactional activity. If one does not a priori assume that the final
redactors attempted to level the entire Mishnah and eliminate its textual history, 55 then
the natural conclusion is that earlier redactional units have, in fact, been preserved in
these Mishnaic tangents. Furthermore, one would have expected that, subsequent to
the abandonment of these experiments, the redactors would have duplicated the
material of the Mishnaic tangents elsewhere in the Mishnah in the topically relevant
locations. This, however, did not happen. 56
54 ibid., p. 137.
55
"We want to find the history of a document which does not want to have a history."
(Italics mine); ibid., p.132.
56 This would comprise an interesting study in its own right, but for the moment it
suffices to point to mGit 4:3, 4:9, 5:1, 5:3, 5:6 as examples of material which does not
29

Furthermore, even if one could successfully defend the proposition of
experimental organization elsewhere in the Mishnah, the existence of the tractate of
mEd is difficult to explain. Did the redactors of the Mishnah compose an entire
tractate, only to abandon it for another organizing principle? 57 mEd, therefore,
provides an ideal place to search for materials which demonstrate traces of earlier
redactional and formulational activity since even if one were to assume that the
wholistic approach is correct for most of the Mishnah, mEd might very well be an
exception. 58
In the chapters which follow, we will explore the history of mEd from its
beginnings until its current form in the manuscripts and printed editions. Section I of
this study relates to the internal evidence of mEd as it pertains to the aforementioned
issues. It consists of a detailed individual comparison of the mishnayot of mEd to
their counterparts elsewhere in the Mishnah with an eye towards determining, when
possible, the original location of each mishnah’s formulation. That is to say, does the
appear in any form elsewhere despite the fact that there are logical places within the
structure of our Mishnah which could accommodate them. Most of the other
Mishnayot in that series do not appear elsewhere either, but one might argue that they
have no other place in the Mishnah where they could go; thus 4:4, 4:6 and 4:7 all deal
with slaves, a topic which has no other obvious location.
57 Neusner himself notes regarding alternate organizational methods that, "they are
always subordinate and never govern the formation of a tractate, or indeed much more
than a single chapter" ( ibid., p. 137).
58 We are not going to focus on the larger question of whether or not the wholistic
approach is correct, but it should be noted that if a study of mEd were to produce little
evidence of traces of earlier redactional activity (other than its organizational
principle), then one could convincingly argue that the lack of traces in the place one
would most expect them proves the correctness of the wholistic approach.
30

mishnah appear to have been formulated in the context of mEd or in the context of the
other tractate where it appears; or perhaps does it appear to have been formulated
independent of both contexts? The accumulation of data about the individual
mishnayot will help form a clearer picture of the whole of mEd.
The first chapter in Section II (Chapter Nine) addresses the unusual or unique
terminology used in mEd, especially the introductory formulas, and how (by whom)
those terms are used elsewhere in the Mishnah. If Neusner is correct about a
thoroughly leveled Mishnah, we would expect to find a random distribution of these
terms. If the distribution is consistent within particular generations or tradents,
Neusner’s conclusions would become difficult to sustain. The second chapter
(Chapter Ten) involves a detailed study of mEduyot in the two Talmuds with an eye
towards discerning a) changes in the text that may have transpired during the amoraic
period and b) the attitudes the amoraim themselves exhibited towards mEd, as well as
those espoused by the authors of the anonymous layers of the Bavli and Yerushalmi.
Finally, the third chapter, (Chapter Eleven) focuses briefly on the Tosefta of Eduyot as
it relates to mEd – the material which is commented upon or glossed, the impact the
Tosefta (or like materials) may have had on the text of the Mishnah, and a comparison
of the synoptic parallels found in the two with the goal of determining primacy.
Section III (Chapters Twelve and Thirteen) contains critical editions of the
Mishnah and Tosefta of Eduyot, as well as introductions to both. In addition, Chapter
Twelve contains extensive tabulations of the linguistic and scribal variants found in
the Mishnah of Eduyot.
31

Unless otherwise noted, the mishnah text of Eduyot cited throughout this work
is the text of MS Kaufmann. Any citations from the rest of the Mishnah use the text of
the standard modern printing of the Mishnah (Yakhin u-Boaz edition). The citations of
Tosefta Eduyot are from MS Erfurt and citations of other passages in the Tosefta are
taken from Lieberman’s edition where available or otherwise from Zuckermandel.
32

Section I
Eduyot and the Mishnah
33

Methodological Introduction
As noted in the introduction, mEd stands out among the tractates of the
Mishnah in that a significant portion of its mishnayot are found, in one form or
another, elsewhere in the Mishnah. This section will explore the obvious question:
when an individual mishnah appears in two places in the Mishnah, in which of the two
contexts was it originally formulated? In the context of mEd, this question points to a
larger issue: Is mEd the source for the material found in other tractates, or is it an
anthology? To answer the question, we must engage in a detailed analysis of mEd in
order to arrive at a proper conclusion.
Performing a comprehensive comparison requires keeping in mind a number of
important principles:
1) Every mishnah has to be evaluated on its own merits – it is conceivable that
some mishnayot may have been formulated in the context of mEd while others
in the context of the parallel occurrences.
2) While we speak of two possibilities, i.e. mEd is the original context or the
parallel location is, a third possibility exists as well: both mEd and its parallel
draw upon a third, earlier source. Unfortunately, we do not have any tangible
“third source” upon which to draw. One can hypothesize all sorts of proto-
collections of mishnayot, but we cannot prove their existence, and as such, in
the absence of clear evidence, assigning materials to a hypothetical third
source is too speculative. Therefore, if we can ascertain that a mishnah did not
34

originate in mEd, we will assume that it did originate in the parallel location;
when we can ascertain that it did not originate in the parallel location, we
assume that it originated in mEd. And thus we do this fully aware that there
may be a hypothetical third source from which both draw.
Furthermore, if there are cases where the evidence would show that the
mishnah did not originate in the parallel location in the Mishnah, we will have
demonstrated the existence of an earlier stratum in the Mishnah – either mEd
or the hypothetical common source (which would probably look a lot like
mEd). Since one of the primary foci of this study is to test Neusner’s theory of
a single-layered mishnah, if is not important what the earlier layer is, as much
as that there is an earlier layer which was not leveled in the redaction of the
Mishnah. 1 Once there is such a layer, we can no longer speak of a “document
which does not want to have a history”. 2
3) We undertake this study on the assumption that formulators and redactors
work with a degree of consistency. Formulators who create, ex nihilo,
1 In theory, were we to determine that the all of the mishnayot originated elsewhere
and that mEd is merely an anthology, we would also have demonstrated multiple
layers in the Mishnah: the rest of the Mishnah and then mEd. But clearly even
Neusner, by adopting the position of mEd as an anthology, acknowledges “two
layers”; the question at hand is really whether mEd is earlier of later than the rest of
the Mishnah (or at least significant parts thereof). If mEd is later, it may be regarded
as merely an afterthought to the single layer of the Mishnah; if earlier, Neusner’s
theory becomes untenable.
2 “Redaction, Formulation and Form”, p. 132.
35

sequences of mishnayot do so, when possible, using the same template.
Redactors who create new units and chapters do so in a logical fashion, placing
sentences and ideas together in an orderly fashion. Thus, formulations and
structures that are awkward or inconsistent (when accompanied with other
evidence) may point to the fusing of different sources without leveling; in such
cases, it appears that the editor who fused the sources did not bother or was
unwilling to tamper with the original source material and hence we may still be
able to identify the original sources.
4) We assume that if formulators, redactors and editors were to create material
ex nihilo and attribute it to earlier authorities, the pattern of “falsification” (to
borrow Neusner’s term 3 ) would be sensible and predictable. That is, even if
we hypothesize that the editors attributed material to a sage without a clear
tradition that he actually said it, they would not invent a person who exists
nowhere else (or extremely rarely) in the mishnah and then attribute to him the
idea. If the editors had wished to create an opinion disagreeing with the view
of a particular tanna, they would attribute it to a contemporary of his and not to
somewhat he probably never met.
5) The study is done on the assumption, after due diligence, that the text we
possess is the text as it left the hands of the redactors of the Mishnah. Due
diligence demands that the manuscripts and other witnesses be utilized to
3 Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, p. 15.
36

establish the text as well as we can; it also demands that materials in the
Tosefta, Bavli and Yerushalmi be carefully mined to help identify any
accretions or revisions to the text that may have occurred after the original
redaction. But even when these steps have been taken, the real possibility
exists that there have been accretions and deletions, the record of which is not
preserved in the manuscript or any other tradition. It is for this reason that we
simply cannot take into account the type of suggestion by Hoffmann that mEd
originally contained all of the debates between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel
and that the rest were distributed throughout the Mishnah and removed from
mEd. Similarly, if a mishnah appears in mEd and not elsewhere we cannot
assume that it was formulated elsewhere but deleted from the original location
when it was transferred to mEd. In the parlance of the Rabbis, המ אלא ןיידל ןיא"
" תואור ויניעש.
6) There will be situations where there is simply not enough evidence to
determine the origin of a particular mishnah.
7) The methods used to determine the “origination” of a mishnah must be
clearly defined and consistently applied. It is to this end that the following
section is dedicated.
We now outline the various methods by which we can make a probable determination
that the mishnah did or did not originate in a particular location.
37

1) If material exists in mEd and not in the parallel location, we assume that the
material could not have originated in the parallel location, and visa versa. This
principle is obvious in cases where the entire mishnah is found in one place and absent
in the other, but it also relevant when much of the material exists in both places, but
some is lacking in one place. Take for example mEd 7:5:
אוהש ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטח לש ללק לע רדה שיא םיקי יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה
אמט
. רהטמ רזעילא יברש
R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim )Ish H9adid testified about a[n
earthenware] jar of Red Heifer ashes which he placed on top of a
[dead] rodent that they are invalid
in contrast to R. Eliezer who maintains that they are [still]
valid.
In mPar 10:2, the same content is presented as a debate between R. Eliezer and the
Sages:
. רוהט ץרשב עגנש תאטח לש ללק
. םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא יבר ויבג לע ונתנ
If a[n earthenware] jar of Red Heifer ashes touched a [dead] rodent,
the ashes remain valid.
If he placed it on top of a [dead] rodent: R. Eliezer maintains that
they are still valid but the Sages say that they are invalid.
If a formulator had begun with mEd he could easily have constructed mPar by
reducing the position of the multiple tradents (i.e. R. Yehoshua and R. Papyas) to “the
Sages” and by replacing the introductory he(id with a more standard " ןיאמטמ"
. The
reverse however, is inconceivable. Nothing in the formulation of mPar suggests that
the Sages’ position was presented as testimony. It is even more difficult to posit that
38

the formulator of mEd took the “Sages” from mPar and turned them into R. Yehoshua
and R. Yaqim; while the formulator might have chosen R. Yehoshua since he is
usually the named authority who debates with R. Eliezer, from where would he have
taken R. Yaqim, a tanna who exists nowhere else? The lacunae in mPar demonstrate
that mEd cannot derive from it; the reverse, however, is at least possible, if not
probable.
2) The existence of a mishnah in two locations where not every part of the
mishnah is relevant to both indicates that the mishnah is a pre-existing unit which was
copied in toto from the location where all of the statements are relevant to the place
where only some are. The assumption behind this principle is that the editor or
redactor who transferred the material did not want to (or could not be bothered to)
tamper with his source material; thus he took the relevant material along with the
irrelevant and duplicated it in its new setting. This can be assumed, however, only if
all of the statements are relevant in one location and at least one (but not all) of the
statements of the unit is relevant to the second location.
4:1-2:
There are situations where this phenomenon is obvious. For example, mEd
לכאת אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו לכאת 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב הדלונש הציב
. תייזכ הזו הז 'וא
ללה תיבו תבתוככ
ץמחו תיזכ רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב
אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח טחושה
רפאש הסכיו לקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ ןכומ רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי
. ןכומ הריכה
A An egg which is born on the festival day: Beit Shammai say, “It may be
eaten” but Beit Hillel say, “It may not be eaten.
39
A
B
C

B Beit Shammai say, “The requisite amount of sour-dough yeast is an olive
and for leavened bread an egg” but Beit Hillel say, “Both are
measured with an olive.”
C One who slaughters a wild-animal or bird on the festival-day: Beit
Shammai say, “He may dig with a pitchfork and cover [the blood]” (in
accordance with Lev. 17:13) but Beit Hillel say, “He may not [ipso
facto] slaughter unless he has prepared-dirt.
They (i.e. Beit Hillel) admit that if he has slaughtered [already] that he
should dig with the pitchfork and cover [the blood].
The mishnah cites three cases dealing with the festivals where Beit Shammai rule
leniently; two (A and C) relate to the laws of muqs9eh, relevant to all of the festivals,
and one (B) pertains to Passover alone. All three belong in the context of mEd:
leniencies of Beit Shammai pertaining to the order Mo(ed. The mishnayot also appear
at the beginning of mBes9, whose opening section deals with the laws of muqs9eh on the
festivals. There, the middle case is not relevant. The most plausible explanation is
that the redactor of mBes9 took the unit of material from mEd and placed it whole into
mBes9.
In other situations the phenomenon may be more subtle. mEd 4:3-4 records
three debates which involve the Biblically mandated gifts to the poor (leqet9, shikhh9a
and pe)ah) in which Beit Shammai rule leniently:
םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה וניא 'וא
ללה תיבו רקבה םיינעל רקבה
40
'מוא
ימש תיב
A
הטימשכ
B
החכש וניא 'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו םיבק
תעברא לש תחא בק בק לש הדשה ירמוע לכ
. החכש 'וא
ללה תיבו
C
תיבו החכש וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה
. החכש 'מוא
ללה
A Beit Shammai say, “Something declared ownerless only for the poor is
legally ownerless” but Beit Hillel say, “It is not ownerless until he declares it
ownerless for even the rich as in the Sabbatical year.”

B If each of the bundles in the field are a qab and one is four qabin and he
forgets it: Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” (i.e. does not belong to the
poor) but Beit Hillel say, “It is shikhh9a.”
C A bundle which was left next to a wall, a heap, cattle or equipment and he
forgets it: Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” but Beit Hillel say “It is
shikhh9a.”
The first relates to all of the gifts while the latter two relate to shikhh9a alone. The
mishnayot appear identically in mPe (6:1-2) in the middle of a section that discusses
the laws of shikhh9a, a location seemingly relevant for the entire unit. A more
thorough analysis of the structure and material of mPe shows that, in fact (a) only the
third of these cases is found in its proper context and (b) for each of the first two cases
there exists a more appropriate setting elsewhere within mPe. If the mishnayot had
been formulated originally in the context of mPe, an intelligent redactor would have
placed them in the most topically relevant locations. The most reasonable conclusion
to draw from the organization of the material, is that it originated outside of mPe and
was copied into the tractate as a bloc.
3) If a mishnah exists in two (relevant) locations but in one the formulation of
the material does not conform to the material surrounding it, it has likely been
formulated outside that context and subsequently incorporated there. For example,
mEd 7:2 reads:
רוהט אוהש םיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
. ןריצ תא ולספ אל םירוהט ןיבגח םע ושבכינש םיאמט םיבגח הנושאר הנש ימש
R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper are t[ahor
41

(may be eaten)
In contrast to the earlier mishnah which stated [only] that non-kosher
grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers do not render
the secretions (i.e. the admixture) non-kosher.
The parallel mishnah in mTer (10:9) is formulated as follows:
םריצ תא ולספ אל 'ירוהט
םיבגח םע ושבכנש 'יאמט
םיבגח
. רוהט אוהש םיאמט םיבגח ריצ לע קודצ יבר דיעה
Non-kosher grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers do
not render the secretions (i.e. the admixture) non-kosher.
R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper are t[ahor
(may be eaten)
Each of the two versions alone could theoretically be constructed from one another.
The formulator of mTer could have taken mEd and turned the “mishnah rishonah”
into the anonymous (first) tanna and appended R. Zadok’s testimony which was a
response to it. Alternatively (albeit a bit more difficult), the formulator of mEd could
have taken mTer and formatted it into a style more consistent with the seventh chapter
of mEd which frequently presents testimony followed by the foil, " רמוא ינולפ יברש"
.
The anonymous tanna in mTer who preceded R. Zadok needed a title and so the
formulator in mEd referred to him as the “mishnah rishonah”. 4
4 As we note later, herein lies the difficulty with this scenario. The term “mishnah
rishonah” is extremely rare in the Mishnah; if the formulator of mEd needed to invent
a title for the anonymous tanna of mTer the more obvious choice would have been
םירמוא ויהש which is used twice later in the chapter (7:7) and earlier in the tractate
(2:8).
42

When, however, we look at the context in mTer it becomes apparent that the
mishnah was not originated formulated there. The three mishnayot in sequence (mTer
10:7-9) read:
( ז הנשמ)
... המורת יתיז םע ןשבכש ןילוח יתיז
( ח הנשמ)
... רוהט גד םע ושבכש אמט גד
( ט הנשמ)
... םירוהט םיבגח םע ושבכינש
םיאמט םיבגח
Olives of h9ulin which he pickled with olives of terumah ...
A non-kosher fish which he pickled with a kosher fish ...
Non-kosher grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers
...
The first two mishnayot in the sequence were formulated with the active voice of the
root kbs\. If the same formulator had created the final mishnah in the same context,
one would have expected him to utilize the same verb; the usage of the passive voice
betrays the fact that the mishnah was formulated elsewhere; therefore we are able to
conclude that the mishnah originates in mEd, not in mTer.
4) If the mishnah exists in two locations (A and B) and in one of them (B) the
material appears twice – once (B1) in a formulation identical to that of its parallel (A),
and once (B2) in a different formulation – we can conclude that the duplication in
location B arose through the transferring of the identical formulation (B1) from its
original location (A). The material was transferred because the mishnah in A is
connected to the content of the alternate formulation (B2) in location B. The
assumption underlying this conclusion is that a formulator does not usually repeat the
same material twice in one location; it is one thing to give two examples to
demonstrate a principle, but to repeat the same examples or laws simply by reordering
43

them makes no sense. A later editor who transfers materials which, substantively, is
redundant may have a different agenda; 5 but the original formulator could have chosen
either one (B1 or B2) but not both. But even after determining that the identical parallel
(B1) was derived from source A, the questions till remains about the relationship
between the non-identical parallel (B2) and source A. To solve that problem, one of
the methodologies outlined earlier must be utilized.
An example of this type is mEd 3:10: 6
תוסורגלש
ב
ןוראו
א
ינחלושלש רמסמ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
ןירבד השלש
ג
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ קודצ 'ר
תועש ןבא לש רמסמו
There are three things which R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual
impurity but the Sages declare not susceptible:
א The nail of a moneychanger, ב the closet of ground-beans and ג the nail
of a sundial, R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual impurity but the
Sages declare not susceptible.
mKel (12:4-5) reads:
ב
ןוראו
אמט ידרגה
רמסמ אמטמ קודצ יבר רוהט תועשה ןבא לשו אמט ערגה רמסמ [ ד]
. האמט תכתמ לש הלש הלגע התיה ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ צ"
ר תוסורג לש
[4] The nail of a blood-letter is susceptible to ritual impurity. ג That of
a sundial, R. S9adok declares susceptible but the Sages declare not
susceptible. The nail of a weaver is susceptible. ב The closet of groundbeans,
R. S9adok declares susceptible but the Sages declare not
5 In our situation, it may be that the later editor has decided that mEd is an
authoritative source and therefore has chosen to transfer the same information into the
parallel location in order to highlight the point. Alternatively, he may have seen
something in the parallel formulation (A=B1) which he believed added something to
the other formulation (B1); an/the original formulator, however, would have been
expected to formulate one statement to convey all of the information captured by both.
6 The cases are marked with Hebrew letters to help establish the correspondence.
44
ג

susceptible. If its wagon is metal it is susceptible (according to
everybody).
וניקתהש רמסמ רוהט הרימשל יושעה אמט וב לעונו חתופ תויהל וניקתהש רמסמ[
ה]
א
ינחלש
לש רמסמ ונפרציש דע ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ ע"
ר תיבחה תא וב חתופ תויהל
. אמטמ קודצ יברו רוהט
ב
א
תוסורג לש ןוראו ינחלש לש רמסמ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
םירבד השלש
ג
. ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
תועשה ןבא לש רמסמו
[5] A nail which he prepared to unlock and lock with it is susceptible to
ritual impurity. That which is made for securing is not susceptible. A
nail which he prepared to open barrels: R. Akiva declares [it] susceptible
but the Sages declare that it is not until he smelts it. א The nail of
moneychanger, R. S9adok declares susceptible but the Sages declare not
susceptible.
There are three things which R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual
impurity but the Sages declare not susceptible:
א The nail of a moneychanger, ב the closet of ground-beans and ג the nail
of a sundial, R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual impurity but the
Sages declare not susceptible.
mEd appears verbatim at the end of this section in mKel. Each of the three disputes
recorded have already been mentioned; it makes little sense for the original formulator
to have repeated them at the end as the final statement of 12:5 adds no information not
already contained in 12:4 and the first half of 12:5. Thus we conclude that the last part
of mKel 12:5 is original to mEd and later was copied to the relevant section in mKel.
The question still remains as to the relationship between the three debates as
formulated in 12:4-5 and mEd; i.e. is mEd an amalgamation of the debates presented
in mKel, or did the formulator of mKel begin with mEd and divide it up into its parts
and supplement it with a discussion of other relevant material. To determine that, we
have to resort (if possible) to one of the other methodologies outlined earlier.
45

5) In a number of cases, there may be no evidence that will help determine the
origin of a mishnah appearing in two places. One factor that may suggest, but not
prove, that a mishnah originated in one location is if one of the two locations is a
collection of unrelated statements of a particular sage. Take for example the four
testimonies of R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim (mEd 2:1-4). If unable to determine the
origin of one mishnah in the sequence one might reason as follows: is there anything
distinctive about this testimony that, even if it had not originally been part of this unit,
an editor or redactor of mEd would have added it from the other location? If the
testimony were the only statement found in the entire Mishnah by R. H9anania which
was not included in mEd then it is readily apparent why the redactor might have
transferred the material to mEd (and perhaps changed the number to “four” in the
introduction of the section). If so, the ambiguity would remain unresolved. If,
however, there were a number of statements of R. Hanania elsewhere in the Mishnah,
it would be more difficult (although not impossible) to argue that the redactor decided
to add a case to mEd, for if so, why did he add this one but not the other ones? 7 This
approach alone doesn’t conclusively demonstrate origin, but it is suggestive. 8
7 One could theoretically respond to this challenge by asserting (as Albeck does) that
the reason why some are not included is because they were unknown to the redactor of
mEd. We prefer to avoid this response because it relates to a hypothetical Mishnah
coming from multiple schools, not the one with which we are dealing.
8 In some ways, this is really the first method offered above, i.e. information missing
in one location. In this scenario, the missing information would be that the statement
of R. Hanania was part of a group of four statements of his that were originally joined.
46

One other question that the analysis will address in the process is whether or
not the conclusions of mEd are accepted or assumed elsewhere in the Mishnah. The
issue is relevant more often when a mishnah appears in mEd and nowhere else, but
will occasionally be addressed even when the mishnah appears in both places. For
example, in mEd 1:4 where the sages conclude that the amount of drawn-water that
invalidates a ritual bath is three lugin. Is that conclusion assumed throughout mMiq?
This will not determine the origin of the materials, 9 but it does tell us about the
relationship of the contents of mEd and the rest of the Mishnah.
We now begin a mishnah-by-mishnah analysis of mEd to determine, based
upon the methodologies outlined above, where each mishnah originated. In doing so
we may arrive at a broader picture of the tractate.
9 The reason for this indeterminacy is that if the Mishnah elsewhere assumes the
conclusions of mEd that could be for one of two reasons:
1) mEd is older and the redactors of the Mishnah regarded its conclusions as
authoritative.
2) mEd is an anthology where the redactors were careful to ensure that its
conclusions reflected the conclusion and assumptions of the already completed
Mishnah.
47

Chapter One
Eduyot Chapter One
I. The Debates of Shammai and Hillel
[The text and the numbering of the mishnayot follow that of MS Kaufmann. Where the numbers in the
standard modern printing differ, they are noted in parentheses.]
( ג-א:
א)
ד-א:
א תויודע
ןתעש ןייד ןישנה לכ 'מוא
ימש
הברה םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ 'וא
ללה תיבו
הדיקפל הדיקפמו הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
. תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ
התעש הייד תסוו הל שיש השא לכ
. הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לעו תעל תעמ די לע תטעממו הדיקפכ וז ירה ןידיעב תשמשמה
הלח בקמ 'מוא
ימש
םייבקמ 'וא
ללה
הלחב ןיבייח הצחמו בק אלא הז 'רבדכ
אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'וא
'מכחו
ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודימה ולידגיהשמו
. ןיבייח דועו השמח ןירוטפ השמח 'מוא
הסוי 'ר
ובר ןושלכ 'מול
בייח םדאש הווקמה ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ 'וא
ללה
םיבק תעשת 'מוא
ימשו
םשמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
. ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש ןוילטבאו הייעמש
Shammai says, “All woman convey ritual impurity from the time of their period [i.e.
not retroactively at all].”
[Beit] Hillel says, “Retroactively until the last examination, even if it was many days
prior.”
But the Sages say, “Neither like this nor that opinion but rather that twenty-four
hours limits the period of the last examination [i.e. if it was more than twenty-four
hours prior] and an examination limits the period of twenty-four hours [i.e. if it was
done within the last twenty-four] hours.”
Any woman who has a regular period does not convey impurity retroactively. One
who engages in intercourse using inspection-cloths is viewed as [having performed]
48

an examination and limits the twenty-four hour period or the period until the previous
examination.
Shammai says, “A dough of one qab mandates the separation of h9allah.”
Hillel says, “Two qab.”
But the Sages say, “Neither like this or that opinion but rather one-and-a-half qab
mandate the separation of h9allah.”
When they enlarged the measurements they said, “Five-quarter qabin mandate
[the separation of hallah].”
R. Yose says, “Five [quarter qabin] are exempt, five plus mandate [the separation
of hallah].”
Hillel says, “A full hin of drawn-water invalidates the ritual-bath” for one is
obligated to cite following the formulation of one’s teacher.
Shammai says, “Nine qabin.”
But the Sages say, “Neither like this nor that opinion” but rather until two weavers
from the dung-gate in Jerusalem arrived and testified in the name of Shma‘ayah
and Avtalyon that three lugin of drawn-water invalidate the ritual-bath and they
affirmed their words.
The opening section of mEd records three disputes between Shammai and Hillel
in which the Sages reject the opinions of both and adopt a third opinion. The first debate
relates to how far back retroactively does a woman who has discovered menstrual
bleeding render teharot 1 impure, the second to the amount of dough necessary to obligate
one to separate h9allah, and the third to the amount of drawn-water (ןיבואש םימ) which
invalidates a ritual-bath. The formula used to introduce the rejection in all three is:
... אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל םירמוא םימכחו
In the first two disputes the opinion of the Sages represents (at least numerically) a
compromise; in the last, the Sages’ opinion is more stringent than those of Shammai and
Hillel. In the first and third debates, Hillel adopts a more stringent position than that of
Shammai and in the second, a more lenient one. The first and second debates cite
1 This term is used to describe any food which is being guarded from ritual impurity -
terumah, qods]im and possibly שדוקה תרהט לע ושענש ןילוח.
49

Shammai's position first, whereas the third opens with Hillel’s. The third debate is
distinctive in that the rejection of the positions of Shammai and Hillel is prompted by the
appearance of two ordinary individuals who give testimony to the opinions of the earlier
sages Shma‘ayah and Avt[alyon.
The second (with the exception of a postscript) and third debates appear only in
mEd and hence are original to mEd. The first, however, appears verbatim as the opening
mishnah of mNid. Elsewhere 2 we demonstrate that the first two mishnayot (i.e. the first
debate) originated in mNid and were transferred into mEd sometime after the second
generation of Babylonian Amoraim. Hence, these two mishnayot is not original to mEd.
In the debate involving the measurement of flour that necessitates separating
h9allah, Hillel requires a dough of two qabin, Shammai one qab and the Sages, one-and -
one-half. In a later historical period, the mishnah continues, the measurements were
expanded and the one-and-one-half became one-and-one-quarter qabin. R. Yose then
asserts that there must be more than one-and-one-quarter qabin in the dough to require
that h9allah be separated. On the surface the mishnah appears to have been composed in
two layers. The first part contains the opinions of Shammai, Hillel and the Sages. The
second part begins with " תודמה ולידגהשמ"
, and, along with R. Yose’s response to it,
represents a later stage of composition inserted to update the measurements of the
mishnah. The alternative is that the mishnah is an entirely late composition with the
historical stages presented at once. Several factors, however, militate against this
suggestion:
(i) tEd contains our mishnah but the information about the later changes of
measurement appears in a very different form:
2 Chapter Ten, pp. 260-3.
50

אל 'וא
'מכחו
םייבקמ
'וא
ללה הלח בקמ 'מוא
ימש
הלחב ןיבייח הצחמו בק אלא הז 'רבדכ
אלו הז ירבדכ
'ר
ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודימה ולידגיהשמו
. ןיבייח דועו השמח ןירוטפ השמח 'מוא
הסוי
51
אל 'וא
םימכחו םיבקמ 'מוא
ללה הלח בקכ 'וא
יימש
הלחב ביח הצחמו בק אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ
תסיע ידכ םכתסיע המכו םכתסיע ידכ םכיתוסירע
תישאר 'נש
הפיאה תירישע רמועהו 'נש
רמועכ רבדמ תסיע המכו רבדמ
ןהש תירבדמ דועו םיעבר תעבש םימכח ורעש
. תימלשורי הצחמו בק ןהש ןירפיצב ןיעבר תשמח
In the Tosefta no mention is made of R. Yose’s opinion and the rest of the second part
seems to be responding to the first part of the mishnah as if the formulation of ולידגהשמו"
" תודמה was not in its mishnah.
(ii) The first part of the mishnah does not appear anywhere elsewhere but the
second part appears in a similar form in mH9al 2:6:
לטנ . ןיביח םיעבר
3
תשמח ןנסרמו ןבסו ןרואשו םה . הלחב םיביח חמק םיעבר תשמח
. ןירוטפ ולא ירה ןכותל רזחו ןכותמ ןנסרמ
(iii) The formulation of R. Yose’s position, depending upon how one
understands it, could suggest that he was responding to " תודמה ולידגהשמ"
and not to the
earlier parts of the mishnah. Three positions have been suggested to explain R. Yose:
(a) R. Yose agrees that the measurement of the רבדמ תסיע in Sepphorean
units is one-and-one-quarter, but believes that this measurement must be
remaining in the dough after one has separated the h9allah. Since there is
no scripturally required amount for h9allah to be separated other than the
אוהש לכ, one needs one-and-one-quarter qabin plus a tiny amount, so that
when the h9allah is separated, one qab and one quarter remain. 4
3
Tosafot (bPes 48b, bShab 15a) claim that the citation of the mishnah contains the word
"דועו" in accordance with R. Yose.
4 Tos. Sens, 1:2.

(b) R. Yose believes that the הציב of the desert era was slightly larger
than that of the later period 5 and hence a little more flour would be
needed to meet the measurement of the רבדמ תסיע. 6
(c) The dispute between the anonymous tanna and R. Yose revolves
around the enlargement of one sixth which took place in Sepphoris as to
whether it was one sixth of the previous amount, or one
sixth of the total (i.e. one seventh of the original). 7
According to the first two interpretations, R. Yose's comment applies equally to the
words of the earlier “Sages” who assert that the minimum measurement is one-and-one-
half qabin. The formulation of R. Yose's statement suggests that he is responding to the
words of the anonymous tanna (i.e., " ולידגהשמ"
) alone and not that which comes earlier -
if R. Yose were formulating his response to the entire mishnah, his additional
measurement should have appeared in connection with the one-and-one-half of the
Sages as well. If one opts for the third interpretation, however, there is nothing that may
be inferred from the absence of comment by R. Yose since his modification is only
relevant to the change in measurement which took place in S9epphoris.
The conclusion of the second debate, i.e. that the minimum amount of dough
which mandates the separation of h9allah is one-and-one-quarter qabin, is assumed
5 The הציב was the most basic unit of measurement and whose size was not consciously
increased - only the qabin were enlarged.
6 Tos. Sens, ibid.
7 Ra'avad, ibid.
52

throughout mH9al. It has been suggested that mH9al 4:1 contains echoes of the position
of Hillel but the assertion is questionable. 8 The conclusion of the third debate, i.e. that
three lugin of drawn water invalidate a ritual-bath, is uniformly assumed throughout
mMiq. 9
Summary: The first two mishnayot originate in mNid and were copied into mEd long
after the close of the tannaitic period, but the last two originated in mEd.
II. Eduyot 1:5-7 - The Meaning of Rejected Opinions
( ו-ד:
א)
ז-ה:
א תוידע
ןלטבל ללהו ימש ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו
. ןהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא ירהש ורבד לע דמוע םדא אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל
8
Maimonides, subsequently echoed by many later commentators, asserts that mHal 4:1
adheres to the opinion of Hillel:
. םירוטפ דחא ןיממ םה ולפא הזב הז ועגנו ןיבק ינש ושעש םישנ יתש
. רוטפ ונימב אלשו ביח ונימב ןימ תחא השא לש םהש ןמזבו
Maimonides assumes that the mishnah chose the measurement of one qab because when
two of them combined one would have the exact measurement of dough required for the
separation of h9allah. Had the working assumption been that five-quarter qabin was the
required amount it could have chosen three-quarter qabin as the amount in the dough of
each of the women. Similarly, one might adduce mHal 2:4 as reflecting this view:
. וכושיש דע הלחה ןמ םירוטפ הזב הז ועגנו םיבק ותסע השועה
. הלחל ןפרצמ לסה לסל ןתונו הדורה ףא רמוא רזעילא יבר
It is possible, of course, that the mishnah prefers to work with whole numbers and not
fractional ones and hence chose one qab since when alone it is less than the required
amount but when doubled is more.
A careful examination of tHal 2:3-5 demonstrates that its formulators chose to
use whole qabin (in 2:3 and 2:4) despite the fact that they clearly reject Hillel’s position
in 2:5 (which is a continuation of the previous two laws). Thus, the choice of whole
qabin must reflect literary considerations and we can then assume that the same holds
true in the mishnah.
9 See mMiq 2:4, 2:6, 3:1-4, 6:4, 6:11, 7:2-3 and 7:5.
53

י
ןיבורמה ירבדכ אלא הכלה ןיאו ליאוה ןיבורמה ן ב דיחי ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו
וילע ךומסיו דיחיה ירבד תא ןיד תיב הארי םאש
ןיינימבו המכחב ונממ לודג אהיש דע וריבח ןיד תיב ירבד תא לטבל לוכי ןיד תיב ןיאש
אהיש דע ורבד תא לטבל לוכי וניא המכחב אל לבא ןינימב ןיינימב אל לבא המכחב ונממ לודג היה
. ןיינימבו המכחב ונממ לודג
ןלטבל ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המל ןכ םא הדוהי 'ר
'מא
. התעמש 'לפ
שיא ירבדמ ול ורמאו לבוקמ ינא ךכ םדא רמאי םאש
Why do we mention the opinions of Shammai and Hillel to nullify them (i.e. if they are
for naught)?
To teach future generations not to stubbornly adhere to one’s opinion since the Fathers
of the World did not stubbornly adhere to their opinions.
Why do we mention the opinions of the minority along with the majority if the law is in
accordance with the majority?
For if the court shall be aware of the minority opinion, it may rely upon it.
For a court may not overturn the ruling of another court unless it is greater in knowledge
and number:
If it is greater than it in knowledge but not number, or in number but not in knowledge,
it may not overturn its ruling until it is greater in knowledge and number.
R. Yehudah says, "If so why do we mention the opinions of the minority along with the
majority if the law is in accordance with the majority?
So that if someone will say, “This is what I have received as a tradition”, they can say to
him, “You have heard [a tradition] in accordance with the opinion of so-and-so” ".
This section of mishnayot is a kind of commentary on the mishnah or mishnayot that
precede it. Aside from two of the phrases which appear here ( ירבדכ ,'וגו
לוכי ןיד תיב ןיא
תעמש ינולפ שיא), the only extant parallels or citations in Rabbinic literature are in tEd;
thus the entire section is original to mEd.
III. The Debates of the Houses and Shammai
( ז:
א)
ח:
א תוידע
השולשמ ןיב םינשמ ןיב םימצעה
ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ימש תיב
ןיינימה בורמ וא ןייניבה בורמ איווגה
ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ללה תיבו
דחא םצעמ וליפא
'מוא
ימש
54

Beit Shammai say, “A quarter [qab] of bones from [a pile of] bones, be it from two or
three, conveys ritual impurity.”
Beit Hillel say, “A quarter [qab] of bones from the body, from a majority of the build
or a majority numerically.”
Shammai says, “Even from one bone.”
This mishnah is the first of four debates which include the opinions of both Houses
and that of the elder Shammai himself (who differed with his students). The debate
centers on the definition of the quarter-qab of bones from a corpse which conveys
ritual impurity through the medium of ohel. Beit Shammai rule that the quarter-qab
defiles regardless of which bones in the body it comes from, provided that it comes
from more than one bone. Beit Hillel assert that the quarter-qab must come from the
bones which comprise the majority of the height of the body, i.e. the legs. 10 Shammai
rules that even if the quarter-qab derives from one bone, it is sufficient.
This mishnah appears nowhere else in the Mishnah and therefore must be
original to mEd. The position of Beit Hillel is assumed in mAh 2:1:
... ןינמה בורמ וא ןינבה בורמ תומצע עבור ... תמה להאב ןיאמטמ ולאו
The following impart ritual-impurity of a dead person via a common
roof ... A quarter-qab of bones from the majority of the height or a
numerical majority.
( ח:
א)
ט:
א תוידע
: המורת ינישרכ
האמוטב ןיליכאמו הרהטב ןיפשו ןירוש םירמוא יאמש תיב
האמוטב ןיליכאמו ןיפשו הרהטב ןירוש םירמוא ללה תיב
10
This follows the interpretation of bNaz 52b. A simpler rendering of the term " הייוג"
might have been “torso”, but for our purposes here it is not significant.
55

56
דירצ ולכאי רמוא יאמש
האמוטב םהישעמ לכ רמוא אביקע יבר
Vetch kernels of terumah:
Beit Shammai say, “One must soak and rub [them] guarding their ritual
purity, but may defile them while feeding [them to an animal].”
Beit Hillel say, “One must soak [them] guarding their ritual purity, but
may defile them while rubbing them or feeding [them to an animal].”
Shammai says, “They must be fed without moisture.”
R. Akiva says, “All of their actions may be done without regards to ritualimpurity.”
The mishnah discusses the status of vetch, a bean which was usually used for animal
fodder, with respect to terumah. Ordinarily, food eaten only by animals is not subject
to tithing; but because humans might occasionally eat vetch, there was a rabbinic
obligation to tithe. Consequently, greater leniencies were shown in the handling of
vetch than in other produce. Three of the four opinions in the mishnah permit one to
defile the vetch at one stage or another; i.e. the closer one is to feeding it to the animal,
the more permissive one may be.. Only Shammai categorically prohibits allowing the
vetch to come in contact with water 11 when someone ritually impure is handling it.
This mishnah is found in parallel in mMS 2:4 coupled with a discussion of
vetch of ma(aser sheni:
רמוא ןופרט יבר ואמטנ ןיאצויו םלשוריל םיסנכנו םינוחמצ ולכאי ינש רשעמ ינישרכ
ודפי םירמוא םימכחו תוסעל וקלחתי
ללה תיבו האמוטב ןיליכאמו
הרהטב ןיפשו ןירוש םירמוא יאמש תיב המורת לשו
אביקע יבר דירצ ולכאי רמוא יאמש האמוטב ןיליכאמו ןיפשו הרהטב ןירוש םירמוא
. האמוטב ןהישעמ לכ רמוא
11
Which creates the susceptibility to ritual impurity for any food. (Lev. 11:34,
mMakh 6:5-6)

Vetch kernels of the second tithe should be eaten fresh and may be
taken out of Jerusalem after having entered. If they become ritually
defiled: R. T9arfon says, “They may be apportioned to separate batches
of dough” but the Sages say, “They should be redeemed”.
And that (i.e. vetch) of terumah ... (See the translation of the mishnah
above.)
The original location of this mishnah is difficult to determine. The parallel mMS is
fully integrated into its context as it relies upon the antecedent ינישרכ from the
preceding clause. Either mishnah could have been formed from the other: mEd could
have been created from mMS by substituting the antecedent (" ינישרכ")
found in the
first half of mMS in place of the relative pronoun " לשו"
. Alternatively, mMS could
have been formed by replacing the " ינישרכ"
of mEd with " לשו"
and relying upon the
antecedent (" ינישרכ")
found in first half of mMS.
The fact that the mishnah is found in mMS and not in mTer is surprising. 12
Had both halves of mMS appeared in mEd one could conclude that mEd was the
original context. In its absence, however, there is no reason to assume that it was
taken directly from mEd. On the other hand, its presence in mMS where it is
irrelevant suggests that the redactor had in front of him a unit of material which
contained both halves and left it intact. We can only speculate that such a unit could
very well have served as the source both for mEd and mMS.
57
13
( םלשוריב)
( אי-י:
א)
בי-אי:
א תוידע
יניש רשעמ לש תועממ עלס טרופה
12
mTer 11:9 discusses vetch that is terumah and would have been appropriate for our
mishnah.
13
The text of MS Kaufmann in Eduyot contains " םלשוריב"
in this mishnah. The word

תועמ עלסה לכ 'וא
ימש תיב
תועמ לקשו ףסכ לקש 'וא
ללה תיבו
. ןיריתמ
'מכחו
ףסכה לע תורפו ףסכ ןיללחמ ןיא 'וא
ריאמ 'ר
םלשוריב יניש רשעמ לש עלס טרופה
תועמ עלסה לכב 'וא
ימש תיב
תועמ לקשו ףסכ לקש 'מוא
ללה תיבו
תועמ רנידבו ףסכ ןירניד השלשב 'וא
'מכח
ינפל םינדה
תועמ תיעיברבו ףסכ תיעבירבו ףסכ ןירניד השלשב 'וא
הביקע 'רו
ףסכ ירפסא תעברא 'וא
ןופרט 'רו
. הדגנכ לכאויו תונחב הניחיני 'וא
ימש
One who wished to consolidate a sela(s worth of ma(aser sheni money:
Beit Shammai say, “[He should convert] all of the ma(ot into a sela(.”
Beit Hillel say, “[He should convert half into] a silver sheqel and half [he should
leave] as ma(ot.”
R. Meir says, “One might not redeem money and produce onto money” and the
Sages permit.
One who wishes to make change of a sela( of ma(aser sheni money in Jerusalem:
Beit Shammai say, “[He should convert] the entire sela( into ma(ot.”
Beit Hillel say, “[He should convert half into] a silver sheqel and [half] into a sheqel’s
worth of ma(ot.”
Those who debate before the Sages say, “[He should convert it into] three silver
dinarim and one dinar’s worth of ma(ot.”
R. Akiva says, “[He should convert it into] three silver dinarim and the fourth [he
should divide] into [half] silver and [half] ma(ot.”
R. T9arfon says, “[He should convert only] fourth aspar’s [worth into ma(ot].”
Shammai says, “He should leave it in the store and eat its worth (i.e. deposit it as a
house account).”
The discussion of these mishnayot, both found verbatim in mMS (2:8-9), must
begin with whether or not the first of the two was, as best we can judge, part of mEd at
the close of the Mishnah. Most commentators and scholars are puzzled by the
presence of the first mishnah because, unlike the surrounding mishnayot, Shammai’s
opinion is absent. Three of the manuscripts (MSS Parma 984, Munich 95, and
is missing in every other witness including the parallel in MS Kaufmann in mMS
(2:8). It is almost certainly a scribal error due to the identical phrase in the next
mishnah in mEd (1:12) which contains the word " םלשוריב"
.
58

Cambridge) are missing it completely, and MS Parma 138 has it written in the margin.
This led Albeck 14 and Epstein 15 to conclude that the mishnah was a late (scribal)
addition from the parallel in mMS.
This conclusion is not justified because the manuscript evidence is weak. The
scribe of Munich 95 regularly omitted lines through homoioteleuton and archton, and
the other manuscripts are relatively late. The only important manuscript purported to
be lacking the mishnah is MS Parma 138 (11 th century). Epstein writes, “And in
Parma it was written in the margin by another hand”. 16 While probably correct that
the marginal scribe was not the same as the one who wrote the manuscript, he
overlooks one very crucial detail. The numbering of the mishnayot in MS Parma,
which was done by the original scribe 17 , skips a number following this mishnah. This
mishnah is numbered ' י'
and the following one is numbered ' בי'.
The most likely
explanation is that the scribe of the manuscript was copying from a manuscript which
(a) possessed mishnah numbers and (b) contained both of these mishnayot. After he
began copying mishnah ' י'
(the one which is contested), he must have committed a
homoioteleuton (or archton) error 18 and ended up writing the next mishnah and then
14 Untersuchungen uber der Redaktion der Mischnah, p. 113.
15 Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, p. 964.
16 ibid.
17 The script and size are identical to the rest of the writing.
18
Both mishnayot begin with the same sentence, " ינש רשעמ תועמ לש עלס טרופה"
.
59

he continued with mishnah ' בי'.
Parma 138, then, should be counted with those
manuscripts which attest to the presence, not absence, of the mishnah in mEd.
That said, the fundamental point of Epstein and Albeck is correct: the mishnah
does stand out. How did it find its way into MEd? Would anyone have intentionally
interpolated it here, given that it fundamentally does not belong? It is easier to see how
a scribe might have omitted it because of the problem then it is to see how it might
have been inserted. In the absence of clear evidence, we must at least consider the
possibility that this mishnah was originally part of mEd and that the incongruity is due
to the fact that these two mishnayot formed a natural unit which the redactor did not
want to break up. That unit was either from mMS or a common source, but not
original to mEd. 19 Were one to accept Epstein and Albeck’s thesis, however, the
presence of the first mishnah (1:10) in our mEd does not demonstrate that the second
(1:11) is not original to mEd.
An analysis of the second mishnah in its own right, however, suggests that it
was not originally formulated in the context of mEd. In the middle of the mishnah, we
find three opinions from the Yavneh generation which are irrelevant here in that they
belong neither to the Houses nor to Shammai. Additions to mishnayot in mEd of later
19
We cannot be reasonably sure that is was originally formulated in the context of
mMS because the language of the unit is not clearly tied to its surroundings there.
This is not to say that it appears to be an external formulation which was introduced
into mMS, but rather that it does not stand out clearly as having been formulated in its
context there. The term " טרופה"
used in reference to converting one currency to
another is unique to these mishnayot. The verb is found in four other places, but all of
that simply connote counting out (two with money and two with seeds).
60

generations 20 occur in a number of places, but always at the end of the mishnah. In
mEd 1:9, R. Akiva’s opinion was added at the end, after Shammai’s opinion. The
reason for inserting the Yavneh opinions in between is obvious; i.e. they are listed in
numerical order. From an editorial perspective, this choice makes a great deal more
sense in the context of mMS where the primary topic of discussion is ma(aser sheni,
than in mEd where the focus was on three way debates between the Houses and
Shammai. This observation, combined with the presence of the first mishnah (1:10),
which does not belong at all, leads us to conclude that both mishnayot were transferred
into mEd (as a unit) from another source.
. אמט אסכלש ןיבלמ ףא 'מוא
ימש
. הב יושעה ףא 'וא
ימש
61
( אי:
א)
בי:
א תוידע
ויופח ולטינש הלכלש אסכ
ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב
הבירעב ועבקש
אסכ
ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב
The chair of a bride the slats of which were removed:
Beit Shammai say, “The chair is [still] ritually impure.”
Beit Hillel say, “The chair is no longer ritually impure.”
Shammai says, “Even the frame of the seat[’s removal does remove the ritually
impure status].”
A chair which he set into a kneading trough:
Beit Shammai say, “The chair is [still] ritually impure.”
Beit Hillel say, “The chair is no longer ritually impure.”
Shammai says, “Even if the chair was originally manufactured in the kneading
trough [it is still susceptible to ritual impurity].”
20 I use the term later here only in the sense of the generation to which the mishnah’s
formulator attributes it; we do not assume at this stage of the study that mEd must be
early.

The mishnah records two three-way debates between the Houses and
Shammai. Both deal with the ritual impurity status of a wooden chair which has been
altered with the possible result that it becomes no longer susceptible to impurity. 21
The first case deals with a scenario in which parts of a chair (specifically, a bride’s
chair) are broken. The second relates to a situation where someone takes what was
once used for a chair and sets it into a kneading tray to use it for a purpose for which it
is no longer susceptible to the impurity of midras because it is no longer intended for
sitting.
The mishnah appears verbatim in the mKel (22:4). The chapter there deals
with wooden vessels (mostly chairs) and its organization suggests that the material
was formulated outside of mKel and placed there as a unit. The first eight (out of ten)
mishnayot in the chapter all deal with a wooden vessel where a part or parts were
removed, all but the first using the root nt[l. The first three mishnayot discuss the
shulh9an (table) and the safsal (bench) from which a part was removed, and the fourth
through seventh all discuss the kisse (chair). The second half of the fourth mishnah
(our mishnah), " הבירעב ועבקש אסכ"
, does not belong, conceptually or linguistically, to
this series; the more appropriate location is in the twentieth chapter of mKel. There
we find a series of mishnayot that deal with transforming the purpose of (wooden)
21 Or if it was already ritually impure, that impurity is removed.
62

vessels 22 and the consequences for their ritual purity. Most striking are the fourth and
fifth mishnayot:
הבישיל הניקתהו םינומר לבקלמ התחפנש הלודג הבירע
עצקיש דע ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ ע"
ר
. האמט לתוכב העבקש
פ"
עא המהבל סובא האשע
A large tray [the bottom of] which has been damaged so that (because
of the hole) it can no longer contain pomegranates and he designates it
for sitting on:
R. Akiva says that it is susceptible to ritual impurity but the Sages
declare it unsusceptible until he evens out [the rim]. If he makes it into
a trough for an animal even though he has fixed it to the wall it is
susceptible.
. רוהט וילע הנבו ועבק . אמט ועבק אלו וילע הנב , וילע הנב אלו ועבק ךבדנב ועבקש
תפוכ
אלו הביזעמה תא וילע ןתנ הביזעמה תא וילע ןתנ אלו ועבק תורוקה יבג לע ונתנש ץפמ
רוהט הביזעמה תא וילע ןתנו ועבק אמט ועבק
. הרוהט
התלבק ךרדכ אלש האמט התלבק ךרדכ לדגמו הבית הדישב העבקש
הרעק
A basket of date leaves which he fixed on to the building: If he fixed it
but did not build on top of it or if he built on top of it but did not fix it,
it is [still] susceptible to ritual impurity. If he fixed it and built on top
of it, it is not (i.e. no longer) susceptible.
A mat which he place on top of the beams: If he fixed it but did not
place the ceiling plaster on it or if he placed the ceiling plaster on it but
did not fix it, it is [still] susceptible to ritual impurity. If he fixed it and
placed the ceiling plaster on it, it is not (i.e. no longer) susceptible.
A pot which he fixed in a box, chest or armoire: [if top up] in the
manner that it can contain matter it is susceptible to ritual-impurity, but
if not in the manner that it can contain matter it is not susceptible.
Conceptually and literarily, the discussion of " הבירעב ועבקש אסכ"
fits there perfectly.
Hence we assume that the mishnah is original to mEd.
22 And not the removal of parts.
IV. The Four Retractions of Beit Hillel
63

( בי:
א)
די-גי:
א תוידע
ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזחש ןירבד ולא
םביתית ילעב תמ אשנית ילעב תמ הרמאו םיה תנידממ תאבש השאה
דבלב ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל 'וא
ללה תיבו
ריצקב ורביד אל םיה תנידממ האבה תחאו ןיתיזה ןמ האבה תחאו ריצקה ןמ האבה תחא ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
הווהב אלא
. ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ה' 'ל
ללה תיב ורזח
הבותכ לוטיתו אשנית 'מוא
ימש תיב
הבותכ לוטית אלו אשנית 'וא
ללה תיבו
לקה ןוממה תא וריתת אלו הרומחה
היירעה תא םתרתיה ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
היפ לע הלחנב םיסנכינ םיחאה ןיאש וניצמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא
ךיל בותכש המ ילטית רחאל אשנת םאש הל בתוכ אוהש דמלנ התבותכ רפסמ
אלהו ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
ימש תיב ירבדכ תודהל ללה תיב ורזח
In the following matters Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and admitted to the position
of Beit Shammai:
A woman who came (i.e. returned) from overseas and said, “My husband has died”
may remarry or marry the levir
Beit Hillel say, “We have received such a tradition only with respect to a woman who
comes from the harvest.”
Beit Shammai said to them, “Whether she came from the grain-harvest, the olivepicking
or overseas [the law is the same] – the Sages formulated in terms of typical
cases.”
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and agreed with the position of Beit Shammai.
Beit Shammai say, “She may remarry and collect her ketubah [from the first
husband’s estate].”
Beit Hillel say, “She may remarry but may not collect her ketubah.”
Beit Shammai said to them, “You have permitted the [potentially] grave prohibition of
ervah and you will not permit the lesser concern of money!
Beit Hillel said, “Do we not see that the heirs may not take possession of the estate
based upon her testimony (i.e. one sees that her testimony is not efficacious with
respect to other monetary matters)
Beit Shammai said, “Can we not learn from the text her ketubah since he writes to her
that ‘If you marry another man you will collect your ketubah’”!
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and agreed with the position of Beit Shammai.
The mishnah records two related disputes between the Houses, in which Beit Hillel
ultimately retract their opinion and concur with Beit Shammai. Both involve a woman
who asserts that her husband has died but cannot produce the two eyewitnesses
64

equired (in principle) to establish her eligibility to remarry. Beit Hillel had originally
limited the permission of such a woman to remarry to very narrow circumstances but
subsequently concede that the precedent should be construed broadly. They also had
ruled that such a woman was permitted to remarry, so as not to remain an agunah, but
was not allowed to collect her ketubah. Subsequently, they concede to Beit Shammai
that the ketubah is tied to the woman’s ability to remarry, and since she may remarry
she may also collect her ketubah.
Both mishnayot appear in mYev 15:1-3, although the presentation of the first
differs significantly: 23
גי:
א תויודע הנשמ
םיה תנידממ האבש השאה
ילעב תמ אשנת ילעב תמ הרמאו
םביתת
םירמוא ללה תיבו
ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל
... דבלב
65
א:
וט תומבי הנשמ
הלעבו איה הכלהש השאה
הניבל וניב םולש , םיה תנידמל
התאבו , םלועב םולשו
ילעב תמ אשנת ילעב תמ הרמאו
. םביתת
םלועב המחלמו הניבל וניב םולש
םלועב םולשו הניבל וניב הטטק
הניא ילעב תמ הרמאו התאבו
םלועל רמוא הדוהי יבר תנמאנ
התאב ןכ םא אלא תנמאנ הניא
ול ורמא ןיעורק הידגבו הכוב
: אשנת וז תחאו וז תחא
םירמוא ללה תיב
ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל
. .. דבלב
mYev 15:1 (for a translation of mEd, see the mishnah above.)
23 There are other differences found throughout the second part of the first case in the
mishnah in the Bavli, but they are all attributable to the influence of the Bavli on the
text of the sugya, and do not appear in the manuscripts of the mishnah of mYev. We
will discuss these changes in the chapter concerning Eduyot in the Bavli.

A woman who travels overseas with her husband:
When there is harmony between them and no war in the world and she
comes and says, “My husband has died”, she may remarry or marry the
levir.
If there was harmony between them but war in the world; or strife
between them but no war in the world and she comes and says, “My
husband has died”, she is not believed.
R. Yehudah says, “She is never believed unless she comes crying with
torn clothing”. They said to him, “This one and that one (i.e. one who
was not crying or was not wearing torn clothing) may remarry.
Beit Hillel say, “We have only heard [of this leniency] when she comes
from the harvest.”
The first part of the mishnah appears to have been adapted within the context of mYev
to allow an expansion on the discussion. The section dealing with R. Yehudah
interrupts the flow between Beit Shammai’s opinion and that of Beit Hillel. This
interruption probably influenced the text of the next section which dropped the
conjunctive vav from " םירמוא ללה תיב"
24 because there was almost no apparent
linguistic connection to suggest that Beit Hillel were arguing against what came
before. 25 A clearer sign of the adaptation is the language employed in each place. If
the mishnah had been formulated originally in its form in mYev and then reduced for
24 In mYev, the manuscripts uniformly lack the conjunctive vav. In mEd, seven of the
ten MSS have the vav, including MS Kaufmann and Parma 138. Only MSS Parma
984, Munich 95 and Oxford 1272 lack the vav in mEd.
25
This observation only works in one direction. When the Houses present two
opinions, be it in the format of ' א"
הב[
ו]
א"
שב'
or of ' ה"
ב[
ו]
ש"
ב ירבד',
the second opinion
( ללה תיב)
is found with or without the vav. However, when there is no preceding
opinion, the name cannot have the vav. In this case, when the mEd was adapted for
mYev and the lengthy portion was added, the vav had to be dropped. This argument
by itself does not definitively demonstrate that the mishnah was transferred from mEd,
because it is certainly possible that the vav was a scribal addition in mEd; however,
that change would be incidental, not a editorial necessity, since, syntactically
speaking, mEd could read either way.
66

mEd, the redactor of mEd could have stripped out the material that was not directly
pertinent and left the rest intact. That would have yielded the following:
םביתת ילעב תמ אשנת ילעב תמ הרמאו התאבו םיה תנידמל
67
הלעבו איה הכלהש השאה
... םירמוא ללה תיב
A woman who traveled overseas with her husband and returned and
said, “My husband has died” may remarry or marry the levir.
Instead we find:
... א"
הבו םביתת ילעב תמ אשנת ילעב תמ הרמאו
םיה תנידממ האבש השאה
A woman who came (i.e. returned) from overseas and said, “My
husband has died” may remarry or marry the levir.
On the other hand, if he had begun with the version in mEd, the redactor would have
been compelled to modify mEd, because he needed to include mention of the husband
as the antecedent for " הניבל וניב םולש"
; without changing the formulation, " וניב"
would
have no antecedent. Hence, the first mishnah is probably original to mEd. The second
mishnah’s origin cannot be determined from its formulation, although since it depends
upon the conclusion (i.e. Beit Hillel’s retraction) of and is appended to the first
mishnah, it is likely one unit with the first and hence original to mEd.
( גי:
א)
הי:
א תוידע
םירוח ןב ויצחו דבע
ויצחש ימ
ללה תיב ירבדכ דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא םוי ובר תא דבוע
םתנקית אל ומצע תאו ובר תא םתנקית 'מוא
ימש תיב
הייבירו הייריפל אלא םלועה ארבינ אל אלהו לטבי לוכי וניא םירוח תב לוכי וניא החפש אשיל
הרצי תבשל הארב והות אל 'נש
וימד יצח לע רטש בתוכו םירוח ןב ותוא השועו ובר תא ןיפוכ
םלועה ןוקית ינפמ אלא
. ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח
One who is half-slave and half-free:

He works for his master one day and for himself the next day according to opinion of
Beit Hillel.
Beit Shammai say, “You have addressed his master’s concerns but not his own:
He cannot marry a maidservant; he cannot marry a free-woman; shall he desist
from marrying? Behold the world was created only for procreation as it says “Not
for naught did he create it, to be settled he fashioned it.”
Instead, because of tiqqun (olam we force the master to make him free and he (i.e. the
half-slave) accepts a debt [to the master] for half of his value.”
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and agreed with the position of Beit Shammai.
The mishnah records a debate between the Houses regarding the practical
arrangements for a half slave-half freeman. 26 As a matter of principle, both agree that
the person should split his time between his master and himself. Beit Shammai,
however, assert that since his mixed status impedes his ability to marry and procreate,
his owner must free him in exchange for a promise of compensation. Beit Hillel
subsequently acknowledge Beit Shammai’s position.
The mishnah is found verbatim in mGit[ in the middle of a sequence of
mishnayot which all mention tiqqun ha(olam. There is no evidence to indicate the
location of the mishnah’s original formulation.
( די:
א)
וי:
א תוידע
ללה תיב ירבדכ לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ
סרח ילכ לעו םיקשמה לעו
םילכאה לע אלא ליצמ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב
המ ינפמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא
ץצוח אמט ילכ ןיאו ץראה םע בג לע אמט אוהש ינפמ ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכא םתרהיט אלהו ללה תיב ןהל ורמא
התרהיט ילכה תא התרהיטשכ לבא ונרהיט ומצעל
וכותבהש
םיקשמו םילכא ונרהיטשכ ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
ולו ךל
. ימש
תיב ירבידכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח
26 The issue is not relevant in the case of a maidservant because women are not
obligated in the commandment of procreation. Cf. mYev 6:6.
68

Earthenware vessels [sealed by a tight seal] protect all of their contents [from ritualdefilement
in an ohel 27 ] according to the opinion of Beit Hillel
Beit Shammai say, “They only protect food, liquid and other earthenware vessels.”
Beit Hillel said to them, “Why?”
Beit Shammai said to them, “Because they (the earthenware vessels) are ritually
impure because of the impurity of an (am ha)ares9 and a ritually impure vessel
cannot block ritual impurity.
Beit Hillel said to them, “But have you not declared pure the food and liquid
contained within?
Beit Shammai said to them, “When we declared pure the food and liquid in it, we
have done so for him (i.e. only for the (am ha)ares9, because a h9aver would never
borrow anything from a non-h9aver without purifying it in a ritual-bath, and food
and liquid, once defiled, cannot be purified) but if you declare the [nonearthenware]
vessel pure, you have done so for yourself and for him.”
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and agreed with the position of Beit Shammai.
The mishnah records a debate between the Houses regarding the ability of a
sealed 28 earthenware vessel to shield its contents. 29 On a theoretical plane, a sealed
earthen vessel ( ליתפ דימצ ףקומ)
should protect all of it contents from ritual impurity. 30
27 A corpse (or even certain parts of a corpse) which is located under a roof (ohel)
defiles anything which is found under that same roof.
28 mAh 5:2-4 speaks about a case where the bottom of an earthenware vessel is being
used to seal up a hole between the house and its attic to prevent the impurity from
spreading up into the attic. The debate there is about the contents of the attic.
Conceptually speaking, the issue is the same as in our mishnah, but the simple reading
of the mishnah suggests the scenario of ליתפ דימצ because in the discussion the Houses
both refer to items וכותבש, i.e. items inside the vessel. mAh, however, focuses on the
contents of the attic, not of the vessel.
29 The general rule is that only those things that can become an av hatum)ah can be
purified by immersion in a ritual bath; solid food, liquids and earthenware vessels
which cannot become an av hatum)ah cannot be purified through immersion (bEruv
104b).
30 See Num. 19:15, mKel 9:1-2.
69

Beit Shammai, however, are concerned about tum)at (am ha)aretz 31 and, therefore,
limit the protection to those items a h9aver would not use anyway. The mishnah as
formulated has no parallels, but the application of the debate and mention of Beit
Hillel’s retraction are found in two places. mKel 9:1 reads:
תמה להאב הנותנו ליתפ דימצ תפקומ הכותב תקינמו ןירוהט ןיקשמ האלמ איהש תיבח
האמט תקינמו ןירוהט ןיקשמהו תיבחה םירמוא יאמש תיב
הרוהט תקינמ ףא םירמוא ללה תיבו
. יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל ללה תיב ורזח
A barrel which contains ritually pure liquid and a straw and is sealed
with a tight seal and placed under a common roof with a corpse:
Beit Shammai say, “The barrel and liquid remain pure, but the straw is
defiled.”
Beit Hillel say, “Even the straw is pure.”
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and admitted to the position of Beit
Shammai.
The mishnah is a specific application of the general rule of mEd. mKel lacks any
explanation for the debate and therefore cannot be the source for the formulation of
mEd. The reverse, i.e. that the general principle of mEd was used to formulate the
specific case there, is possible but not provable.
The second case is mAh 5:3-4:
לכה לע תלצמ םירמוא ה"
ב המילש התיה
סרח ילכ לעו םיקשמה לעו םילכואה לע אלא תלצמ הניא א"
שב
: ש"
ב ירבדכ תורוהל ה"
ב ורזח
ןניפ םאו ןירוהט ןיקשמהו העבש תאמוט אמט ןיגלה ןירוהט ןיקשמ אלמ אוהש ןיגל
ןיאמט רחא ילכב
םאו רוהט קצבהו העבש תאמוט םיאמט הבירעהו השאה הבירעב השל איהש השאה
אמט רחא ילכל ותניפ
31 If a vessel that is sealed is itself ritually impure, it cannot protect its contents. Thus
Beit Shammai believe that since the vessels of an (am ha)aretz are by definition
impure, the contents will be defiled even when the vessel is sealed.
70

. ש"
ב ירבדכ תורוהל ה"
ב ורזח
If the [earthenware vessel filling the hole between the house and the attic] was
whole:
Beit Hillel say, “It protects everything [from being defiled].”
Beit Shammai say, “It protects only food, liquid and other earthenware
vessels.”
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and admitted to the position of Beit
Shammai.
A container which is full of ritually pure liquid [and in the attic]: the container
is defiled for seven days 32 but the liquid is pure; but if he pours it into another
container it becomes defiled.
A woman who was kneading in a trough [in the attic]: the woman and the
trough are defiled for seven days but the dough is pure; but if he empties it into
another container it becomes defiled.
Beit Hillel retracted their opinion and admitted to the position of Beit
Shammai.
The mishnah in mAh involves a case of a hole between the house and its attic,
on top of which was placed an earthenware vessel to block the impurity from
spreading from the house into the attic. The preceding mishnah discusses a situation
in which there is a hole in the vessel. This mishnah follows by asserting that in the
case where the vessel is whole the issue was debated by the Houses and that Beit
Hillel later retracted. The second mishnah deals with an apparent conundrum within
Beit Shammai’s ruling. If there were food contained within a non-earthenware vessel
in the attic, the vessel would be impure and the food it was holding would be pure.
The mishnah explains that the food retains its purity until it is removed from the
vessel. Once removed, it may not be returned without becoming defiled. 33 The
32 The minimum period of ritual impurity which results from contact with a corpse.
33
This appears to be a response posed by R. Yehoshua in tAh 5:11 and in the parallel
in bH9ag 22b.
71

mishnah closes with an acknowledgement that Beit Hillel retracted their view even
though Beit Hillel’s dissenting opinion was not discussed at all in this mishnah. Its
presence suggests an almost haphazard attempt to insert into mKel that Beit Hillel had
retracted their opinion. If, in fact, this last " ורזח"
is not simply a scribe’s error, it
suggests that somebody was drawing upon outside material, trying to incorporate it
here. Whichever the case, mEd could not have been formulated from the information
in mAh alone; the reverse is possible, but not provable.
V. Summary
Seven of the sixteen mishnayot found in the chapter (3-8, 16) certainly
originate in mEd as they are not found elsewhere in the Mishnah. Two (1-2) are an
amoraic or post-amoraic addition. The formulations of three more (12-14; and
perhaps 16 as well) suggest that they were originally found in mEd and subsequently
inserted into the other tractates. In two cases (9,15) it is difficult to even speculate as
to the origins of the mishnah. Finally, it is conceivable that two mishnayot (10-11)
originated in the parallel location and were subsequently transferred into mEd.
Of the five mishnayot that are content oriented (as opposed to methodological
discourse of 1:5-7) and do not appear elsewhere in the Mishnah (1,3,4,8,16), their
conclusions are always the working assumptions elsewhere in the Mishnah.
72

Chapter Two
Eduyot Chapter Two
I. The Testimonies of R. H9anania
( ג-א:
ב)
ד-א:
ב תוידע
אמטינש רשבה תא ףורשלמ וענמינ אל םינהכלש םהימימ םירבד העברא דיעה םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
. ותאמוט לע האמוט
ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא האמוטה באב אמטינש רשבה םע האמוטה דלווב
אמטינש רנב םוי לובטיב לספינש ןמשה תא קילדהלמ וענמינ אל םינהכלש םהימימ הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה
. ותאמוט לע האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא תמ אמטב
הפירשה תיבל אצוי רוע יתיאר אל יימימ םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
'מא
ורועב םינהכה ותואיש הפירט אצמינו
רוכבה תא שיטפמהש ונדמל וירבדמ הביקע 'ר
'מא
. הפירשה תיבל אצי אלא היאר וניאר אל ןה 'מוא
'מכחו
בתוכו רפכה ינב לכל הוולמ היהו דחא ןקז וב היהו 'שורי
דצב היהש ןטק רפכ לע דיעה אוה ףא
וריתיהו ןימכח ינפל השעמ אבו ןימתוח ןירחאו ודי בתכב
וימתוחב אלא טגה םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא בתוכ שיאהו
הטיג תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל התא ךכרד יפל
. רוהט לכה שרפב תאצמינ םאו אמט רשבהו תורוהט םידייהו ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמינש טחמה לעו
R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim testified to four matters: “In all their days, the
priests never refrained from burning flesh which had been defiled by a velad
hat[um)ah together with flesh which had been defiled by an av hat[um)ah even
though they add a level of ritual impurity.”
R. Akiva added: “The priests never refrained from burning oil which had been
defiled by a t[evul yom 1 together with oil which had been defiled by an t[emei meit 2
even though they add a level of ritual impurity.”
R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim said, “In my entire life I have never seen a hide
being taken out to the place of burning.”
R. Akiva said, “From his words we learn that one who is stripping the hide of a
first-born and it is found to be a t[ereifah that the priests may keep its hide”.
1
A ritually impure person who has immersed in the ritual-bath, but is waiting for the sun
to set to become ritually-pure.
2 A person who has come in contact with a corpse.
73

But the Sages say, " “We have never seen” does not constitute proof; rather the
hide should [also] be taken out to the place of burning."
He also testified about a small village near Jerusalem in which there was an elder
who would lend to all of the citizens writing [the loan document] in his own hand
while others would sign [as witnesses] and when matter was brought before the
Sages they approved the practice.
Incidentally, one learns that a woman may write her own bill of divorce and a
man may write his own receipt [for the ketubah] because the validity of a
document derives from its signatories.
and about a needle which was found in the flesh [of the intestines of a sacrifice]
that the knife and the hands [of the priest] are ritually pure and the flesh is
impure; and that if it was discovered in the excrement that everything is ritually
pure.
Four testimonies of R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim comprise the first unit of the
chapter, the first two of which are expanded upon by R. Akiva. The first two of the
testimonies appear nearly verbatim in mPes 1:7-8 and mZev 12:6, respectively. The
third testimony appears nowhere else, but contains a post-Amoraic gloss ... ךכרד יפל)
( וימתחב which appears in mGit[ 2:5 without the rest of the testimony 3 , and the fourth is
paralleled nowhere else. 4 J.N. Epstein suggests that the absence of "דיעה אוה ףא" at the
beginning of the second mishnah here, in conjunction with its appearance in mZev,
indicates that the formulator (" הנוש")
of the first mishnah did not have the second
testimony in his Eduyot and that the "four" testimonies here are the three of R. H9anania
3 See Chapter Ten, pp. 263-6.
4
The closest parallel is tH9ul 3:11:
. הלוספ ןידדצ ינסמ הרשכ דחא דצמ תיארנש ןמזב תוסוכה תיב יבועב תאצמנש טחמ
MS Paris seems to read סרכב in Eduyot instead of שרפב, which might be under the
influence of the Tosefta.
74

(1,3,4) and the addition of R. Akiva in the first testimony. 5 He further posits that the
formulator of the second mishnah either did not have the "ףיסוה" of R. Akiva in the first
mishnah, or treated them one testimony. We shall return to Epstein's suggestion after our
analysis of the sources.
The first testimony of R. H9anania is introduced in mPes without the use of the
term “he(id”. Its absence is striking in that in every other occurrence of the term “he(id”
in mEd which has an identical parallel in the Mishnah and cites the tradent of the
testimony, the term “he(id” is preserved. 6 mPes cites both the statement of R. H9anania
and the expansion of R. Akiva and then continues:
. חספב האמטה םע הרוהט המורת ןיפרושש ונדמל םהירבדמ ריאמ יבר רמא
. הדמה איה הניא יסוי יבר ול רמא
. המצעל וזו המצעל
וז ןיפרושש עשוהי יברו רזעילא יבר םידומו
האמטה לעו היולתה לע וקלחנ המ לע
. תחאכ ןהיתש רמוא עשוהי יברו המצעל וזו המצעל וז ףרשת רמוא רזעילא יברש
R. Meir said, “From their words we learn that one may burn ritually
impure terumah together with ritually pure terumah during Passover.”
R. Yose said to him, “The analogy is not correct.
R. Eliezer and Yehoshua agree that each must be burned separately.
About what are they in disagreement? About [burning] that which is
doubtfully impure together with the impure – R. Eliezer says, " Each must
be burned separately" and R. Yehoshua says, "Both at the same time." ”
5 Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, p.431.
6 mEd 7:1=mBekh 1:6, mEd 7:2=mTer 10:9, mEd 7:3=mMiq 5:5, mEd 7:5=mNaz 3:2,
mEd 7:6=mTem 3:2, mEd 7:9=mGit 5:5 and mYev 14:3. mEd 8:5=mYev 7:6 is the lone
exception to this rule, but it can hardly be considered an exception since the parallel in
mYev is an expansive account from which it could be reasonably supposed that mEd
was formulated. The rest of the examples are essentially verbatim parallels.
75

At first glance, R. Meir appears to be extrapolating from the views of R. H9anania and R.
Akiva, who allow the defiling of sacral items in the process of destroying them, to the
defiling of terumah in a similar context. R. Yose’s response to R. Meir, however,
suggests that the extrapolation was from the opinions of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer,
which is problematic since neither was cited previously in the mishnah. Thus it is not
surprising when yPes 1:7 cites the following dispute between R. Yoh9anan and Reish
Laqish:
םינהכה ןגס הנינח יבר ירבדמ הביקע יבר ירבדמ ןנחוי יבר רמא
עשוהי יבר ירבדמו רזעילא יבר ירבדמ רמא שיקל ןב ןועמש יבר
אחינ ןנחוי יברד היתעד לע יסי יבר ימוק אריעז יבר רמא
ןאכל עושוי יברו רזעיל יבר אב המ שיקל ןב ןועמש יברד היתעד לע
. ןוניא ןיינת היל רמא
R. Yoh9anan says, “From the words of R. Akiva [and] from the words of
R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim.”
R. Shimon b. Laqish says, “From the words of R. Eliezer [and] from the
words of R. Yehoshua.”
R. Ze(ira said in the presence of R. Yose, “According to R. Yoh9anan it
makes sense, but according to R. Shimon b. Laqish, why are R. Yehoshua
and R. Eliezer relevant here.”
He replied to him, “They are taught.”
They disagree as to the source of R. Meir’s extrapolation; R. Yoh9anan chooses the
obvious antecedent in the mishnah, but Reish Laqish is troubled by the reference to R.
Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in the continuation. R. Ze(ira questions Reish Laqish because
R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua’s positions are not mentioned in the mishnah. R. Yose's
response, "ןוניא ןיינת" is difficult to decipher. Elsewhere, the Yerushalmi uses it, in the
same manner in which the Bavli uses the term "איה יאנת", to express that the two opinions
are a dispute among the tannaim. Obviously, this usage does not fit our context. 7 A
7 See the Qorban Ha)Edah and Pnei Moshe (ad loc.) who struggle to reconcile our text
with the usual meaning. See also Saul Lieberman, HaYerusalmi Ki-Feshuto, p. 384 who
suggests emending the text and reversing the question to direct it against R. Yoh9anan
76

literal translation of the words, "they are taught", suggests that according to Reish Laqish
the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua (as recorded in mTer 8:7-8) are part of the
corpus of the Mishnah here. 8
testimonies:
tPes 1:5 records R. Meir's opinion as a statement independent from the preceding
ריאמ 'ר
ירבד דחאכ הרוהטו האמט
היולת המורת ןיפרוש
המצע ינפב האמטו המצע ינפב הרוהט המצע ינפב היולת 'מוא
םימכחו
האמטה לעו הרוהטה לע עשוהי 'רו
רזעיל 'ר
וקלחנ אל ןועמש 'ר
'מא
המצעב וזו המצע ינפב וז ןיפרושש
האמטה לעו היולתה לע וקלחנ המ לע
תחאכ ןהיתש 'וא
עשוהי 'רו
המצעב וזו המצעב וז ףרשית 'וא
רזעיל 'רש
One may burn ritually impure terumah along with pure terumah
according to R. Meir, but the Sages say, “The doubtful by itself, the
pure by itself and the impure by itself.”
R. Shimon says, “R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua did not disagree about
the pure and the impure that each is burned by itself – about what did
they disagree? About the doubtful and the pure: R. Eliezer says, "Each
is burned by itself" but R. Yehoshua says, "Both [may be burned]
together." ”
According to this tosefta the response in the mishnah of " םידומ"
is that of R. Shimon
(with which R. Yose conceivably may agree) and R. Meir is elaborating upon the
discussion of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua. However, the tosefta immediately following
(and Bokser/Schiffman, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, pp. 38-9, follow him in their
translation).
8 It is also conceivable that the Yerushalmi’s answer is that there is a dispute among
the tannaim as to what was the source for R. Meir’s extrapolation. As we note in the
ensuing discussion, two toseftas which we possess on this mishnah appear to
anticipate the discussion of R. Laqish and R. Yoh9anan. Our mishnaic textual tradition,
also clearly possessed by R. Ze‘ira, conforms to the opinion of R. Yoh9anan.
Presumably, the second opinion in the Tosefta (adopted by R. Laqish) would have
omitted R. H9anania and R. Akiva’s testimony from our mishnah. The only obstacle to
this interpretation is that the Yerushalmi fails to present any source for the other
tannaitic opinion.
77

(1:6) suggests that R. Meir was extrapolating from the opinions of R. H9anania and R.
Akiva:
היארל המוד הז ןודנה ןיא הסוי 'ר
'מא
אמט הזש אלא ןיאמט ןהינש האמוט באב אמטנש רשב םע האמוטה דלוב אמטנש רשב
הלק האמוט אמט הזו הרומח האמוט
האמוט אמט הזש אלא ןיאמט ןהינש תמ אמט אמטינש רנב םוי לובטב לספנש ןמש ןכו
. הלק האמוט הזו הרומח
האמוטה באב תאמטינש המורת םע האמוט דלוב תאמטינש המורת ןיפרושש 'מוא
ינאו
התאמוט לע האמוט הל ןיפיסומש פ"
עא
. התאמטמ וז תאצמנ האמטה םע תפרשנ םא הרוהט היולתהש ינא 'מוא
האמטו היולתו
R. Yose says that the analogy is not correct.
Flesh that was defiled by a secondary source of impurity and flesh that
was defiled by a primary source are both impure – except that
one possesses a severer form of impurity and one a less severe
form.
Similarly, oil that was defiled by a t[evul-yom and oil that was defiled
by a temei-meit are both impure – except that one possesses a
severer form of impurity and one a less severe form.
I would argue [from these examples] that one may burn terumah that
was defiled by a secondary source of impurity together with
terumah that was defiled by a primary source even though one
adds a level of impurity to its [already existing] impurity.
But when it comes to [burning] that which is doubtful together with
that which is impure, I consider the possibility that the doubtful
[terumah] is still pure [and] if I burn it together with the impure,
it turns out that this (i.e. the impure terumah) defiles it (i.e. the
doubtfully impure terumah).
In the Bavli (bPes 14b), Rava objects to R. Nah9man (who adopts the position of Reish
Laqish) on the basis of a baraita which appears to be a variant of this tosefta. Rava points
out that from R. Yose's response, we can see that R. Meir was, in fact, extrapolating from
the statements of R. H9anania and R. Akiva. R. Nah9man replies:
םינהכה ןגס אנינח יברדמ ריאמ יבר רבס אוהד היתעדא ואל יסוי יבר ןמחנ בר היל רמא
הניא ימנ עשוהי יברל וליפאו היל רמאו אנימאק עשוהי יברדמ אנא היל רמאו היל רמאק
.
המצע ינפב וזו המצע ינפב וז ףרושש עשוהי יברו רזעילא יבר הדומ אהד הדמה איה
78

R. Nah9man said to him, “R. Yose misunderstood – he thought that R.
Meir was extrapolating from R. H9anania Segan HaKohanim and R. Meir
said to him, "I am extrapolating from R. Yehoshua" and then he (i.e. R.
Yose) said to him, "Even from R. Yehoshua, the extrapolation is incorrect
because R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that one must burn each by
itself." ”
R. Nah9man is forced to reconcile the contradiction between our mishnah (mPes
1:9) and the Tosefta by suggesting that R. Yose was confused as to R. Meir's source.
While R. Nah9man's answer appears forced, R. Yoh9anan's approach is no less so when
one tries to read the text of our mishnah.
Focusing on the comparison of mEd with its parallel in mPes, it appears that
according to one group of amoraim (R. Laqish, R. Nah9man), the appearance of our
mishnah in mPes is purely associative and perhaps was not even there in the tannaitic
period. 9 According to R. Yoh9anan, however, the question of the mishnah’s original
formulation remains. In light of what we noted earlier, i.e. that the introductory
terminology is preserved in the parallels to mEd elsewhere in the Mishnah, one might be
inclined to conclude that mPes does not derive from mEd. We might also assume that
the mishnah in mEd does not derive from mPes because the redactors of mEd did not
systematically add the introductory citation form of “he(id” to its mishnayot, 10 and in
mEd this mishnah contains the term. A closer look, however, reveals that it is not
entirely clear that the version in mEd contains the word “he(id”. The chapter begins with
9 It is possible, as we noted earlier, that Reish Laqish’s mPes did not contain these
mishnayot. If so, we would probably assume that our textual tradition is following that
of R. Yoh9anan. In the Bavli, the earliest Amora cited in the discussion of these
mishnayot is Rav Yehudah (second generation and student of Rav and Shmuel), and in
the Yerushalmi Bar Qappara (a student of Rabbi).
10 Chapters two and three (with the exception of the testimonies of R. H9anania) do not
contain the word, even though so many of occurrences of )amar could easily have been
replaced with the term “he(id”.
79

the statement that R. H9anania testified to four things, "םירבד העברא דיעה". It immediately
begins with his first statement of "יתיאר אל יימימ". It is reasonable to assume that R.
H9anania's first statement, just like his second, was actually never prefaced with the term
“he(id”, but since the last two statements of R. H9anania begin with " לעו ... דיעה אוה ףא ...",
the redactor began the unit with "םירבד העברא דיעה". If so we would be dealing with
identically introduced versions in mEd and mPes. If so, Epstein's suggestion regarding
the second statement is no longer defensible, since by his logic, the first statement of R.
H9anania is no more relevant here than is the second.
Upon further analysis, however, it appears that the mishnayot in both locations
(mEd and mPes) in fact were recognized as being of a testimonial nature early on. The
tosefta in which R. Yose's view is elaborated, appears with variants in the sugya on our
mishnah in the Bavli. It reads:
עשוהי יברו רזעילא יבר ירבדמ ... ןמחנ בר רמא ןכו
ןמחנ ברל אבר היביתיא
? ודיעה המ לע וניתובר ודיעהשכש היארל המוד ןודנה ןיא יסוי יבר רמא
האמוטה באב אמטנש רשבה םע ותוא ןיפרושש האמוטה דלווב אמטנש רשבה לע םא
אמט הזו אמט הז
תמ אמטב אמטנש רנב ותוא ןיקילדמש םוי לובטב לספנש ןמשה לע םא
אמט הזו לוספ הז
תאמטנש המורתה םע התוא ןיפרושש
האמוטה דלווב תאמטנש המורתב םידומ ונא ףא
האמוטה באב
! הנרהטיו והילא אבי אמש האמטה םע היולתה ףרשנ ךאיה לבא
And similarly said R. Nah9man ... “From the words of R. Eliezer and R.
Yehoshua.”
Rava challenged R. Nah9man [from a baraita]:
R. Yose said, “The analogy is not correct, for when our Rabbis testified, to
what did they testify?
If regarding flesh that was defiled by a secondary source of impurity that it
may be burned together with flesh that was defiled by a primary source of
impurity – each are [already] impure.
80

If regarding oil that was defiled by a t[evul-yom that it may be burned in a
lamp which was defiled by a temei-meit – one is invalid 11 and the other is impure.
We too agree about terumah which has been defiled by a secondary source of
impurity that one may burn it together with terumah which was defiled by a
primary source of impurity.
But how can we burn the doubtful together with the impure if perhaps Elijah
will come and declare it (i.e. the doubtfully impure) pure!”
R. Yose refers to the statements of R. H9anania and R. Akiva as " תודע"
. It seems that
there can be only one of two explanations for his understanding; either it was contained
in a larger group of statements of “testimony” 12 or his version had terminology prefaced
indicating that it was testimony. If the first approach is correct Epstein's point still
remains indefensible because the first mishnah, just like the second, never contained the
introduction of “he(id”, and hence the absence of the formula of "דיעה אוה ףא" indicates
nothing. If however, the second approach is correct, i.e. that the version in mPes once
contained the term “he(id”, Epstein's suggestion remains possible. In either case, the
mishnah is no longer an exception to the rule regarding parallels of “he(id” found in
mEd and elsewhere in the Mishnah.
The second testimony is found verbatim in mZev 12:2, and is discussed briefly in
the Bavli (103b-104a). In mZev, the following statement precedes it:
ןטישפה רחאל םינהכל ןהיתורוע ןיא ןטישפהל םדוק לוספ ןהב עריאש םישדקה לכ
. םינהכל ןהיתורוע
11
The term “invalid” ( לוספ)
in this context means that it itself is impure but cannot
defile other things; “impure” ( אמט)
suggests that it can also defile other things.
12 I do not wish to speculate whether we are dealing with a proto-Eduyot or simply a
smaller unit of statements that were identified as “testimonies”.
81

All sacrifices which become disqualified before their hide is stripped,
their hides are not given to the priests; after the hide is stripped, their
hides are given to the priests.
R. H9anania's testimony that follows appears to be the manifestation of this general rule
which precedes it, although from the text itself we cannot determine if it is an example
added later to illustrate the abstract principle of the opening clause, or if in fact R.
H9anania was responding to and affirming the statement. If the latter is the case, then
since the opening part is not found in mEd it is clear that mZev has not been transferred
from mEd. Rather, mEd has either been taken from mZev or the two mishnayot derive
from a common source. If the former option is correct, however, we cannot determine
anything about the relationship of the two occurrences. Several factors would lean
towards the former possibility, but are far from definitive. The sugya in the Bavli
discusses each of the two parts of the mishnah in separate sections, i.e. the opening clause
and the statement of R. H9anania, and makes no connection between the two of them. If
anything, the first clause is viewed as the last part of the preceding mishnah. 13 In
addition, MS Kaufman separates the first statement and R. H9anania's statement into two
separate mishnayot. The evidence cannot be taken as definitive in any sense as it may
reflect a later interpretation of the mishnah and not its original intent. 14
The formulation of the mishnah itself contains two interesting points, one of
which may point to its origin. The expression " ונדמל וירבדמ"
is extremely rare in tannaitic
literature. It occurs in three other places in the mishnah, 15 once in the Tosefta, 16 and
13 bZev 103a. The Bavli's discussion immediately following the mishnah on 103b refers
to these two mishnayot as the reisha and seifa.
14 In this vein it is worth noting that Maimonides codifies the first statement of the
mishnah (Ma(aseh HaQorbanot 18:20) but rejects the position of R. H9anania (Bekhorot
3:10).
15 mShab 24:5, mPes 1:7, mZev 12:4 (=mEd 2:3).
82

once in a baraita cited in the Bavli. 17 In every case, the author of the original source was
of the first generation of Yavneh or earlier. The tradent who makes the inference is
anonymous in two cases, and one each of R. Akiva, R. Meir and R. Shimon. The second
oddity is that R. Akiva's statement is an interpolation that interrupts the flow of the
dispute between R. H9anania and the Sages. We can therefore conclude that the mishnah
without R. Akiva's statement represents an already formulated mishnah into which R.
Akiva's statement was inserted. Even if we assume that the redactors of the mishnah are
responsible for the formulation of R. Akiva's statement, we must assume that they began
with the rest of the mishnah already formulated. 18
Both of these factors suggest that we are dealing with an earlier layer of a
mishnah, but that still does not point to an original location. The interpretation of R.
Akiva's statement, however, may be of some assistance. bZev 104a questions the
purpose of R. Akiva's inference, i.e. what is he adding that was not clear from R.
H9anania's statement. After all, since a first-born is a sacrifice brought in the Temple why
would one have thought that it should be different from any other sacrifice. The sugya
concludes that R. Akiva is extrapolating from the sacrifice brought in the Temple to the
situation of a first-born that had a blemish and was being slaughtered outside of the
16 mPes 2:15 (=yAZ 1:9, bEruv 64b).
17 bSuk 21b.
18 It is conceivable that the Sages who appear in the mishnah are the contemporaries of
R. Akiva and not of R. H9anania. Although their response is tailored to the formulation of
R. H9anania, they may simply be challenging R. Akiva whose extrapolation depends upon
the observation of R. H9anania. Such an approach ignores the Bavli's reading, which
assumes that the Sages are in fact debating only with R. H9anania. That the Bavli
assumes this is evident from the fact that it rules in accordance with R. Akiva and in
accordance with the Sages (against R. H9anania).
83

Temple. The only benefit that may be derived from a blemished first-born is that of
eating; if the animal dies or is found to be a tereifah, one may not eat nor derive any
benefit from it. R. Akiva asserts that R. H9anania's argument (that if the hide has been
separated from the slaughtered animal before the discovery of a blemish then it is treated
as an independent entity and may be used) applies to the blemished first-born as well. If
so, R. Akiva's statement does not belong here in mZev, but in mBekh. 19 Its presence in
mZev suggests that the unit consisting of R. H9anania, R. Akiva and the Sages was
introduced into mZev from an external source (be it mEd or a common source) and not
formulated in the context of mZev. If we accept the Bavli’s interpretation, we can
conclude that the mishnah is likely original to mEd.
The third and fourth testimonies do not appear elsewhere in the Mishnah, and
hence are to be regarded as original to mEd.
Summary: Two of the four testimonies appear nowhere else; in the two which do there is
little clear direction which exists to identify the mishnah’s original location, although that
which might exist points in the direction of mEd. One other point would suggest that the
material did, in fact, originate in mEd. This unit does not contain all or even most of the
R. H9anania material found in the Mishnah. 20 It seems more likely that the other
testimonies originated in mEd because if the process were reversed, we would have
difficulty understanding why some statements were transferred into mEd but not others.
19 The discussion in mBekh of the first-born of a kosher animal focuses primarily on
when the animal is blemished; the specific rules for a first-born that is brought in the
Temple are mentioned in the fifth chapter of mZev.
20 R. H9anania appears in mS$eq 4:4, 6:1, mZev 9:3, mMen 10:1, mNeg 1:4 and mPar 3:1.
The example from mZev, in which R. H9anania describes his father's practice in the
Temple, would have been particularly suitable for "testimony".
84

Clearly, the redactors of the Mishnah did not attempt to anthologize the opinions of R.
H9anania in mEd. Thus, even the first two testimonies were probably part an original unit
of material which included the latter two. Since the latter must be regarded as original to
mEd, we can reasonably conjecture that the former are as well.
II. Statements of R. Yishmael
( ו-ד:
ב)
ז-ה:
ב תוידע
הנבויב
םרכב 'מכח
ינפל 'אעמשי
'ר
'מא
ןירבד השלש
הניאו עבוכ ןימכ התיה םאו רוביח איהש המורתלש קרי יבג לע הנותנ אוהש הפורט הציב לע
רוביח
המקל עיגמ השארו ריצקבש תלובש לעו
םיינעלש ירה ואל םאו תיבה לעבלש ירה המקה םע תרצקנ םא
סירע תפקומ איהש הנטק הנג לעו
. ערזית אל ואל םאו ערזית ןכימ
ולסו רצוב אולמ ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ הב שי םא
הייתמ ןב עשוהי ןשרפו רתהו רוסא ןהב רמא אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
ינפל ורמא ןירבד השלש
רוטפ החל ונממ איצוהל םאו בייח הפ הל תושעל םא תבשב הסרומ שפימה
בייח האופרל םאו רוטפ וניכשיי אלש קסעתמכ םא תבשב שחנ דצה
בזה אשמב תואמטו תמה להאב
תורוהט ןהש תוינורא םיספל לעו
. ןתכאלמ הרמגינ אלש ינפמ תורוהט בזה אשמב ףא 'וא
קודצ 'רב
רזעל 'ר
. רומגי אל
הביקע 'ר
ול הדוה אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש
םוי דועבמ ןקסירש תולילמהו רשובהו םושה
'מוא
הביקע 'רו
ךשחתשמ רומגי 'וא
לאעמשי 'רש
Rabbi Yishmael said three things in the presence of the Sages in Yavneh:
Regarding the case of a scrambled egg which is placed on top of vegetables
of terumah: "They are considered “joined” (i.e. if a t[evul yom touches the egg,
he defiled the terumah) but if it (i.e. the egg) forms a dome it is not
considered “joined”. "
Regarding the case of a stalk left standing among harvested grain and its top
can be bent to reach other standing grain: “If it can be harvested along with
the standing grain it belongs to the field-owner but if not it belongs to the
poor (i.e. shikhh9a)”
Regarding the case of a garden which is surrounded by a trellis: “If there is
room for a grape-picker and his basket on each side, it (i.e. the garden area in
between the vines) may be sown but if not it may not be sown.”
85

Three things they spoke about in the presence of R. Yishmael and he neither permitted
nor forbade them; R. Yehoshua b. Matya explained them:
One who presses a boil on Shabbat: if he does so to create an opening he is
liable (for a sin-offering), but if to force out the pus he is exempt.
One who catches a snake on Shabbat: if as one who is engaging with it so
that it will not bite him he is exempt, but if [he needs its body] for medicinal
purposes he is liable.
Regarding (Ironiyot pots: that they are not susceptible to ritual defilement by
contact with the dead under a common roof, but they are susceptible to
defilement through being carried by a zav.
R. Elazar b. S9adok says, “They are not susceptible to defilement even if
carried by a zav because their production has not been finished.”
R. Yishmael said three things to which R. Akiva would not agree:
Garlic, unripe grapes and kernels of grain which he crushed prior to the Shabbat
R. Yishmael says, “He may complete it [on Shabbat].”
R. Akiva says, “He may not complete it.”
The three mishnayot in this sequence each record three issues or items in the
name of or relating to R. Yishmael (b. Elisha). 21 A verb from the root ’amr, not the term
“he(id”, introduces all three. 22 The first mishnah records three laws that R. Yishmael
21
Epstein, (Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, p.431-2 and at greater length in Mavo
leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 1194-8), asserts that this R. Yishmael is actually R. Yishmael
b. R. Yoh9anan b. Broqah (bRybB). Since this issue is hardly salient to the discussion at
hand, it is not worth elaborating on here, but I should note that according to Epstein's
calculations (ibid. p. 1198), R. Yishmael bRYbB would have had to live long enough to
see R. Yoh9anan (early 3 rd century C.E.) and have been old enough to present in front of
the Sanhedrin at Yavneh in the early second. Also note that R. Yishmael's father, R.
Yoh9anan b. Broqah, straddled the generations of Yavneh and Usha. He asserts that ‘a
number of times’ R. Yishmael bRYbB is cited as hearing things " הנביב םרכב"
. I can only
find two occurrences of this: tYev 6:6 and 10:3. This certainly supports his assertion of
chronology, but its rarity renders it insufficient to ignore all of the manuscript evidence
both in mEd and in tTY.
22
The expression which introduces the cases of the first mishnah, " לע"
, suggests that
the original introduction to the mishnah used the verb he(id and not )amar as we have
it. This supposition finds support in tTY 2:9 where his statement is referred to as
testimony. The Meiri as well has he(id in the text of his mishnah as cited, although no
other extant manuscript witnesses preserve such a reading. This same point may hold
86

ecited before the Sages of Yavneh. The first relates to a topic discussed extensively in
mT9Y, which is when two foods or two parts of one food are considered "attached" so that
a ritually impure individual who touches one conveys impurity to both. The mishnah
there (tT9Y 3:2) that parallels R. Yishmael’s statement reads:
חלקה אלא לספ אל הציבב םוי לובט עגנו ויבג לע הנותנ הפורט הציבו המורת לש קרי
ודגנכש
ןוילעה רדסה
לכ רמוא יסוי יבר
. רובח הניא עבוכ ןימכ היה םאו
Vegetables of terumah on which a scrambled egg is placed and a t[evulyom
then touches the egg, he defiles only the stalk which is opposite him
(i.e. the point of contact of his hand).
R. Yose says, “[He defiles] the entire upper layer (which is touching the
egg)”.
If it was like a dome, they (i.e. the egg and the vegetables) are not
considered connected.
The mishnah deals with a case in which an egg has been placed on top of a bunch of
vegetable stalks of terumah and a person who is ritually impure 23 touches the egg. The
egg, being h9ulin (by definition, since it is not produce), cannot become impure from
םידי תאמוט, the rabbinically mandated impurity to which the hands are subject to by
default, but the terumah can. The tannaim argue over which portion of the vegetables is
considered "attached" to the egg so that the egg will conduct ritual impurity from the
person to those vegetables. The anonymous tanna posits that only the stalks that are
true in the second mishnah of this sequence of R. Yishmael’s where the third part is
also introduced with the word " לע"
and for mEd 2:9 where R. Akiva’s three laws are
similarly introduced.
23 The person in our mishnah is a t[evul yom who is considered a sheni let[um)ah. As a
result of this, he cannot defile h9ulin since as a general rule h9ulin may only descend to the
level of sheni let[um)ah. Terumah, however, can descend to the level of shelishi let[um)ah
and hence will be defiled by contact with a t[evul yom.
87

touching the part of the egg that the person touches are rendered impure, whereas R.
Yose believes that the stalks that touch any part of the egg become impure. The last
statement of the mishnah, " רוביח הניא עבוכ ןימכ היה םאו"
, “If it was like a dome, they are not
considered connected”, can be understood as a continuation of R. Yose's opinion, in
which he is defining the liminal point at which the egg no longer conveys impurity to the
vegetable, whereas the first tanna’s point (implied by his statement) is the stalks which
are touching the egg but not directly opposite the person's hand. Alternatively, one could
understand that this statement is a continuation of the anonymous tanna's statement with
which R. Yose would agree, i.e. that the debate with which the mishnah is introduced
consists of a case where there is a h9ibbur between the egg and the vegetables and the
argument is over which vegetables are treated as being in “contact”, whereas the closing
statement defines the situation in which there is no contact at all between the egg and the
vegetables.
tT9Y (2:9) expands on the mishnah:
רובח ןוילעה רדסה לכ הציבב םוי לובט עגנו ויבג לע הנותנ הפורט הציבו המורת לש קרי
ש"
רו יסוי 'ר
ירבד
םימכח ינפל לאעמשי 'ר
דיעה וז לע . ודי דגנכש חלקה אלא רוביח וניא רמוא הדוהי 'רו
. ודי דגנכש חלקה אלא רובח וניאש הנביב םרכב
. רובח וניאש עבוכ ומכ יושעה לע אלא דיעה וז לע אל יסוי
'ר
רמא
Vegetables of terumah on which a scrambled egg is placed and a t[evulyom
then touches the egg, the entire upper layer is considered connected
according to the opinion of R. Yose and R. Shimon.
R. Yehudah says, “He defiles only the stalk which is opposite him (i.e.
the point of contact of his hand). About this R. Yishmael testified before
the Sages in Yavneh that only the stalk which is opposite him is
considered connected.”
R. Yose says, “He did not testify about that but rather about one which is
like a dome that it is not considered connected”.
The tosefta, on a literary level, seems to support the first of the two readings suggested
above. R. Yose is the one who claims that R. Yishmael's testimony (which all of the
88

tannaim in the Tosefta claim to subscribe to) is " רוביח הניא עבוכ ןימכ יושעה לע"
.
Furthermore, as Epstein has noted, 24 mEd appears to follow R. Yose. However, a closer
analysis suggests that the Tosefta is not entirely clear on these points. R. Yose (along
with R. Shimon) disagrees with R. Yehudah about what R. Yishmael testified in Yavneh.
Each one focuses on only one side of his testimony; R. Yehudah on that which is h9ibbur
and R. Yose on that which is not. mEd as we have it records both sides of the equation,
but does not explicitly discuss the question of " ודגנכש חלקה"
as opposed to " ןוילעה רדס לכ"
.
It is conceivable that the dispute between R. Yehudah and R. Yose is over how to
interpret mEd, i.e. where to place the emphasis in R. Yishmael's statement; on the first
part (" רוביח")
, in which case R. Yishmael's intent is open to interpretation (R. Yehudah)
or on the second part, in which case R. Yishmael is giving the liminal case of " רוביח הניא"
(R. Yose). 25
What we can say with certitude about the mishnayot is that mEd is not a
derivative of mT9Y as it contains information that is not in mT9Y. For the same reason, it
is improbable that mT9Y derives directly from mEd. Both mishnayot theoretically could
derive from a source like tT9Y, although mEd is less likely to have originated as such
because the formulation of the first part of R. Yishmael's statement in mEd is quite
different (no mention of “he(id”), and the focus of mEd is on the state of the egg,
whereas the focus of mT9Y and tT9Y is on the status of the vegetables.
24 Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, pp. 431-2.
25
I should note in this context that in the "gemara" on Eduyot cited by the Melekhet
Shlomo, a link is made between our mishnah in Eduyot and R. Yose. He cites:
חלקה אלא לספ אל הציבב םוי לובט עגנו ויבג לע הנותנ הפורט הציבו המורת לש קרי
.
רובח הניא עבוכ ןימכ התיה םאו . ןוילעה רדסה לכ רמוא יסוי יבר . ודגנכש
89

The other interesting aspect of the tosefta is its betrayal of the context of R.
Yishmael's statement. Both R. Yehudah and R. Yose describe his statement using the
word “he(id”, which indicates that the tannaim knew that this topic was discussed in a
collection of mishnayot in which it was prefaced by the word “he(id” or belonged to an
early collection of testimonies. 26
The second of R. Yishmael's statements is found verbatim in mPe 5:2 without
any attribution. The mishnah there is out of context. The mishnah refers to תלבש"
" ריצקבש,
“a ear among the cut grain”. The expression " ריצקב"
usually refers to that which
has been cut already, as evidenced by the following tosefta (tPe 2:16), in which it is
contrasted with " המק"
:
םיינע לש איה ירה ריצקבש תיבה לעב לש איה ירה המקבש תלובש
. טקל טקל קפסש וירוחאל הכילשמו לטונ ריצקב היצחו המקב היצח
An ear which is among the uncut grain belongs to the owner of the field;
among the cut grain belongs to the poor.
Half in the uncut grain and half in the cut grain, he (the field’s owner)
should take it and throw it behind himself because a doubtful case of leqet[
is to be treated as leqet[.
However, the language of the mishnah, "המקה םע תרצקנ םא", implies that we are dealing
with attached grain, in which case the term "ריצקב" must mean "in the middle of a patch
which has already been cut". 27 The commentators are divided over whether the mishnah
is dealing with leqet[ or shikhh9a. Leqet[ is defined as something that slips from one's hand,
26 See above footnote 22.
27
See Ra’avad in his commentary to mEd where he suggests that our mishnah must be
talking about qamah based upon the Yerushalmi's interpretation. I am not sure why the
Ra'avad did not use the language of mishnah itself to prove his point, although it is
possible that he felt that the expression of " המקה םע תרצקנ"
is simply a gauge of distance
but was not intended to imply that the s]ibbolet was still in need of cutting.
90

whereas shikhh9a is something that one forgets. The latter is generally agreed to apply
both to attached and detached grain. The former does not come up in the context of grain
still attached in any of the cases in the mishnah, except possibly in our case. Sifrei
Devarim (#283) reads:
תרצקנ םא המקל עיגמ השארו ריצקבש תלובש לאעמשי יבר רמא ןכימ ותחקל בושת אל
םיינעמ איצומה תיבה לעב םיינע לש איה ירה ואל םאו תיבה לעב לש איה ירה המקה םע
החכש קפס טקל טקל קפסש ןינמו . היארה וילע וריבחמ איצומהש היאר איבהל וילע
. היהי הנמלאלו םותיל רגל רמול דומלת האיפ האיפ קפס החכש
The Sifrei clearly understands R. Yishmael's statement as dealing with shikhh9a, as it
locates the source in the verse in Deut. (24:19) that deals with shikhh9a. 28 The
Yerushalmi, as well, understands the mishnah as dealing with shikhh9a. The sugya (yPe
5:2) opens:
השארו ריצק לש תלובש ןנינתד אדהכ ןנחוי 'ר
רמא המקה תא תלצמ איהש המק איה וז יא
. המקל עיגמ
What kind of uncut grain “saves” other uncut grain [from becoming
shikhh9a]? R. Yohanan says like that which we teach, “An ear amongst the
cut grain the head of which reaches the uncut grain.”
The mishnah cited in the sugya comes from the laws related to shikhh9a in the sixth
chapter of mPe. If we proceed with the assumption that R. Yishmael's statement relates
to shikhh9a, then its location in mPe is problematic. 29 In mPe, the topic of pe)ah is
discussed from 1:1 until 4:5, leqet[ from 4:10 until 5:3 and shikhh9a from 5:7 to 7:2, in
28
- א 'ה
ךכרבי ןעמל היהי הנמלאלו םותל רגל ותחקל בושת אל הדשב רמע תחכשו ךדשב ךריצק רצקת יכ
. ךדי השעמ לכב ךיהל
29 If one opts to interpret, as does Maimonides, that our mishnah is dealing with leqet[, its
placement makes perfect sense. This line of reasoning however is circular, because the
only reason Maimonides believes that this mishnah is discussing leqet[ (and that leqet[ is
relevant to cut grain) is that is surrounded by other mishnayot which discuss leqet[.
91

which case our mishnah is out of place. The only discernible reason for its placement
here may be the use of the term s]ibbolet which occurs only in the second part of the
mishnah here 30 and twice in mUq. 31 Thus it appears to be an addition from an external
source, and thus we presume that the mishnah was copied from mEd. Additionally, as
mPe lacks the attribution and context (i.e. Kerem be-Yavneh) mEd cannot have been
copied from there.
The last statement of R. Yishmael, regarding a garden surrounded by an (aris, has
no parallels anywhere in tannaitic literature 32 and thus is original to mEd.
The second mishnah of R. Yishmael records three issues that were presented
before R. Yishmael, to which he did not respond; instead, R. Yehoshua b. Matya
presented a dichotomous approach to each issue. The first two relate to the performance
of an activity on Shabbat which when done for one goal constitutes a transgression of a
biblical prohibition but when done for a different purpose does not. The third relates to a
particular type of vessel that has not been completely finished and discusses the kind of
ritual impurity that it can contract. Conceptually speaking, the third statement of ןיספל"
" תוינוריא bears some similarity to an issue discussed in mBes[ 4:4 and tBes[ 3:10, but no
30
The continuation of the text reads:
ךאיה יכו רזעילא יבר רמא . ול ןתונו תחא תלבש רשעמ שידגב הברעתנש טקל לש תלבש
תלבש רשעמו שידגה לכב ינעה תא הכזמ אלא ותושרב אב אלש רבד ףילחמ הזה ינעה
. ול ןתונו , תחא
31 The plural form, s]ibbolim, appears only three times, including once in mPe 6:5.
32 It is cited only in yKil 6:1 where R. Yoh9anan equates, conceptually speaking, the view
of R. Yoh9anan b. Nuri cited there in mKil 6:1 with that of R. Yishmael. The general
topic of a trellis (‘aris) is discussed in the sixth chapter of mKil, but nothing related to
our case is found there.
92

literary connection is discernible. Otherwise, there are no parallels to any parts of our
mishnah anywhere in tannaitic literature, so we regard this mishnah as original to mEd.
The last mishnah in the R. Yishmael sequence is not composed of three distinct
statements, but of one law that mentions (presumably as examples) three different
agricultural products and whether they may be pressed on Shabbat. 33 The commentators
dispute how one understands the debate between R. Yishmael and R. Akiva. 34 The only
conceptually related discussion in the mishnah is mShab 1:9, provided that one
understands that the argument here is about whether one is permitted to leave the produce
in the press once Shabbat begins so that the juices will continue to ooze out during
Shabbat. Even if this were the case, the parallel is conceptual, not literary and thus the
mishnah is original to mEd.
Summary: There are a total of seven statements contained within the three mishnayot of
which five appear nowhere else in the Mishnah. Of the remaining two cases, one appears
secondary in the parallel location and we assume that it originates in mEd and one
statement’s origin cannot be determined.
III. Collections of R. Akiva
( י-ח:
ב)
אי-ח:
ב תוידע
עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש הביקע 'ר
ינפל ורמא ןירבד השלש
תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי יחירפמו בהזלש ריעב השא אצוי
: רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש
המורתלש תורכיכ יבג לע תכלהמו הדלוחה יפב ץרשה עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו
. רוהט וקיפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס
33
The mishnah itself makes no mention that the activity is taking place on Shabbat;
however, the expression " ךשחתשמ"
where it is used in the mishnah always refers to the
entrance of the Shabbat.
34 See Tosafot, bShab 19a, s.v. רומגי רמוא לאעמשי יבר for a collection of the opinions.
93

ול ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוה םינש לע הביקע 'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש
השלש 'מוא
ויהש העברא
רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט אוהש ןידיסלש לדנס לע
ול ודוהו
ול ודוה אל דחא לעו
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ הביקע 'רש
הז דצב הז ויופחמ םינש ולטינש אסכ לע
םינשבו המכחבו רשועבו חוכבו יאונב ןבל הכז באה 'וא
היה אוה
שארמ תורודה ארוק 'נש
ץקה אוה וינפל תורודה רפסמבו
. הנה ובושי יעיבר רודו 'נו
הנש תואמ עברא םתוא
וניעו םודבעו 'נש
יפ לע ףא
שדוח רשע םינשלש ןירבד השמח 'מוא
אוה ףא
שדוח רשע םינש לובמה רוד טפשמ
שדוח רשע םינש בויא טפשמ
שדוח רשע םינש םירצמה טפשמ
שדוח רשע םינש אובל דיתעל גוג טפשמ
ושדחב שדוח ידמ היהו 'נש
שדוח רשע םינש םניהיגב םיעשר טפשמ
. ותבשב תבש ידמו 'נש
תרצע דע חספה ןמ 'וא
ירונ ןב ןנחוי 'ר
They said three things in the presence of R. Akiva, two from R. Eliezer and one from R.
Yehoshua:
Two from R. Eliezer: “A woman may go out [on the Shabbat into the public
domain] wearing a ‘city of gold’ ” and “pigeon-racers are disqualified as
witnesses”
One from R. Yehoshua: “If there is a [dead] rodent in the mouth of a weasel
and it is running over loaves of terumah and it is doubtful whether it (the dead
rodent) touched them, the doubt is resolved as [the loaves] being ritually
pure.”
Three things R. Akiva stated – two they agreed to his view, on one they did not agree:
Concerning the sandals of plaster makers that they are susceptible to ritualimpurity
through midras and that the [minimal size of the] remnants of a
[larger] oven [which leave it susceptible to ritual impurity] is four handbreadths
and they admitted to his view.
And on one they did not admit to him:
On the chair of a bride where two of its slats were removed: R. Akiva
declares it still susceptible to ritual impurity and the Sages assert that it is no
longer susceptible.
He used to say, "A father merits for his son in handsomeness, strength, wealth,
intelligence and lifespan.
The number of generations is the determining factor as it says, “The one who announces
the generations from the beginning” (Is. 51:4); even though it is said “And they shall
94

enslave and afflict them for four-hundred years” (Gen. 15:13), it also says “and the fourth
generation shall return here” (ibid. 15:16).
He also used to say, "Five things last twelve months:
The judgment of the Generation of the Flood was twelve months.
The judgment of Job was twelve months.
The judgment of the Egyptians was twelve months.
The judgment of Gog (cf. Ezek. 38-39) in the future will be twelve months.
The judgment of the wicked in Hell is twelve months as it is stated “It will be
month by month” (Is. 66:23)
R. Yoh9anan b. Nuri says from Passover until Shavuot as it is said, “And week
by week” (ibid.)."
Three statements of R. Akiva from his teachers, of which each topic is discussed
in the Mishnah elsewhere, comprise the first mishnah of our unit. The first asserts that a
woman may walk into the public domain on the Shabbat wearing a piece of gold jewelry
shaped like the city of Jerusalem. mShab 6:1 records the opposite opinion anonymously:
. םיברה תושרל לובכב אלו ... ב אל השא אצת אל . האצוי הניא המבו , האצוי השא המב
טחמב אלו , םתוח הילע ןיאש תעבטב אלו , םימזנב אלו , אלטקב אלו , בהז לש ריעב אלו
. תאטח תביח הניא , תאצי םאו . הבוקנ הניאש
Content-wise, our mishnah cannot depend upon mShab as it contains the attribution to R.
Eliezer from the voice of R. Akiva whose opinion in the negative is not recorded in
Shabbat. tShab 4:6 records a three-way debate regarding the " בהז לש
ריע"
:
מ"
ר ירבד תאטח תבייח תאצי םאו בהז לש ריעב השא אצת אל
הרוטפ תאצי םאו אצת אל א"
כחו
. ןירופת ןהש ןמזב [ ןיטיברסבו]
תפטוטב בהז לש ריעב השא האצוי רמוא א"
ר
tShab contains the information necessary to formulate mShab but not mEd because the
tosefta makes no mention of R. Akiva. Only tEd contains sufficient information to
construct both of the mishnayot:
ןהב רמא אלו עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש ע"
ר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש
. הרהט אלו האמוט אל לוספ אלו רשכ אלו רתיה אלו רסיא אל
רתיה אלו רוסיא אל הב רמא אלו בהז לש ריעב תאצל איה המ השא רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש
.
ןירסוא םימכחו ריתמ א"
ר
95

They said three things in the presence of R. Akiva, two from R. Eliezer and one from R.
Yehoshua and regarding them he said neither a prohibition nor a permission, neither
valid nor invalid, neither impurity nor purity:
Two from R. Eliezer: “May a woman may go out [on the Shabbat into the public
domain] wearing a ‘city of gold’?” Regarding it he said neither a prohibition nor a
permission.
R. Eliezer permits and the Sages forbid.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that mShab derives from mEd since our mishnah itself
does not imply that R. Eliezer's opinion is disputed. Furthermore, from a literary
perspective the mishnah in Shabbat does not resemble our mishnah at all but rather
derives from a mKel 11:8:
תבש
לש ריעב אלו ... ב אל אצת אל
אלו , םימזנב
אלו , אלטקב אלו , בהז
טחמב אלו , םתוח הילע ןיאש תעבטב
. הבוקנ הניאש
96
םילכ
לש ריע . םיאמט , םישנ יטישכת לכ
תעבטו , תועבטו , םימזנ , תוילטק , בהז
הל ןיאש ןיבו םתוח הל שיש ןיב
. ףאה ימזנ , םתוח
mKel:
All women’s jewelry is susceptible to ritual impurity: A ‘city of gold’, bracelets,
earrings, rings – and rings whether they contain a seal of nor, nose-rings.
mShab:
She may not go out [to the public domain] with ... nor with a ‘city of gold’ nor with a
bracelet nor with earrings nor with a ring without a seal nor with a needle with no eye.
and mSan 3:3:
The second statement of R. Eliezer appears as part of anonymous ruling mRH 1:8
. םידבעו , תיעיבש ירחוסו , םינוי יחירפמו , תיברב יולמו , איבקב קחשמה , ןילוספה ןה ולא(
ו)
Here again, the formulation of the mishnayot in mEd and the parallels are not literarily
dependent; mRH uses a standardized list of individuals whose trustworthiness has been
compromised; the same list appears in mShevu 7:4 to identify those whose oaths are

suspect (העובשה לע דושח). Thus neither mEd nor its parallels (which, in addition, lack
mention of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer) can have been derived from one another. 35
The last fragment of the mishnah is the only one that appears verbatim elsewhere
in the Mishnah. mToh (3:6 and on) deals with various situations of doubtful ritual
impurity. As a general rule, an object or person that has possibly (but not definitely)
come in contact with ritual impurity becomes impure only if the doubtful contact took
place in the private domain. Our mishnah (=mT9oh 4:2) appears there anonymously
between two mishnayot (4:1 and 4:3) which present the requirement for an impure object
to be fixed in a place in order that a האמוט קפס be treated as impure:
ןיבל רככ , רמוא הדוהי יבר . רוהט , תורככה ןיבל חתפמ , תוחתפמה ןיבל רככ , םוקמל םוקממ האמט קרוזה : א
. רוהט , תורככה ןיבל חתפמ . אמט , תוחתפמה
. רוהט וקפס , עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס , המורת לש תורככ יבג לע תכלהמו הדלחה יפב ץרשה : ב
ינפמ , רוהט ןקפס , ןהיניב םירוהט ורבעש וא , םירוהטה ןיב ורבעו , בלכה יפב הלבנהו , הדלחה יפב ץרשה : ג
, יתעגנ אל םא יתעגנ םא עדוי יניאו זלה םוקמל יתכלה רמאו ץראה לע ןהב ןירקנמ ויה . םוקמ האמטל ןיאש
. םוקמ האמטל שיש ינפמ , אמט וקפס
א) One who throws an impure object from place to place, a loaf among the keys, a key
among the loaves, it is [still] pure.
35
The Tosefta here is quite interesting. It reads:
ןהב רמא אלו עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש ע"
ר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש
... רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש הרהט אלו האמוט אל לוספ אלו רשכ אלו רתיה אלו רסיא אל
םימכחו רישכמ רזעילא 'רו
לוספ אלו רשכ אל והב רמא אל תודעל ןה המ םינוי יחירפמ
. ןילסופ
All the versions of our Tosefta have R. Eliezer cited in the opposite manner of our
mishnah, and inform us that what is presented in the mishnah is actually a matter of
dispute, something which we would not know from anywhere else in the Mishnah (or
Tosefta). Interestingly enough, yRH 1:9 raises the possibility that the anonymous
mishnah there that lists those whose testimony is invalid follows the opinion of R. Eliezer
and that the Sages disagree. The amoraim conclude that the dispute between R. Eliezer
and the Sages is limited to capital cases, but in civil testimony even the Sages would
agree that the testimony of pigeon-racers is unacceptable. One could suggest this as
evidence that the early amoraim possessed this tosefta (or a similar source) but with the
opinions reversed and R. Eliezer of the tosefta conforming to his version in the mishnah.
97

ב) If there is a [dead] rodent in the mouth of a weasel and it is running over loaves of
terumah and it is doubtful whether it (the dead rodent) touched them, the doubt is
resolved as [the loaves] being ritually pure.
ג) If there was a [dead] rodent in the mouth of a weasel or a piece of a neveilah 36 in the
mouth of a dog and they passed between ritually pure people or pure people passed
between them, their doubt is [resolved as being] pure because the source impurity has no
[fixed] location. If they (i.e. the weasel or dog) were pecking at them (i.e. the rodent or
neveilah) [while they (i.e. the rodent or neveilah) were stationary] on the ground and he
says, “I passed in that place but I do not know if I touched [the source impurity] or not”,
his doubtful case is [resolved as] impure because the source of impurity has a [fixed]
location.
The formulations of the content of the two mishnayot, mEd and mToh 4:2, are identical.
Our mishnah cannot be derived solely from mToh because no mention of R. Akiva and
R. Yehoshua is made there. In addition, mToh 4:3 contains all of the information found
in 4:2 and more – why would someone formulating the mishnayot even create the first? 37
Thus it is probable that mToh was copied from mEd, and that the similarity in
formulation, "הדלחה יפב ץרשה", provided the impetus for copying it into mToh.
The second mishnah in the series cites three laws expounded by R. Akiva, two of
which the listeners concurred with and one with which they did not. The first law
involves the status of a special kind of shoe worn by plaster makers during a process that
involved walking on the hot plaster. The purpose of the shoe was to prevent the feet
from being burned. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the shoe was made of
36
An animal which dies without being ritually-slaughtered (properly) conveys ritual
impurity. Cf. Lev. 11:39.
37
It is worth noting that bH9ul 9a understands the basis of this mishnah as being unrelated
to the question of " םוקמ הל ןיא האמוט"
, but rather connected to the question of האמוט קפס"
" לאשיל תעד וב ןיאש רבדב,
in which case there is no duplication. For the moment, I assume
the reason given by the context of the mishnah and articulated by the Meiri, i.e. the
requirement that both the object which is impure and the object which has possibly
become impure both be stationary.
98

straw or wood - what is certain is that it was not leather. According to our mishnah, R.
Akiva’s audience agreed upon this point. 38 The first statement, since it appears nowhere
else in the Mishnah, should be regarded as original to mEd.
The second statement regards the ritual impurity of an (earthenware) oven. As a
general rule, a broken earthenware vessel that can still be used in a manner similar to its
original function is still susceptible to ritual impurity. When it is broken so as to be unfit
for its original use, it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. Ovens in the mishnaic
era were shaped something like a modern day barrel without a bottom or top. The fire
was placed on the earth at the bottom of the barrel, and the dough would be stuck onto
the inside of the oven wall to bake. If one were to take an oven and slice off a piece from
the top, it could still be used for baking. R. Akiva discusses how much of the height
must be remain from the original oven to be considered usable; originally they had
38
In contrast, the tosefta (1:13) states:
. ול ודוה אלו תבשב וב ןיאצויו וב תצלוח השאו סרדמ אמטש ןידיס לשו ץע לש לדנס
(The text of the Tosefta here has clearly been corrupted. In the middle of this sentence
we find dittography from the previous line, ' אמטמ אביקע 'ר
רונת יריש לע'.)
The tosefta claims that R. Akiva's audience did not accept the status of the shoe as being
a shoe for a variety of laws. Similarly, tKel BB 4:2 states:
. ול ודוה אלו תבשב וב ןיאצויו וב תצלוח השאהו אמטמ אביקע יבר שק לש לדנס
Two approaches to explaining the contradiction are found in the bShab 66a. One
assumes that the tannaim of Usha debated what in fact happened and mEd reflects R.
Meir's opinion while the various forms of the Tosefta R. Yose's. Alternatively, both
versions are correct - some of R. Akiva's contemporaries concurred and some did not.
The Yerushalmi as well records a baraita quite similar to tKel:
. סרדמל ודוה אל םימכח לבא הביקע יבר ירבד וב תצלוח השאהו סרדמ אמט שק לש לדנס
This version, a variant of tKel (the continuation of the baraita cited by the Yerushalmi is
found only in tKel) reads more easily in terms of the placement of the attribution to R.
Akiva, and adds the stipulation that R. Akiva and the Sages only disagreed over the issue
of ritual impurity, but not over whether or not the shoe was to be treated as a "shoe" for
other legal purposes.
99

assumed three handbreadths and R. Akiva asserts that it is four. No vestiges of the view
which preceded R. Akiva remain anywhere in the Mishnah or Tosefta of Kelim; mKel
5:1 explicitly accepts R. Akiva’s ruling. Thus the mishnah is original to mEd.
The last item in the mishnah appears in its relevant location in mKel (22:7):
39
. ןירהטמ םימכחו , אמטמ אביקע יבר , הז דצב הז וייופחמ םינש ולטנש אסכ
The topic is not mentioned in the Tosefta of either tractate, or for that matter, in any
sugya in the Bavli or the Yerushalmi. From an internal perspective it is difficult to
determine if one mishnah is dependent upon the other. The formulation of mEd is a little
unusual in that, following the first two examples in the mishnah, we would have expected
the last case to read:
. ול ודוה אלו אמטמ אביקע יברש
100
הז דצב הז וייופחמ םינש ולטנש אסכ לעו
The use of " ןירהטמ םימכחו"
might suggest that the formulation of the debate was lifted
from mKel. If correct, however, then our mishnah originally contained only two cases
and that the third was later added to create the number three, which is common to the
entire chapter. If so, we must wonder on what basis this particular case was chosen.
mKel (assuming that the redactor was looking for a case in the same general area as the
first two) contains no fewer then eight cases 40 in which R. Akiva declared an object
susceptible to ritual impurity while the Sages disagreed. It seems more plausible that the
formulation of mEd was influenced by or leveled to match that of mKel, and not that the
39 The only variant is the introduction of the dispute with the shin in front of R. Akiva,
which is to be expected in light of the word לע which introduces the topic.
40 mKel 11:6, 12:5, 20:4, 22:7, 22:9, 22:10, 27:5 and 28:7.

entire clause was copied into mEd. Thus the original source of this part of the mishnah
cannot be determined.
The last two mishnayot are unusual in that they are homiletical, not legal, in
nature. The first appears in tEd 1:14 in which the Sages disagree with R. Akiva, and is
cited partially in yKid 1:7. Otherwise, they are not found elsewhere in tannaitic
literature. Redactionally speaking, they are here because they represent clusters 41 of
items attributed to R. Akiva. Since they appear nowhere else, they must be original to
mEd.
Summary: There are a total of eight statements contained within the four mishnayot of R.
Akiva. Six have no parallels in the Mishnah. Of the remaining two cases, one appears
secondary in the parallel location and we assume that it originates in mEd and one
statement’s origin cannot be determined.
41
Our version of the first of these mishnayot does not mention the number five, but the
Meiri records a variant:
... םירבד השמחב ןבל הכוז באה רמוא היה אוה
The expression of "תורודה רפסמו" is syntactically ambiguous with respect to which clause
it belongs to - the preceding, in which case it is the sixth item in the list, or the following,
in which case there are only five. yKid 1:7 understands that it belongs to the next clause
when it observes:
.
םירבד השמחב ול בייח אוה ךכ םירבד השמחב ול הכז אוהש םשכו
101

Chapter Three
Eduyot Chapter Three
Two sections comprise the third chapter. The first is a group of nine debates
between R. Dosa and the Sages about various matters of ritual impurity and priestly
issues. Only three of the nine debates appear elsewhere in the Mishnah, but the issues
of five of the remaining six are discussed elsewhere in the Mishnah and in every case
the Sages position is adopted without any mention of R. Dosa’s opinion. The second
continues a theme found in the second half of the previous chapter of citing numbered
collections of various Sages of Yavneh. Every one of those mishnayot appears
elsewhere in the Mishnah.
I. The Debates of R. Dosa and the Sages
( ב-א:
ג)
ב-א:
ג תויודע
ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש להאב םימטימה לכ
ןאשונ וא הליבנה ןמ ןיתיז יאצח ינשכב עגונה]
דציכ
תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז יצחכב עגונה [ תמבו
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכב עגונ וא
םיתיז יאצח ינשכ
לע ליהאמו
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחו תייז יצחכ דע ליהאמו
. ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב אסוד 'ר
תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכב עיגונה לבא
רוהט תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ וא
ןיאמטמ
'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
הזב ףא ריאמ 'ר
'מא
להא םע אשמהו עגמה ןמ ץוח אמט לכה
.
רוהט תומש ינשמ אמט דחא םשמ אוהש לכ ללכה הז
102

All things that impart ritual impurity via )ohel 1 that were split up and brought into a
house: R. Dosa declares that they do not defile but the Sages that they do.
How so? (One who touches two half-olives [of flesh] of a neveilah 2 or
carries them
And with a corpse,) one who touches a half-olive [flesh] and who
hovers over a half-olive
or one who touches a half-olive and a half-olive hovers over him
or one who hovers over two [separate] half-olives
or one who hovers over a half-olive and a half-olive hovers over him
R. Dosa declares that they do not defile but the Sages that they do.
However: one who touches a half-olive and something else forms a roof over him
and another half-olive
or who hovers over a half-olive and something else forms a roof over
him and another half-olive is ritually pure (even according to the
Sages)
R. Meir says, even in these cases R. Dosa declares that they do not
defile but the Sages that they do.
In every case they defile except for touching and carrying and carrying
and )ohel.
The following is the general principle: anything (i.e. modes of
transmitting ritual impurity) which is of the same principle
[combines to] defile; anything which is of two principles does not.
The first mishnah addresses the question of ritual impurity conveyed by
contact with parts of a corpse when the said part has been split into two. 3 R. Dosa
argues that once the material is split, the ability to impart ritual impurity disappears.
The Sages maintain that as long contact can be made simultaneously with both halves
1 A corpse (or even certain parts of a corpse) which is located under a roof (ohel)
defiles anything which is found under that same roof.
2
An animal which dies without being ritually-slaughtered (properly) conveys ritual
impurity. Cf. Lev. 11:39.
3 The debate is relevant only in cases where neither half in its own right meets the
requisite size to convey impurity on its own.
103

they can convey impurity, provided that contact with both halves is done identically,
i.e. he is touching each half simultaneously, or carrying each half simultaneously or
under one ceiling with each half simultaneously. 4
The mishnah is found in identical form at the beginning of the third chapter of
mAh. The mishnah itself logically belongs the preceding chapter. mAh 2:1-4 lists
those parts of a corpse that convey ritual impurity on their own when detached from
the rest of the corpse. mAh 2:5 focuses on how much can be lacking from some of
those parts and nonetheless they will still convey impurity. mAh 2:6 discusses
combining parts from more than one corpse in order to have the minimal size to
convey impurity (e.g. blood to reach a revi(it). The final mishnah reads:
רהטמ ירונ ןב ןנחוי יברו אמטמ אביקע יבר םינשל קלחנש הרועשכ םצע
הרועשכ םצע אלא הרועשכ תומצע ורמא אל ירונ ןב ןנחוי 'ר
רמא
םימכחו רהטמ ןועמש יבר הרועשכ םצע דחאו דחא לכב ןיאו וקדקדנש
תומצע עבור
ןיאמטמ
. רוהט אוהש םיאצח לטינ םאש הדומו אמטמ יסוי יבר רוהט םינשל קלחנש יחה ןמ רבא
A bone the size of a barleycorn which is split in half: Rabbi Akiva
asserts that it imparts ritual impurity but R. Yoh9anan b. Nuri declares
that it does not.
4
The anonymous tanna and R. Meir debate a separate issue of how to classify the
various manners of the conveyance of ritual impurity. The former posits that there are
three basic forms: maga( (touching), massa) (carrying) and )ohel, being under the
same roof as the corpse (or its parts). The category of )ohel can be broken down into
two conceptual types: 1) When there is a common roof over the person and the corpse
and 2) When the corpse and the person (under open air) are vertically aligned, i.e. part
of the person is directly above part of the corpse or visa versa. The second variety of
)ohel is viewed as physical contact because of the principle of תעקוב הלועו תעקוב האמוט"
" תדרויו,
i.e. a corpse generates an “impurity field” directly above and below itself. The
first form of )ohel, where the person and corpse are not directly above one another is
regarded as a separate category of conveying impurity. R. Meir believes that even the
first kind of )ohel works by spreading its “impurity field” throughout the entire area
which is covered by the common ceiling and thus is to regarded as “touching”.
104

R. Yoh9anan b. Nuri said, “They did not say ‘bones the size of a
barleycorn’ but rather ‘a bone the size of a barleycorn.’ ”
A quarter[-qab] of bones which were ground up and no single piece
contains a bone the size of a barleycorn: R. Shimon declares that they
does not impart ritual impurity but the Sages assert that they do.
An amputated limb which is split in half does not impart ritual
impurity. R. Yose [however] says that it does but he agrees that if it
was amputated in halves that it does not impart ritual impurity.
The mishnah discusses the status of several different body parts that convey impurity
which are split into two. The last two fall under the category of those things that
convey impurity through )ohel. All the tannaim assume, in principle, that items which
are split can still convey impurity. It is very specific situations or תואמוט which may
prove to be exceptions to the rule. In the second debate, R. Shimon and the
anonymous tanna agree that if bones were larger than an olive they would convey
impurity via )ohel. Similarly, in the last case, the debate between the anonymous
tanna and R. Yose appears to be over the nature of יחה ןמ רבא, an amputated limb; the
anonymous tanna believes that it is unique in that it must be complete (i.e. no part may
be missing) and thus it must be in one piece as well. R. Yose, however, believes that
once the limb achieves the status of יחה ןמ רבא it needs to be complete but not
necessarily intact. 5
5
R. Yose himself acknowledges that the limb must detach in one piece in order to
first achieve the status of יחה ןמ רבא.
105

The first mishnah of the next chapter of mAh is our mishnah here in mEd. 6
The first half of the subsequent mishnah of the third chapter begins to deal with other
topics relating to the definition of the תואמוט, but no longer addresses the issue of a
unit of האמוט which has been split up. 7 mAh 3:1 is out of place both chronologically
and conceptually. Chronologically, R. Dosa lived long before the sages to whom the
various pieces of mAh 2:7 are attributed. Conceptually, R. Dosa and his
contemporaries are debating the larger principle of תואמוט being divided, the point
which all of later tannaim agree upon (rejecting R. Dosa’s position). A more logical
presentation of the topic would have begun with the more general (and earlier) debate
between R. Dosa and the Sages, followed by a discussion of the later tannaim working
6 The chapter division itself, in mAh, is odd; our mishnah, content-wise, should have
been part of the second chapter as it provides the backdrop to the last mishnah of the
preceding chapter. It is tempting to suggest that its placement suggests the haphazard
work of a later redactor who dropped this mishnah into mAh and was not careful about
the chapter to which he appended it. The argument is weak for two reasons: 1) It is
not clear if at the earliest stages the chapter divisions were fixed (in which case the
break may have been the poor work of a chapter divider, rather than the haphazard
work of a redactor adding material) and 2) There are other unexpected chapter breaks
found in the Mishnah where the last or first mishnah really belongs to the following or
preceding chapter. (Cf. mShab 8:7 and mQid 3:12-13.)
7 The first case of the second mishnah deals with תמה בקר, the decomposed flesh of a
corpse, which has been scattered about the house. R. Shimon and the Sages debate the
status of the house. The issue, however, would not appear to be one of a " האמוט"
which has been divided since בקר by its very definition is not a unit but a quantity.
bNid 27b understands the dispute as focusing on when בקר is no longer and takes on
the properties of ordinary dirt. Context suggests that the Bavli’s interpretation (or
something similar) is correct. The second half of the mishnah deals with a revi(it of
blood which is absorbed by the ground or clothing and cannot be extracted. Such
blood no longer conveys ritual impurity, because the blood (which physically speaking
is still extant) is considered to no longer exist.
106

within the opinion of the Sages. This awkwardness suggests that the mAh 3:1 is a
later 8 insertion, and belongs originally to mEd.
( ב:
ג)
ג:
ג תוידע
ףרטצמ םירמוא םימכחו סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר ירבד ףרטצמ וניא דורפ
לכוא
ןיללחמ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד ןומיסא לע ינש רשעמ ןיללחמ
. ופוג אמטנ וידי ואמטנ םא םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד תאטחל םידי ןיליבטמ
Crumbled food does not combine [to reach the requisite volume to be susceptible to
ritual impurity] according to the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “It
combines.”
One may redeem the second tithe on an unminted blank according to the opinion of R.
Dosa but the Sages say, “One may not redeem.”
One may immerse [just] his hands [in a mikvah] to engage in matters pertaining to the
Red Heifer but the Sages say, “If his hands have become defiled, so has his entire
body.”
The mishnah contains three disputes between R. Dosa and the Sages, of which
only the first finds a parallel elsewhere in the Mishnah. In the latter two cases the
8 As is not unusual, it is not possible to date this addition. There is no Talmudic
evidence suggest either its presence or absence in mAh. It is interesting, however, to
note that there is no discussion in tAh of the debate. The Tosefta there (4:4) asserts
that a תמה ןמ תיזכ which was divided into two retains its status and we do not assume
that a small part was destroyed in the cutting process thereby reducing it below the
requisite amount for the conveyance of impurity. What is interesting is that this
Tosefta appears (in the sequence of that chapter) on the earlier part of the second
chapter mAh which simply lists the תיזכ as one of those parts which conveys impurity
independently. We would have expected the redactor of the Tosefta to have placed
this segment corresponding with beginning of third chapter of mAh. This observation
would suggest the mishnah was copied from mEd at some point after the primary
redaction of the Tosefta. The proof is not entirely compelling however; the
phenomenon of pericope of the Tosefta following a differing order than that of the
mishnah is not uncommon. For more on the issue of order, see Friedman, Tosefta
(Atiqta, p. 22 and p. 17, footnote 9.
107

opinion of the Sages is explicitly articulated elsewhere without mention of R. Dosa. 9
The first debate between R. Dosa and the Sages centers on דורפ לכוא, 10
crumbled food, and whether or not it can retain its unity for the purposes of adding up
to the requisite amount of food which is capable of transmitting ritual impurity. mT9oh
(8:8) records:
ןניא הציבכב תוכיתח 'ג
ןטמלמ חפוט הקשמו ןלעמלמ קצבהו סרפטק איהש
הבירע
תופרטצמ םיתשו תופרטצמ
הקשמ היה םאו הקשמ תוצצור ויה כ"
א אלא 'ופרטצמ
ןניא םיתש ףא רמוא יסוי יבר
ףרטצמ לדרחה ןיעכ 'יפא
דמוע
. ףרטצמ וניא דורפ לכוא רמוא אסוד יבר
A kneading-tray which is sloped where the dough is above (i.e. on the
higher end) and the liquid below (touching the bottom part of the
dough) – three pieces of dough which total the size of an egg do not
combine [to transmit ritual impurity] but two do.
R. Yose says, “Even two do not unless there was moisture in between
them; if there was static moisture [in between the pieces] even the size
of a mustard seed, they combine [to transmit ritual impurity].”
R. Dosa says, “Crumbled food does not combine.”
9 In the second case, the full debate is cited in tMS 1:4 expanding upon the opinion of
the Sages contained there in mMS 1:2.
10 In a number of manuscripts the word is " רורפ"
. The root prr suggests “crumbled”
whereas the root prd implies “separation”. In this mishnah, it is possible that the
difference is only semantics, i.e. the “separated food” is food that has (been) crumbled
into a number of pieces. However, we should note that the commentators are divided
as to whether R. Dosa would argue his position even if the food were divided into two
or three parts. Some analogize this issue to his position in mEd 3:1 that parts of a
corpse ritually defile lose there ability to do so once split into more than one part. This
approach would fit better with the reading prd which implies a split, not necessarily
many tiny pieces. Others, however, argue that R. Dosa would acknowledge that a few
large pieces of food might combine, and only a case in which the food was actually
crumbled up into many pieces would he argue that it can no longer convey impurity.
108

In the mishnah the anonymous tanna and R. Yose debate the manner in which
different parts of a solid food combine ( ףרטצמ)
for the purposes of reaching the
requisite amount of food which is susceptible to ritual impurity ( הציבכ)
. The
underlying assumption of both opinions is that food which has been separated into
multiple parts can be “re-joined” to regain its original status. The mishnah concludes
by noting that if the liquid is still then even food which is in many small pieces
“combine” and that R. Dosa believes that under no circumstances can the multiple
parts be “re-joined”.
mT9oh appears to be a composite mishnah. The first two tannaim take for
granted the opinion of the Sages of mEd regarding crumbled food and do not focus on
that issue at all. They discuss the status of liquid found on a slope where it is still in
motion. 11 The general principle is laid out in the next mishnah (mT9oh 8:9):
עשוהי יבר ירבד הרוהט הוקמל הקישהש ןויכ ןיאמט ןיקשמ האלמ איהש לקמ
הלוכ תא ליבטיש דע םירמוא
םימכחו
רובח ןרובשאהו הרהטל אלו האמוטל אל רובח ןניא חפוט הקשמו סרפטקהו קוצנה
. הרהטלו האמוטל
A staff which was full of ritually impure liquid: Once he merely
touches it to the ritual-bath it becomes pure according to the opinion of
R. Yehoshua.
But the Sages say, not until he submerges it completely.
11 Most commentators interpret the debate in the mishnah as a situation in which the
solid food was impure and the question is whether or not the liquid can contract the
impurity from the solid food whose individual slices are smaller than a " הציבכ"
, the
amount necessary for food to transmit impurity. The alternate view is that the liquid
is impure but unable to transmit impurity to the solid food because there is a minimum
amount of food necessary to contract ritual impurity. Both interpretations assume that
the state of the liquid involved has an impact on its ability to “combine” the slices of
solid food.
109

That which is being poured or on a slope and moistening liquid does
not constitute a connection either for imparting ritual impurity or for
purifying. However, that which is pooled constitutes a connection for
imparting ritual impurity and for purifying.
R. Dosa, on the other hand, is not discussing the connection of water that is on a slope
( סרטפק)
but the ability of food under any circumstances to be “combined”. The
chronology of the mishnah is also difficult. The statement to which R. Dosa is
responding appears to be a continuation of the words of either the anonymous tanna or
R. Yose. If we assume that the anonymous tanna is a contemporary of R. Yose, 12 R.
Dosa’s statement could not have been a response to their formulation but must have
existed in a different, earlier context and his opinion was inserted as a parenthetical
comment here. Thus, we conclude that it originates in mEd.
In the second debate, R. Dosa and the Sages argue whether the “silver” used
for the redemption of ma(aser sheni must be minted currency or not. The opinion of
the Sages is cited anonymously in mMS 1:2. tMS 1:4 records the debate that we find
in mEd, albeit in the reverse order. 13 As it lacks R. Dosa’s opinion, mMS cannot be
the source of mEd, but theoretically could derive from it.
12 One might argue that the anonymous tanna and R. Yose are actually debating the
formulation of an older mishnah which represented the opinion of the “Sages” with
whom R. Dosa disagrees, but given that they speak about the השקמ and do not use the
term " דורפ לכוא"
, I believe that the starting assumption should be that the debate is
their own.
13 Even if we assume that one source underlies both mEduyot and tMS the order
reversal is readily understandable. In mEd, the entire sequence of mishnayot is R.
Dosa followed by the Sages. In the tMS, however, it is presented as an expansion on
the mishnah which has cited the opinions of the Sages, so the Sages opinions can
110

The opinion of the Sages in the third debate is found in mH9ag (2:5) without
mention of R. Dosa. 14 R. Dosa’s opinion is not found anywhere else in Rabbinic
literature and hence mEd could not have been derived from mH9ag. The reverse,
however, is possible, although there is no evidence for or against this scenario.
. םירסוא 'מכחו
םירזל ריתמ אסוד
111
( ג:
ג)
ד:
ג תויודע
'ר
המורתלש קרי תבינקו חיטבא יעמ
The insides of a melon and the refuse of the chopped vegetables of terumah: R. Dosa
permits [them] to [be consumed by] non-priests but the Sages prohibit.
The mishnah deals with whether or not certain parts of produce that are not normally
eaten are nonetheless to be considered food for the purpose of prohibiting a non-priest
from partaking in them if they were from produce of terumah. The mishnah is not
found in parallel elsewhere, but the general topic is discussed in mTer 11:4-5. Hence
the mishnah is original to mEd.
תוזזוג תוליחר שמח 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
( ג:
ג)
ה:
ג תוידע
'רבד
זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג תוליחר שמח ה
. ןהש לכ
Five sheep which produce two-and-a-half maneh are liable for [the priestly gift] of
“the first shearing” according to the opinion of R. Dosa; but the Sages say, “Five
sheep which produce any amount.”
almost be considered the lemma from the mishnah being cited in the tosefta, and all
that is left to write is R. Dosa’s opinion.
14
The mishnah reads:
.
ופוג אמטנ וידי ואמטנ םא תאטחלו ןיליבטמ שדוקלו המורתלו רשעמלו ןילוחל םידיל ןילטונ

The mishnah is found verbatim in the mishnah manuscripts of mH9ul 11:2. In
the Bavli version of that mishnah (bH9ul 135a, bBB 150a), however, the substance of
the debate is identical, but the introduction is different and that difference is
significant. The versions read:
ג:
ג תויודע
תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג
תולחר שמח
זגה
אסוד יבר ירבד
ןהש לכ תוזזוג תולחר שמח םירמוא םימכחו
112
תישארב
ב:
אי ןילוח
רמוא סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר
תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג תולחר שמח
זגה
ןהש לכ תוזזוג תולחר שמח םירמוא םימכחו
The difference in citation form in both cases can be attributed to context. The
mishnah in mEd is part of a sequence of mishnayot that each begin with a presentation
of the issue being discussed before referring to any tradents. To begin the mishnah
with “R. Dosa says” would have been out of place. mH9ul, on the other hand, is
preceded by a dispute between the Houses as to how many sheep must be shorn to
obligate one to separate זגה תישאר. The introduction to the mishnah asserts that this
obligation 15 is limited to " הבורמ"
. How much is “a lot” (" הבורמ אוה המכו")
? Beit
Shammai rules that two sheep suffice, while Beit Hillel requires five. Next the
mishnah attempts to determine the volume of wool that each sheep must produce.
Implied is the question, " ? תוזזוג המכו"
. R. Dosa and the Sages concur that with Beit
Hillel, but they disagree on the volume of wool required. Finally the mishnah asks
15 In contrast to the three parts of the meat of any slaughtered ritually fit animal ( עורז
הביקו םייחל) which must be separated even when only one animal has been slaughtered.

how much wool must be given to the priest ( " ? ול ןינתונ המכו"
) . When the mishnah
formulates a question (here, clearly implied by the sequence), the expected
formulation of the response would be, “R. Ploni says …. and R. Ploni says”. 16 Thus
the formulations of mEd and of bH9ul are each suited to its location. This in itself tells
us nothing about the question of origin.
Two other observations may shed light on the original location of the
mishnah’s formulation:
1) The absence of the obvious question, " תוזזוג המכו"
, which would have been
the natural way to formulate this issue sandwiched between the other two topics, both
of which begin with explicit questions of quantification.
2) The formulation of " תוליחר שמח"
is striking. On the one hand, both opinions
assume the just mentioned opinion of Beit Hillel that five sheep are required to be
obligated to separate " זגה תישאר"
. On the other hand, in the context of mH9ul it is
unnecessary to mention the number of sheep. It is quite clear that the later tannaim
presented in the mishnah as a whole follow Beit Hillel’s opinion, and there is no need
to repeat it immediately following the debate of the Houses. Furthermore, it is
reasonable to assume that the debate between R. Dosa and the Sages does not depend
in anyway upon the debate of the Houses; Beit Shammai would presumably also
16 The introduction of a debate with two named tannaim with the word המכ occurs ten
times in the Mishnah; eight of the ten use this formulation. The appearance of this
variant here is more striking in light of the fact that one of the ten appears immediately
preceding this debate.
18 A situation where a vessel contracts impurity even though a zav or zavah is only
supporting his/her weight on the mat but not directly touching it
113

equire a certain amount of wool to be shorn from each of their two sheep. We would
have expected the debate to begin with, "... תוזזוג םהמ דחא לכו"
, which would have
flowed naturally from the previous debate.
If the debate of R. Dosa and the Sages was formulated independently of mH9ul
which contains the debate of the Houses, then it would not be unexpected that both
parties might provide for us information about more than one issue, i.e. the number of
sheep and how much each must produce. Thus it appears likely that this mishnah was
originally formulated in the context of mEd and later copied into mHul. Subsequent to
its insertion in mHul, the introductory formulation was modified from the form we
find in mEd and the mishnah manuscripts of mH9ul to fit the context of mH9ul better,
and hence the form we find in the Bavli tradition.
. םירמצ לשמ ץוח תואמט םלוכ
( ד:
ג)
ו:
ג תוידע
סרדמ 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד תמ אמט תואמט תולצוחה לכ
'וא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
'רבד
ןוליגליג לשמ ץוח תורוהט תועילקה לכ
All mats are susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a corpse according to
the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “[Even] throuugh midras (i.e. bearing the
weight of a zav, zavah, menstruating or post-parturient woman).”
All mesh garments are not susceptible to ritual impurity except those of gilgilon
according to the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “All are susceptible except
those of wool-sellers.”
The mishnah deals with two different kind of “vessels” and their susceptibility to ritual
h9os[elet, is probably synonymous with the term mah9as[elet, impurity. The first kind, a
which is a mat. The debate between R. Dosa and the Sages is whether or not the mats
are used for lying upon, or just for placing objects on them. If the former, they are
midras susceptible to be defiled through
18 ; otherwise the mah9as[elet is only susceptible
114

eing defiled through direct contact. to
19 This law has no parallel elsewhere in the
mishnah and hence the mishnah is original to mEd. 20
The second kind of vessel is a העילק. The commentators take the term to refer
to a kind of woven netting where the holes are sizable. R. Dosa believes that the holes
remove the status of דגב from the material, and make it the equivalent of a rope that is
not susceptible to impurity. Only in the case of a belt, where by tightening the belt the
holes close up, does the garment maintain the status of דגב. The Sages, on the other
hand, believe that unless the holes are very wide throughout like that of the mesh bag
used by wool merchants, the העילק is still a דגב. This part also has no parallel
19 bSuk 20a asserts, both parties in the dispute would agree in a circumstance where
the intent of the one who constructed the mat was clear. They only disagree in the
case where there was no intent or when the intent was unclear. Reish Laqish cites this
approach in the name of R. H9iyya. ySuk 1:12, however, cites this (not in R. Hiyya’s
name) in connection with mSuk and not mEd.
20
The few mishnayot that do mention mah9as[elet all assume that it is susceptible to
ritual impurity, but do not specify which kind. mSuk 1:11 assumes that if a mah9as[elet
had been constructed for the purpose of lying on it would be receptive to ritual
impurity. While the mishnah there does not explicitly mention what kind of impurity,
it is reasonable to assume that it refers to midras. Nonetheless, if we accept the
previously mentioned interpretation of the Bavli, even R. Dosa would agree in
principle that a mah9as[elet would be susceptible to midras had it been made explicitly
for the purpose of lying on it. If we assume that the simple sense of the mishnah does
not allow for that interpretation, then there is a possibility that mSuk is in accordance
with the opinion of R. Dosa’s Sages. The debate does appear in a slightly different
form in tKel BB 4:14:
. סרדמ םירמוא םימכחו תמ אמט אמט רמוא אסוד 'ר
רופצ לש ןיבו קש לש ןיבו םעש לש ןיב םילצוחה לכ
The presentation there suggests (although not definitively) that the debate is
expansive, unlike the Bavli’s approach, and would more likely see mSuk as rejecting
R. Dosa.
115

elsewhere in the mishnah or elsewhere in Rabbinic literature and hence is original to
mEd.
( ה:
ג)
ז:
ג תוידע
האמט גירא הלש לוביק תיב
לש עלקה
םימטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב אסוד 'ר
רועלשו
. האמט הלש עוקפה תיבו הרוהט הלש עבצא תיב קספינ
A slingshot whose pouch is a mesh is susceptible to ritual impurity.
If [made of] leather is not according to the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “It is
susceptible.”
If the finger-hold breaks it is no longer susceptible but if the beit hapaqia( breaks it
still is.
The mishnah discusses the ritual impurity associated with a slingshot. The debate
between R. Dosa and the Sages focuses on a slingshot where the portion that holds the
stone is made of leather. R. Dosa feels that the pouch is not used to actually hold
anything and hence is not considered a “vessel”; 21 the Sages, however, do regard it as
a “vessel”. The reason for the distinction between one made of leather and one of a
woven fabric is unclear. The mishnah concludes by discussing which parts, when
broken, render the slingshot useless and hence no longer susceptible to ritual impurity,
and those that do not change its status. The mishnah has no parallel elsewhere and
hence is original to mEd. 22
21
So interprets Ra’avad and many who follow him. The point of dispute is not
entirely clear.
22 This mishnah appears to have been imported from elsewhere. The second half of
the mishnah does not belong here at all, as it is not the subject of debate between R.
Dosa and the Sages. In the one other place that an extraneous piece is found in mEd
(1:1), we have already demonstrated that it was copied from mNid long after the
primary redaction of the Mishnah. Even the opening statement of the mishnah here is
116

( ו:
ג)
ח:
ג תוידע
תלכוא הניאש היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד המורתב תלכוא היובשה
הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא איהו תבשינש םידע שי
םא תלכוא ינא הרוהטו יתבשינ הרמאש השאה דציכ
. תלכוא
A captive woman may continue to eat terumah according to the opinion of R. Dosa
but the Sages say, “Some captive women can and some can’t.”
How so? A woman who says “I was taken captive but not defiled” may continue to
eat; but if there are witnesses to her being taken captive, she may not.
The last mishnah in the current section addresses the status, in relationship to
the priesthood, of a woman who was kidnapped. The concern is that the woman was
defiled by non-Jewish captors thereby rendering her unfit to marry into the priesthood
or (if of priestly stock herself) to eat terumah. R. Dosa believes that a captive woman
retains her presumptive status of fitness until we know that she has been defiled,
whereas the Sages were concerned enough to ban such a woman from eating terumah,
despite her denial of having been defiled. The only exception to the rule is if our
knowledge that the woman was taken captive comes from her and she at the same time
irrelevant as there is no debate, although one could argue that it helps frame the
debate.
The problem, however, is where to find the source for the mishnah. If it
appeared in parallel in mKel in a discussion of one of the related topics, we would
suggest simply that it was transferred in toto from there to mEd. Unfortunately, it
does not. The Tosefta there does not cover all of the material discussed in our
mishnah, nor is the wording similar enough that one could suggest that it (or its
forerunner) functioned as the source. All we can say for the present is that we can see
in this mishnah that some of the material in mEd itself was taken from a previously
redacted block of material.
117

asserts that she was not defiled. In such a case we apply the principle of אוה רסאש הפה"
" ריתהש הפה,
“The mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits”. 23
The mishnah is found in mKet 2:6 without R. Dosa’s opinion, and with the
explicit mention of the rationale of " ריתהש הפה אוה רסאש הפהש"
. His opinion is
mentioned nowhere else in Tannaitic literature and hence mKet cannot be the source
for our mishnah. We cannot be sure, whether mKet was derived from our mishnah or
if both originate in a common source. 24
Summary: The first half of the chapter is comprised of ten debates between R. Dosa
and the Sages. Four are not found elsewhere in the mishnah in any form and must be
original to mEd. Three more of them lack R. Dosa’s opinion in the parallel mishnah
and hence mEd could not have been derived from them. Of the remaining three, all of
23 This principle means that if the only witness for prohibiting something provides, at
the same time, more information which would permit that thing, they are believed.
The rationale is that they must be telling the truth, for if they were lying they could
have said nothing and then the status quo of the matter (i.e. that is was permitted)
would have remained in effect.
24
The presence of the rationale in mKet but absent in mEd does not demonstrate that
it could not have been copied from mEd as the expression of " רסאש הפהש"
is found
throughout the mishnayot of the second chapter of mKet and could easily have been
added accidentally or simply to make the mishnah conform to the context. In fact, the
addition in mKet would point to that mishnah having originated in mEd and having
been augmented to fit its new surroundings.
One note of interest is the influence that mKet did have on the printed edition
of mEd. The one difference which exists between the Sages in mKet and the Sages in
mEd is the expression of " רסאש הפהש"
. In the editio princeps of the mishnah, the two
have been leveled and thus all of the printed editions of the mishnah contain the
expression of " רסאש הפה"
in mEd as well.
118

which do appear identically elsewhere in the Mishnah, we have demonstrated that two
of them show clear signs of being secondary in the other locations in the mishnah, and
hence likely derive from mEd. One case remains indeterminate.
II. Other Collections of the Tannaim of Yavneh
( ז:
ג)
ט:
ג תוידע
ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
תוקיפס העברא
רבוע רוהטהו דמוע אמטה דציכ
רבוע אמטהו דמוע רוהטה
םיברה תושרב הרהטו דיחיה תושרב האמוט
םיברה תושרב האמוטו דיחיה תושרב הרהט
טיסיה אל קפסו טיסיה קפס ליהאה אל קפס ליהאה קפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי
'ר
There are four cases of doubtful contact with ritual impurity that R. Yehoshua declares
impure and the Sages declare pure.
How so?
If the impure person is standing still and the pure person passes by (i.e. does
not stand still);
If the pure person is standing still and the impure person passes by;
If the source of impurity is in a private domain, but the pure object/person is in
the public domain;
If the pure object/person is in a private domain, but the source of impurity is in
the public domain -
R. Yehoshua declares them impure but the Sages declare them pure.
The mishnah mentions four cases of doubtful ritual impurity in which R. Yehoshua
and the Sages disagree. The latter two cases are clear. As a general rule, doubtful
contact with ritual impurity in the private domain renders someone impure whereas
the same doubtful contact in the public domain does not. 25 R. Yehoshua and the Sages
25 mT9oh 6:4.
119

disagree only when the two domains overlap. The nature of the “doubt” in the first
two cases is unclear as they make no mention of the private or public domains 26
which suggests that the issue at hand has nothing to do with public vs. private. The
most likely interpretation is offered by R. Samson of Sens who connects this with
mT9oh 4:1 in which either the source of impurity or the person/object which potentially
touched it was in motion. The anonymous tanna rules that if either is moving the
person/object retains his/its pure status. 27 It follows then that there is no substantive
connection between the two sets of cases in our mishnah.
The mishnah is found verbatim in mT9oh 6:2. The surrounding material there
deals with doubtful cases of impurity in the private vs. public domains, and hence the
second half of our mishnah belongs. The first half, following the interpretation above,
26 Ra’avad already noted this omission in his commentary ad. loc.
27 Ra’avad posits that the first two cases also involve domain issues. He asserts that
one case deals with a situation of תומצמוצמ םיברו דיחיה תושר, i.e. a scenario in which
both the party in the public domain was up against the boundary line where it was
impossible to argue that perhaps even the one in the private domain might actually
have been over the line and in the public domain. Even in that case the Sages treat this
as a םיברה תושרב האמוט קפס. In the second half, even though the party in the private
domain could theoretically have been over the line and in the public domain,
nonetheless, R. Yehoshua treats it as a דיחיה תושרב האמוט קפס.
Maimonides connects this with the issue of a mes[ora who defiles through
contact even via )ohel, but only if the mes[ora was stationary. If the mes[ora passes
under the common roof and does not pause he does not transmit impurity. In the first
case, the mes[ora was stationary and the question is whether or not the passerby passed
under the common roof. In the second case, the passerby is stationary, and the doubt
is whether or not the mes[ora stood still. Maimonides makes no mention of domains in
his explanation, which would suggest that he (like Tosafot Sens) saw no real
connection between the two sets of cases.
120

is out of place; content-wise, it belongs to the beginning of the fourth chapter. 28 Its
placement in the sixth chapter there suggests that the entire unit was inserted into
mT9oh in toto from another source and this we assume that the mishnah originates in
mEd.
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ קודצ
( ח:
ג)
י:
ג תוידע
ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
ןירבד השלש
'ר
תועש ןבא לש רמסמו תוסורגלש ןוראו ינחלושלש רמסמ
There are three things which R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual impurity but the
Sages declare not susceptible:
The nail of a moneychanger, the closet of ground-beans and the nail of a
sundial, R. S9adok declares susceptible to ritual impurity but the Sages
declare not susceptible.
R. S9adok and the Sages debate the ritual purity status of three different items.
The first and third are clearly labeled as nails or pegs. R. S9adok asserts that these nails
are “vessels” and hence susceptible to impurity, whereas according to the Sages they
are not. The second case is ambiguous. Some understand that the word רמסמ of רמסמ"
" ינחלושלש is distributive and refers to a nail which was a part of a wagon. 29 The
problem with this interpretation is that the third item contains the word רמסמ used
again. If every item was in fact a רמסמ the mishnah should have read:
28 This is only so if we follow the reading of R. Samson. According to Maimonides, it
belongs in the thirteenth chapter of mNeg. Only according to Ra)avad does the first
half of the mishnah belong (thematically) in the sixth chapter of mToh , but as we
noted already, his reading is textually problematic.
29 Ra)avad (first approach) suggests that the nail was used to join the container holding
the beans to the frame of the wagon on which it was transported. See tKel BM 4:12
and Sperber, Tarbut Homrit b’Eretz Yisrael Biymei HaTalmud, pp. 141-49.
121

or
122
תועש ןבאו
תוסורג לש ןוראו ינחלושה רמסמ
. תועש ןבא לשו תוסורגה
ןורא לשו
ינחלושה רמסמ
The presentation suggests that there are three items: ינחלשה רמסמ, תוסורג לש ןורא and
תועשה ןבא לש רמסמ. For this reason some understand that the second case deals with
30
the container holding the תוסורג and not any kind of nail.
The mishnah appears verbatim in mKel 12:5. The eleventh through fourteenth
chapters of mKel deal with metal vessels. The twelfth chapter, among other issues,
deals with metal parts of larger vessels and whether they may independently contract
impurity. In this context mKel (12:4-5) discusses the status of a number of different
kinds of nails:
אמט ערגה רמסמ ( א
. אמטמ קודצ יבר רוהט תועשה ןבא לשו ( ב
אמט ידרגה רמסמ ( ג
. האמט תכתמ לש הלש הלגע התיה ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ צ"
ר תוסורג לש ןוראו ( ד
. רוהט הרימשל יושעה אמט וב לעונו חתופ תויהל וניקתהש רמסמ ( ה
. ונפרציש דע ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ ע"
ר תיבחה תא וב חתופ תויהל וניקתהש רמסמ ( ו
. אמטמ
קודצ יברו רוהט ינחלש
לש רמסמ ( ז
א) The nail of a blood-letter is susceptible to ritual impurity.
ב) That of a sundial, R. S9adok declares susceptible but the Sages
declare not susceptible.
ג) The nail of a weaver is susceptible.
30 Maimonides and R. Samson of Sens (second approach). Ra)avad suggests this as a
second approach but is troubled by why a wood vessel should be lumped among a
discussion of metal vessels. He suggests that perhaps there are two issues being
debated: the nail that joins the container to its wagon and the container itself. The
container is discussed here since its nail is being discussed. Maimonides apparently
understands (see Mishneh Torah, Kelim 10:6) that the wagon is made of metal and the
R. S9adok’s position is that even when the container is detached from the wagon it is
susceptible to impurity. The Sages maintain that the container (of wood) is only
susceptible to impurity when attached to the metal wagon.

ד) The closet of ground-beans, R. S9adok declares susceptible but the
Sages declare not susceptible. If its wagon is metal it is susceptible
(according to everybody).
ה) A nail which he prepared to unlock and lock with it is susceptible to
ritual impurity. That which is made for securing is not susceptible.
ו) A nail which he prepared to open barrels: R. Akiva declares [it]
susceptible but the Sages declare that it is not until he smelts it.
ז) The nail of moneychanger, R. S9adok declares susceptible but the
Sages declare not susceptible.
The mishnah there concludes with the same text as mEd:
תועשה ןבא לש רמסמו תוסורג לש ןוראו ינחלש לש רמסמ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
םירבד השלש
: ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
The layout in mKel presents two problems: 1) Each of the three debates was already
laid out earlier and juxtaposed to other related ‘nails’ about which no one argued.
Why are the cases then collected and repeated at the end of the section? 2) It appears
from the language here that the " תוסורג לש ןורא"
refers to the (wooden) box itself and
not to a nail. Why is this case mentioned in the middle of the cases of nails?
The latter problem suggests that the mishnah was not formulated in the twelfth
chapter of mKel but elsewhere as one unit; subsequently, the material was fleshed out
in mKel along with other kinds of nails. 31 The former problem is not as easily solved.
Two scenarios are most plausible: 1) Originally, the mishnah from mEd was inserted
in toto into mKel and later was expanded upon without removing the original source
material. 2) Originally, the expansion was formulated in mKel using the mishnah
31
Even if we adopt Ra’avad’s position that the mishnah is dealing with the רמסמ of the
box, the ambiguity of the formulation suggests that it was drawing upon an external
source; if the mishnah was originally formulated in this context, it would used the
word רמסמ or have read " תוסורגה
ןבא לשו"
which is used in the first pair (clauses aleph
and bet).
123

from mEd as a template; subsequently, someone (a redactor?) decided to duplicate the
mishnah of mEd in its relevant location. In either scenario, the mishnah is original to
mEd.
( ט:
ג)
אי:
ג תוידע
ןירהטמ 'כחו
אמטמ 'אילמג
ןבר ןירבד העברא
םינשל הקלחנש הלבטו תוכתמ ילכ ימלוגו תודרגמה יולתו םיתב ילעבלשו תכתמלש ינט יוסכ
. רוהט ןטקהו אמט לודגה ןטק דחאו לודג דחא םינשל הקלחנש הלבטב לאילמג ןברל 'כח
םידומ
There are four things that R. Gamliel declares susceptible to ritual impurity but the
Sages declare not susceptible:
A basket cover of metal of homeowners (as opposed to professionals), the
hanging chain of a back-scratcher, unpolished metal vessels and a tray
which was divided in half.
The Sages admit to R. Gamliel if the tray was broken into two pieces, one large
and one small, that the large is susceptible to impurity and the small is not.
The mishnah records four unrelated disputes regarding ritual impurity between R.
Gamliel and the Sages. The first three deal with different kinds of metal vessels and
the fourth speaks of a tray 32 but does not mention its material. MKel speaks elsewhere
of trays made of earthenware (2:3,7 27:1), wood (27:1) and glass (30:1), but never of
metal. tKel BM 4:1, however, refers to a tray made of metal. Given the established
existence of metal trays, we should assume that the tray here consists of metal as the
other items mentioned in the mishnah. 33
32
The mishnah uses the word אלבט. The same word is used to refer to a tablet for
writing or other purposes. In those contexts we find a " בהז לש הלבט"
(mYom 3:11) and
" שייש לש הלבט"
(mMid 1:9). In the context of mKel, the הלבט is a flat tray, which
sometimes has a short lip ( זבזבל)
around its edge.
33 If the tray were in fact earthenware, it would demonstrate clearly that the mishnah
was a unit from elsewhere incorporated into mKel since the case of the tray would
naturally belong elsewhere in mKel.
124

The mishnah is found verbatim in mKel (12:6) following the previous mishnah
which was also from mEd. While the general context of the impurity of metal vessels
(mKel 11-14) is appropriate, none of the individual pieces of the mishnah belong
where the mishnah is found. The only one of the four parts discussed elsewhere in
mKel is the first debate. In mKel 12:3 we read:
. אמט םיאפור לשו ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ ג"
ר םיתב ילעב לש תכתמ לש ינט יוסכ
This mishnah and our mishnah are broken up by the discussion of “nails”, a section
which concludes with the preceding mishnah from mEd. It is likely that this mishnah
was imported from mEd at the same time as its predecessor precisely because the first
topic was already discussed shortly before (in 12:3). 34
A quick survey of the remaining three cases and their appropriate context
strengthens the argument of transfer. The discussion of a יולת, a little chain used as
handle on a larger vessel to hang it on the wall, is found only in mKel 15:4 and its
Toseftan parallels where R. Gamliel’s opinion is not even mentioned. The third
debate, regarding metal vessels which had not yet been polished, belongs to the
opening discussion of metal vessels (the beginning of mKel 11) since it relates not to
any one type but to the general category. 35 The last case (the split cut in half) is not
34 It would have been more logical to place this mishnah after 12:3 than following its
counterpart from mEd. If the suggestion below (footnote 35) is correct then it was
placed here because of the case of the unpolished metal vessels.
35 The presence of the third case could be explained here differently. mKel 12:8
speaks of " ץע ילכ ימלוג"
, unpolished wooden vessels. It states:
ץע ילכ ימלוג לכו םיאמט אנכהו ןכהו םירוכהו תולקשמהו תלטוטמהו סומלוקהו רלואה
.
קלשתש דע הרוהט תיז לש תיפורג ףא רמוא הדוהי יבר עורכשא לשמ ץוח םיאמט
125

discussed at all in mKel, but they’re a number of places where the mishnah talks about
vessels being split, where it might have been incorporate. mKel 13:1 and 13:4, which
discuss the splitting of specific metal vessels and their status, 36 stand out as ideal
locations for this case. If the editor had been composing our mishnah in the context of
mKel the individual parts would have been placed in other locations. The fact that they
are collected here strengthens the argument that they formed an already extant
collection which was transferred here because of the connection to the previous
mishnah.
( בי-י:
ג)
די-בי:
ג תוידע
ימש תיב ירבדכ רימחמ לאילמג ןבר ןירבד השלש
תבשל בוט םוימ םימחה תא ןינמוט ןיא
בוט םויב הרונמה תא ןיפקוז ןיאו
םיקיקר אלא תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא ןיאו
םיקיקר אלא תוצירג ןתיפ תא ןיפוא ויה אל אבא תיבלש םהימימ לאילמג ןבר 'מא
ןיפוא תויהל 'ארשי
לכ לע םילקמו ןמצע לע ןירימחמ ויהש ךיבא תיבל םהל השענ המ ול ורמא
. ירחו תוצירג ןתיפ
126
לקהל ןירבד השלש 'מוא
אוה ףא
תוטימה ןיב ןידבכמ
The connection between the two halves of the mishnah is unclear, as is the novelty in
the first part. A simple reading of the mishnah (cf. Mishneh Ah9aronah, ad loc.) is that
even though most unpolished metal vessels are not susceptible to impurity, these
specific ones are (perhaps because people frequently do not bother to polish them). In
contrast, the mishnah notes, almost all wooden vessels are susceptible even before
they have been polished. If this interpretation is correct, then 12:8 would be the
appropriate location for a general statement about unpolished metal vessels. The
presence of 12:7, which has nothing to do with the topic of unpolished vessels, breaks
up the connection one would have drawn between the collection of the R. Gamliel
debates in 12:6 and 12:8.
36 If we were to assume that the tray was not made out of metal, we find discussions of
vessels that were split by pottery (mKel 7:3) and wood (mKel 16:1).

127
בוט םויב רמגימה תא םיחינמו
םיחספ ילילב סלוקמ ידג ןישועו
. ןירסוא 'מכחו
ןירסוא 'מכחו
ריתמ הירזע ןב רזעל 'ר
ןירבד השלש
הינרק ןיבש העוצרב אצוי
ותרפ
בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמו
ןהלש םייחירב ןילפליפה תא ןיקחושו
ןיפצרקמ לבא הרובח השוע אוהש ינפמ בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
הדוהי 'ר
. ןיפצרקמ אל ףא ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
There are three matters in which R. Gamliel is stringent in accordance with the view
of Beit Shammai:
One may not insulate hot water on the festival-day for Shabbat;
One may not erect a menorah on a festival-day;
One may not bake thick loaves on a festival-day but only thin ones.
R. Gamliel said, “In my father’s house they never baked thick loaves but only
thin ones”.
They said to him, “What shall we do for your father’s house as they were
stringent for themselves but were lenient for the Jewish community to bake
thick and thin loaves.”
He also viewed three matters leniently:
“One may sweep between the beds;”
“One may burn fragrant spices on the festival-day;”
“One may eat a fancy-lamb on the night of Passover.”
The Sages prohibit.
Three matters R. Elazar b. Azaryah permits but the Sages forbid:
His cow used to go out [into the public domain on Shabbat] with a ribbon tied
between its horns
One may comb the hair of an animal on the festival-day
One may grind pepper in a pepper-mill [on the festival-day]
R. Yehudah says, “One may comb his animal with a broad-pronged
comb but not with a sharp-pronged comb.”
The Sages say, “One may not use a broad-pronged comb or a sharppronged
one.”
The last three mishnayot in the chapter are treated as a unit since they all
appear together in mBes[ (2:6-8). They discuss a total of nine cases, all connected to

the laws of either Shabbat or the festivals. The first two mishnayot form one unit; the
three stringencies and the three leniencies of R. Gamliel. The second mishnah
contains three debates between R. Elazar b. Azaryah and the Sages.
A cursory analysis indicates that the material was probably not formulated
originally in the context of mBes[ because that tractate, generally speaking, deals with
two major topics. The first are the laws of muqs[eh on the festivals and the second is
those forms of melakhah which, although prohibited categorically on Shabbat, are
permitted on the festivals to enhance the enjoyment of the day (Ex. 12:16). The last
case of Rabban Gamliel’s three leniencies has nothing to do with the laws of the
Festivals; instead, it relates to the paschal lamb. 37
The first of R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s three cases does not relate at all to the
festivals, but rather to the Shabbat. 38 The discussion of what an animal may wear in
the public domain is found in the fifth chapter of mShab and is found there in a
different form. 39 The issue of the third case, combing out an animal’s hair, applies
37
R. Huna (bBes[ 22b) understands the last issue, the ban on baking certain kinds of
breads on a festival, as relevant only to Passover (out of a concern that bread will
leaven because of its size.) However, other opinions in the Bavli as well as yBes[ (2:6)
understand the mishnah as being an issue of excess labor ( אחריט)
on the festivals, in
which case it would be contextually appropriate for mBes. Thus for the purposes of
our analysis we must assume the possibility that the context of this part does
demonstrate foreignness to mBes[.
38 Since Beit Hillel (mBes[ 1:5) permits carrying in the public domain on the festivals
there is no concern of what the animal is wearing when it goes out in the public
domain.
39 mShab 5:4:
.
םימכח ןוצרב אלש הינרק ןיבש העוצרב האצוי התיה הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר לש ותרפ
128

equally to the Shabbat and the festivals 40 but the mishnah does explicitly state םויב"
" בוט.
The same can be said for R. Gamliel’s second stringency הרונמה תא ןיפקוז ןיא")
(" בוט םויב;
the issue is equally relevant to the Shabbat but the mishnah explicitly states
" בוט םויב"
. In addition, R. Elazar b. Azaryah’s last case, that of using the pepper-mill
on the festivals, belongs in the first chapter of mBes[ (1:7) where the laws of grinding
on the festivals are discussed. All these points taken together indicate that the material
was not originally formulated in the context of mBes. The editor of mBes[ inserted it
here at the conclusion of the debates between the Houses (which form the core of the
first two chapters of mBes) because the first mishnah speaks of R. Gamliel adopting
three stringencies of Beit Shammai. Hence we assume that the mishnah is original to
mEd. 41
Summary: Every mishnah the second half of the third chapter is found verbatim
elsewhere in the Mishnah. Every collection shows the mark of a unit of debates which
40 The Bavli and Yerushalmi differ as to the nature of the issue; bBes[ (23a) interprets
the debate as revolving around the question of ןווכתמ וניאש רבד, an unintentional byproduct
of a permitted action. yBes[ 2:6 appears to interpret differently, but is not
entirely clear in its intent.
41 One issue complicates matters slightly; the series of mishnayot in mBes[ is followed
by two more mishnayot (mBes[ 2:9-10) that are irrelevant or incidental to mBes[ but
also not found in mEd. This could lead us to speculate that there was an earlier source
for both mEd and mBes; mBes[ incorporated the entire block and mEd selected only
the part that fit its agenda (debates of three). It certainly, however, remains clear that
mEd was not taken from mBes.
129

was formulated elsewhere and appended to those contexts and hence all of the material
originated in mEd.
130

Chapter Four
Eduyot Chapter Four
The fourth and first half of the fifth chapters of mEd consist of disputes
between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel where, uncharacteristically, the former adopt
the lenient position and the latter the stringent one. The fourth chapter is presented
anonymously, while the first half of the fifth chapter attributes each collection of
debates to a tanna of Usha.
ב-א:
ד תוידע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ולא
לכאת אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו לכאת 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב הדלונש הציב ( 1
. תייזכ הזו הז 'וא
ללה תיבו תבתוככ ץמחו תיזכ רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב ( 2
היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי אל
'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח טחושה ( 3
ןכומ רפע ול
. ןכומ הריכה רפאש הסכיו לקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ
The following are from the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit
Hillel:
1) An egg which is laid on the festival day: Beit Shammai say, “It may be eaten” but
Beit Hillel say, “It may not be eaten.
2) Beit Shammai say, “The requisite amount of sour-dough yeast is an olive and for
leavened bread an egg” but Beit Hillel say, “Both are measured with an olive.”
3) One who slaughters a wild-animal or bird on the festival-day: Beit Shammai say,
“He may dig with a pitchfork and cover [the blood]” (in accordance with Lev.
17:13) but Beit Hillel say, “He may not slaughter unless he has prepared-dirt.”
They (i.e. Beit Hillel) admit that if he has slaughtered [already] that he should dig
with the pitchfork and cover [the blood] because the ashes of a stove are
‘prepared’ 1 (for usage on a festival).
1 The term mukhan (‘prepared’) is the antithesis of muqs9eh: the former is designated
for use on the festival whereas the latter has been set aside to not be used.
131

The first two mishnayot address three cases which pertain the to the laws of the
festivals. The first and third deal with situations that pertain to every festival, and both
are related to the issue of muqs[eh, items the use of which is prohibited because they
have not been properly prepared for the festival day. 2 The second case deals with the
requisite amount of leavened material needed to violate the biblical prohibition of לב"
" אצמי לבו הארי,
possessing leavened material during Passover.
This unit of laws opens the mishnaic tractate of Besah[ as well. The presence
of the middle law demonstrates that these mishnayot were not formulated in the
context of mBes[, but elsewhere 3 ; had they been formulated in mBes[ the middle law
2 The anonymous layer in yBes 1:1 understands the debate of הדלונש הציב as revolving
around the issue of muqs[eh. The Bavli cites four opinions in understanding the
mishnah. The first, R. Nah9man, explains the debate in the same way as the
Yerushalmi. Rabbah explains the debate as a function of the issue of הנכה, also related
to the topic of muqs[eh. R. Yosef and R. Yis[h9ak, however, each gave a reason for Beit
Hillel’s prohibiting the egg that is not at all related to muqs[eh.
The third case, involving digging dirt to cover the blood of a bird or beast
slaughtered on the festival, entails moving dirt that has not been prepared for use on
the festival. The expression at the end of this case הריכה רפאש םידומו"ןכומ" makes it
clear that issue is one of muqs[eh.
3
Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, p. 256 and Lewy, “Qeta‘im MiMishnat Abba
Shaul” (in Messilot le-Torat HaTannaim), p. 111. Both assert that mBes[ was taken
from mEd, and neither considers the possibility that the unit stems from a common
source. As we have discussed earlier, there is no method we can use to discern if the
source is mBes[ or a common source, but we can assert that it was not formulated in
the context of mBes[.
The anomaly here was already noted by almost all of the medievals who
comment on this passage in bBes (Rashi 2a, s.v.רואש, Tosafot ibid., Ben-HaRamban
ibid. s.v. םירמוא יאמש תיב, Re’ah ibid., and Shittah Mequbetzet ibid.) The closest
formulation one finds to he notion that mEd was the source for mBes[ is that of Re’ah,
who comments, " אכה והל אנת יכהל , ידדה יבגל והל ינת תוידעב םתהד םושמ"
.
132

would have been left out 4 and been incorporated into the third chapter of mPes, its
topically relevant context, which addresses the issue of the amount of leavened
material which may be left around. 5 There is a textual variant in the Bavli (bBes9 7b)
cited by some of the medieval commentators that explicitly addresses this issue. It
reads:
6
. יאק חספ לש בוט םויב אנת ? הימש רכד ןאמ רואש
Who mentioned “se)or”? The tanna was dealing with the festival of
Passover.
The passage is absent in all but one (Göttingen 3) of the six manuscript witnesses and
its implied absence by the comments of the many medievals who deal with the
question without acknowledging the answer given by this text indicate its secondary
nature. 7 We conclude then that the mishnah was formulated in mEd and later copied
to mBes[.
הטימשכ םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה וניא 'וא
ללה תיבו רקבה םיינעל רקבה
133
ה-ג:
ד תוידע
'מוא
ימש תיב ( 4
4 The entire first chapter of mBes[ consists of debates between the Houses with regards
to issues of the muqsah and prohibited work on festival days.
5
mPes 3:2:
. וטועמב לטב אל םאו . רעבל ביח דחא םוקמב תיזכ שי םא הברע יקדסבש קצב
. הברעכ אוה ירה ומויקב הצור םאו . ץצוח וילע דיפקמ םא האמטה ןינעל ןכו
Not surprisingly, the mishnah assumes the position of Beit Hillel.
6 Beit HaBeh9irah bBes[ 7a, Shit[t[ah Mequbetzet ibid., s.v. םירמוא יאמש תיב.
7 The Meiri rejects the passage based upon logical grounds that mBes[ in its totality
deals with laws that pertain to all festivals and to assert that the tanna was working on
this tractate in the context of Passover is absurd.

'וא
ללה תיבו החכש וניא
'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו םיבק תעברא לש תחא בק בק לש הדשה ירמוע לכ ( 5
. החכש
ללה תיבו החכש וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה ( 6
. החכש 'מוא
. תגל ולוכ
ול שי 'מוא
ללה תיבו רועיב ול ןיאו שמוח ול ןיא 'מוא
ימש תיב יעבר םרכ ( 7
'מוא
ללה תיבו ןמצעל ןידופ םיונעו תוללוע ול שיו טרפ ול שי 'מוא
ימש תיב ( 8
4) Beit Shammai say, “Something declared ownerless only for the poor is legally
ownerless” but Beit Hillel say, “It is not ownerless until he declares it ownerless even
for the rich as in the Sabbatical year.”
5) If each of the bundles in the field are a qab and one is four qabin and he forgets it:
Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” (i.e. does not belong to the poor) but Beit Hillel
say, “It is shikhh9a.”
6) A bundle which was left next to a wall, a heap, cattle or equipment and he forgets
it: Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” but Beit Hillel say “It is shikhh9a.”
7) Kerem reva(i (i.e. the fourth-year fruits of a vine): Beit Shammai say, “It has no
“fifth” (one who redeems his own must add a fifth of the total) and it need not be
destroyed [during the bi(ur period after the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical
cycle]” but Beit Hillel say, “It does.”
8) Beit Shammai say, “It (kerem reva(i) is liable for peret[ and (olelot” (the grapes
which are given to the poor) but Beit Hillel say, “It is not.”
The next group of debates consists of four laws all of which deal with issues
from the order of Zera(im. 8 The first three laws appear as a sequence in mPe 6:1-2
8 The issues are:
(1) Produce declared hefqer (ownerless) is exempt from tithes, while that
which is given as a gift or sold is liable. Can one declare produce hefqer so that only
one group of people (the poor) may take possession of it and still have the produce
retain hefqer’s exemption from tithes?
(2) If one forgets (shikhh9a) a certain number (three according to Beit Hillel,
four according to Beit Shammai) of bundles of produce in the field at one time, the
law does not regard the produce as shikhh9a and the field’s owner may then gather
them in. If one forgets an oversized bundle which if divided up would form the
134

while the fourth appears both in mPe 7:7 and in mMS 5:3. A brief overview of the
laws of shikhh9a discussed in mPe 5:7 – 6:11 will help demonstrate that the first three
laws did not originate in mPe:
I) Whose forgetting (owner or workers) confers upon the produce the status
of shikhh9a? (5:7)
II) At what stage of gathering (the final stage of building one pile, or the
intermediate stages of building a smaller number of larger and larger piles)
can forgetting of produce constitute shikhh9a? (5:8)
III) Situations where a person has physically left an item behind, but doing
so does not constitute shikhh9a. (6:3-4)
IV) The number of bundles which if left behind is too large to constitute
shikhh9a (6:5)
V) The maximum size of a single bundle which can qualify as shikhh9a;
anything larger constitutes a שידג and not an רמוע and is not treated as
shikhh9a. Included in this discussion is a case in which a person left two
large bundles that could combine to meet the two-se)ah size requirement,
and whether or not we can treat it as one large bundle. (6:6-7:9)
VI) A discussion of the ability of produce which was not harvested or
gathered yet, but was also not forgotten, to serve as a “savior” for nearby
produce which had been forgotten. (Section III dealt with situations where
the produce in question is treated or viewed as if it were never actually
forgotten, whereas this section assumes that it was genuinely forgotten, but
will be “remembered” because of nearby produce.) (6:8)
requisite number of bundles which are too numerous to be declared shikhh9a, would we
visualize the large bundle as if it were multiple small bundles and allow the field’s
owner to retain possession, or would we treat it as one bundle and designate it for the
poor?
(3) If the owner ‘forgets’ a bundle in a distinctive location, where, in theory, he
might be able to remember the lost bundle even without physically returning to check
the field ( " ותחקל בושת אל"
), would such a bundle be treated as shikhh9a?
(4) The Torah declares the fruits of the fourth year of a tree as " 'הל
םילולה שדק"
(Lev. 19:24). A comparison ( " הוש הריזג"
) is drawn between these fruits (reva(i) and
the produce of ma(aser sheni. Does that comparison apply to all of the details of
ma(aser sheni (such as the additional fifth that must be added when the owner
redeems his own tithes and the requirement of bi(ur, destroying what had not yet been
consumed of the tithes by the end of the fourth and seventh years of the shemit[t[ah
cycle)? In addition, what is the procedure of dealing with reva(i with respect to the
gifts (peret[ and (olelot) given to the poor? Does the status of qodesh supersede poor
people’s right to the produce?
135

VII) Specific kinds of produce that are not subject to shikhh9a after their
harvesting. (6:10)
VIII) If the inability to see the produce clearly (underground bulbs,
nighttime, blindness) when gathering it has an impact upon its potential to be
shikhh9a. (6:10-11)
IX) A discussion of means of avoiding shikhh9a either by cutting sizes of
grain rather than areas of the field, and by stipulating that one is cutting with
the intent of going back (the former valid, the latter not). (6:11)
The three laws from mEd are found in mPe between the second and third units. The
first of the three, that of produce declared hefqer only for the poor, relates not only to
shikhh9a but to leqet[ and pe)ah as well. There is no apparent reason why this law
should have been placed in the middle of a discussion of shikhh9a. Furthermore, there
are two other places where mPe mentions the law of hefqer: 1) mPe 1:6 notes the
various legal ramifications of ירכה חורימ 9 , among them that if one declares grain hefqer
before ירכה חורימ the grain is exempt from tithes; if afterwards the liability for tithes
has been created and is not dissolved by declaring it hefqer. 2) mPe 4:9 where the
mishnah notes that leqet[, shikhh9a and pe)ah of a non-Jew’s field are liable for tithes
unless he declares the produce hefqer. This last mishnah is found in a section of laws
that deal with all three gifts to the poor. The section is preceded by the discussion of
the details of pe)ah and followed by the laws of leqet[, and would have been the ideal
place to discuss the issue of hefqer directed specifically for the poor This is especially
so since Beit Shammai’s model for a limited hefqer is modeled upon these gifts to the
poor which are exempt from tithes even though set aside specifically for one group of
9 Literally ‘smoothing out of the pile [of grain]’; conceptually a reference to the final
processing stage of grain (הכאלמ רמג) which creates the liability for tithes.
136

people. 10 The most plausible explanation for the first mishnah being placed in the
middle of the discussion of shikhh9a is that it was part of a unit which included the
other mishnayot (which deal with shikhh9a specifically) that was inserted whole into
mPe.
The explanation of the debate in the second law, which deals with one sheaf
much larger than the others, is not entirely clear. The simplest explanation is that the
debate between the Houses here focuses on whether or not one can visualize an
abnormally large sheaf that should have been broken up into smaller ones as if it were
broken up already. Beit Shammai are of the opinion that one views the larger sheaf as
if it were broken up, and since there are four individual sheaves here, they are not
shikhh9a in accordance with mPe 6:5. Beit Hillel contend that we treat it as one sheaf
and hence it can be shikhh9a. 11 If this indeed is the correct explanation, then the
mishnah belongs in section IV where the Houses dispute the larger issue of the
maximum number of individual sheaves fallen which may be considered shikhh9a. 12 It,
10
This propriety of this context for the debate about םיינעל רקפה is reinforced by a
passage from tPe 3:1 elaborating upon the debate:
. רקפה הזש םירכנל אלו לארשיל המהבל אלו םדאל ריקפה םאש ללה תיבו ש"
ב םידומ
The mention of different categories of people (not just poor and rich) as relevant to
limning the contours of the debate suggests that the mishnah belongs in the discussion
of whose declaration can create the exemption of the tithes and who must be target of
the declaration.
11 R. Samson of Sens based upon the yPe 6:2.
12 See also the Pnei Moshe (yPe 6:1) who offers a different, albeit forced, explanation.
Perhaps the simplest explanation might be that Beit Shammai believe that a sheaf
which is disproportionately large in comparison with the other sheaves is to treated as
a gadis] much like a pile of two se)ah in section V; there, however, the amount of two
137

just as the first law, was placed here because it formed part of a larger unit which was
inserted whole into this context.
The third law relates to an item that the owner physically left behind, but
because he placed it in a location where he will remember it, it is not viewed as
‘forgotten’. This law belongs to section III, which in fact, it immediately precedes. 13
With this in mind, it becomes perfectly clear why the first two laws in mPe 6:2 are out
of place; they originally formed one unit along with the third law which deals with the
leniencies of Beit Shammai in agricultural laws. The redactor of mPe did not wish to
break them up, so he left the first two laws out of place and placed the unit where the
third law flowed naturally into the section that followed. Hence we conclude that
these two mishnayot (three laws) are original to mEd.
The fourth law in this section, which deals with the status of reva(i, 14 is found
in two other places, mPe 7:6 and mMS 5:3. The original location is clearly not mPe,
since the first half relates to issues of reva(i that are unrelated to any topic discussed in
mPe; the redactor incorporate it into mPe because of the second half which discusses
se)ah is absolute, so that even if every pile in the field were two se)ah, none would be
shikhh9a despite being the normal size, whereas here the pile is only considered a gadis]
because of its relative size. Beit Hillel believe that the concept of gadis] is only an
absolute one and never a relative one. If so, the mishnah should have been placed in
section V.
13
Conceptually speaking, our law and Section III both deal with what constitutes a
violation of “returning” to take the sheaf (" ותחקל בושת אל")
.
14 The produce of the fourth year which, according to Rabbinic tradition, must be
eaten in Jerusalem in accordance with Leviticus 19:24.
138

the status of the peret[ 15 and (olelot 16 of the fruits of reva(i. Since the text of the
mishnah deals specifically with reva(i of the vine, 17 it was placed in the seventh
chapter where the gifts to the poor from the grapevine are discussed.
Whether it originated in mEd or mMS, however, is unclear. The first half of
the fifth chapter of mMS (5:1-5) discusses the laws of reva(i. After the debate
between the Houses was already cited in the third mishnah, the fifth mishnah states:
. הנתמב ול ןתנש ןיבו ולש אוהש ןיב ותישימח
139
וילע ףיסומ ולש יעבר עטנ הדופה
One who redeems his own fourth-year-produce must add on a fifth –
[this is so] whether it was his (i.e. it grew in his possession) or whether
it was given to him as a gift.
The mishnah here assumes the opinion of Beit Hillel, 18 but does not connect if with
the earlier debate. At first glance, the repetition of the issue suggests that the debate of
the Houses in mMS 5:3 represents a different source than mMS 5:5. Naturally, one
might assume that the source of 5:3 is mEd. However, it is perplexing that the editor
did not simply place the Houses’ debate in the most relevant place, i.e. immediately
preceding the fifth mishnah. There are two ways to explain this; the approach taken
will be dependent whether one assumes (as Neusner does) that the Mishnah consists of
a single layer, or that it preserves multiple layers that were used to compile it:
15 Grapes that fall to the ground in the process of harvesting (mPe 7:3).
16 Grapes that grow in abnormal clusters; see mPe 7:4 and tPe 3:16.
17
For the issue of " יעבר םרכ"
vs. " יעבר עטנ"
see bBer 35a and yMS 5:1.
18 mBM 4:8 which enumerates reva(i as one of five things which much have a שמוח
added on to them during redemption assumes the same.

1) According to the former approach, one notes that the first and second
mishnayot begin with the expression " יעבר םרכ"
; the fourth and fifth do not begin the
sentence with יעבר as the subject and both of them use the expression " יעבר עטנ"
and
not " יעבר םרכ"
. The redactor placed the debate of the Houses adjoining the first two
mishnayot because it too uses the term " יעבר םרכ"
. Accordingly, if the formulators of
this mishnah had been formulating it in the context of mMS, they would have chosen a
formulation more akin to that of the fifth mishnah, " יעבר עטנ"
, and placed it there. We
would conclude then that this mishnah had to have been formulated elsewhere (mEd)
and placed in the most appropriate location.
2) If we assume the layered approach, 19 we would explain that the first three
mishnayot belong to one source, the "םרכ"יעבר tradition, in which the issue of the שמוח
was taught as a dispute between the Houses. The second source, from the " יעבר עטנ"
tradition, contained only the conclusive opinion of Beit Hillel. If so, the third
mishnah’s placement proves nothing about its origin because it is conceivable that the
first three mishnayot were formulated originally in the context of mMS and the fourth
and fifth were introduced from another source.
19 This chapter of mMS, in fact, demonstrates well the forcedness of Neusner’s
position; why does the redactor repeat himself and not link common topics together,
and why is he inconsistent in his usage of םרכ vs. עטנ? yMS 5:1 quotes a discussion
where R. Yehudah HaNasi is aware of the different schools of thought on this. It is
difficult to imagine how Neusner could explain the choice of the redactor (who even if
not R. Yehudah HaNasi, as Neusner might believe, was almost certainly a
contemporary) to mix together in one chapter conflicting versions on this point. The
layered approach eliminates the problem.
140

ו:
ד תוידע
20
בקנל ךירצ 'וא
ללה תיבו בקנל ךירצ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב םילגלוגמ םיתיז לש תיבח ( 9
הרוהט איהש םירמש אהומתסו הבקינ םאש םידומו
לבטו דריו אמטינו רוהט ןמש ךסה ( 10
ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'וא
ללה תיבו רוהט ףטנמ יפ לע ףא 'מוא
ימש תיב
ותליחתמ אמט ןמש היה םא ( 11
חיפוט הקשמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
יימש תיב
. חיפטמו חיפוט ללה תיב םשמ 'וא
הדוהי 'ר
9) A barrel of ripened lives [where liquid may accumulate on the bottom]: Beit
Shammai say, “There is no need to make a hole in the vessel” but Beit
Hillel say “one must make a hole.”
They admit that if he made a hole and dregs plugged it that the olives
remain ritually pure.
10) If one anoints himself with ritually-pure oil and then becomes ritually
impure and immerses in the ritual bath:
Beit Shammai say, “Even if the oil is still dripping he becomes rituallypure”
but Beit Hillel say, “If there is enough oil remaining one him to
anoint a small limb [he does not].”
11) If the oil was ritually impure:
Beit Shammai say, “If there is enough oil remaining one him to anoint a
small limb [he has not become pure]” but Beit Hillel say, “Even if there
is any moisture remaining.”
R. Yehudah says, “It must be moist enough to moisten
something else.”
The mishnah here discusses two issues related to the impurity of fluids that
emanate from olives. Neither of the two halves is cited elsewhere in the Mishnah and
hence the mishnah is original to mEd. The topic of the second half is addressed
20
The term " ןילגלגמ"
with respect to olives is unclear; mAZ 2:7 contains a similar
usage although its meaning there is also unclear. Contextually it refers to ripening.
tShab 3:6 uses the term to refer to the boiling of eggs. Leaving the olives in a warmer
environment will hasten their ripening. It may be that the root in its usage here is to be
associated with the root רגרג. (Sefer Ha’Aruch, grgr. Also see Epstein, Mevo)ot
leSifrut HaMishnah pp. 413-414.) mMen 8:4 uses that root to refer to the process of
allowing the olives to ripen. bMen 86a asks:
? ולגלגמ וא ןנת ורגרגמ והל איעביא
mToh 9:6 also uses the root grgr to refer to some kind of processing of olives.
141

nowhere else in tannaitic literature. The general topic of the former issue is discussed
at some length in the ninth chapter of mT9oh, but our mishnah is never cited in any
form, nor is it clear that a position on the specific topic of our mishnah is adopted.
ז:
ד תוידע
הטורפ הושבו הטורפב 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ 'ניד
הוושבו רנידב תשדקתמ השאה ( 12
יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ דחא הטורפ איה המכו
ןירסוא ללה תיבו ןשי טגב ותשא תא םדא אוה רטופ 'מוא
ימש תיב ( 13
הל ובתכש רחאמ המיע דחיתינש לכ ןשי טג אוה הז יאו
הכירצ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניא 'וא
ימש תיב יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה ( 14
ינש טג ונממ
ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתינש ןמזב יתמא
. הב סג ובילש ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניאש םיסוראה ןמ השרגתינב ןידומו
12) A woman can be betrothed with a dinar or its value according to the view of Beit
Shammai but Beit Hillel say, “A perut[ah or its value.”
How much is a perut[ah? One eight of an Italian )isar.
13) Beit Shammai say, "One may divorce his wife with an “old bill of divorce”" but
Beit Hillel prohibit.
What is an “old bill of divorce”? Any one where he secluded with her after its
writing.
14) If one divorces his wife and then sleeps with her at an inn: Beit Shammai say,
“She does not require from him a second bill of divorce” but Beit Hillel say, “She
requires from him a second bill of divorce.”
When is this so? When she was divorced after consummation.
But they (Beit Hillel) admit that when she was divorced after [she only had
experienced] betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of
divorce because he is not comfortable with her.
Three disputes between the Houses, all of which relate to issues in the Order of
Nashim, comprise this mishnah. All of them exist elsewhere in the Mishnah. The first
of the disputes is found in mQid 1:1 in a slightly different form. The latter two are
found verbatim in mGit[ 8:4 and 8:9.
142

Determining the origin of each of the three cases is difficult. The first mishnah
deals with the minimum value of the gift the man must give the woman for betrothal.
mQid 1:1 nestles the debate between the Houses within a broader discussion of the
three different forms of betrothal. The two mishnayot side-by-side read:
ז,
ד תוידע
תשדקתמ השאה
. יאמש תיב ירבדכ רניד הושבו רנידב
. הטורפ הושבו הטורפב םירמוא ללה תיבו
יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ דחא הטורפ איה המכו
143
המצע תא הנוקו
א,
א ןישודיק
םיכרד שלשב תינקנ השאה
. האיבבו
רטשב ףסכב תינקנ . םיכרד יתשב
רניד
הושבו רנידב םירמוא יאמש תיב ףסכב
. הטורפ הושבו הטורפב םירמוא ללה תיבו
יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ דחא הטורפ איה המכו
לעבה תתימבו טגב המצע תא הנוקו
mQid:
A woman may be “acquired” (i.e. married) in three ways and can “acquire” herself in
two ways.
She may be “acquired” via money, a document or consummation.
Via money:
Beit Shammai say with a dinar or its value.
Beit Hillel say with a perut[ah or its value.
And how much is a perut[ah? One eight of an Italian )isar.
She may acquire herself via a bill of divorce or through the death of her husband.
The versions differ in two important ways: 1) The citation formula of the
Houses, " יאמש תיב ירבדכ"
vs. " םירמוא יאמש תיב"
and 2) The verb used to describe the
betrothal, qny vs. qds]; 21 in this respect, mEd conforms to the language of mQid 2:1.
The first difference suggests that mEd did not derive from mQid; since the
other two debates in mEd follow the same introductory formula as mQid, why would
21 bQid 2a contains an extended discussion about this and other linguistic points about
the first mishnah. The answers given by that sugya, famously regarded as saboraic in
origin (Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon, p. 71), do not take into account the possibility of
multiple sources, and hence are not relevant for our approach. The linguistic
sensitivities of the sugya, however, are worthy of note.

the redactor have changed the formula from the original one of mQid to make it stand
out in mEd? He could simply have taught:
. הטורפ הושבו הטורפב א"
הבו רניד הושבו רנידב תינקנ השאה א"
שב
Rather, the redactor probably changed the original introductory formula in mEd to fit
in mQid. 22
At first glance, the second difference suggests that these two mishnayot were
formulated independently, or derive from different traditions. 23 A closer look at the
structure of mQid suggests that mEd was inserted as a gloss into an already existing
mishnah:
םיכרד שלשב תינקנ השאה
םיכרד ינשב המצע תא הנוקו
הקזחו רטש ףסכב תינקנ
רניד הושבו רנידב א"
שב ףסכב
הטורפ הושבו הטורפב א"
הבו
יקלטיאה רסיאב הנומושמ דחא הטורפ איה המכו
144
לעבה תתימבו טגב המצע תא הנוקו
The mishnah does not elaborate upon any of the other “methods” of marriage
or divorce; the same holds true for the mishnayot (which list forms of ןינק) that follow
in mQid (1:2-5). Thus, the difference in language does point to two sources: the term
22 Admittedly, this observation begs the question of why in fact was this mishnah
formulated differently. Nonetheless, the fundamental point of its independence from
the tradition in mQid is clear.
23
Epstein (Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, p. 55-57) posits that the first block of
mishnayot in mQid are an ancient unit of " םינינק תכסמ"
. While one can debate the
issue of dating, he is most likely correct that we are dealing with a separately redacted
unit.
1א
1ב
2א
ג
2ב

" תינקנ"
appears in the body of the mishnah which is part of the original formulation in
mQid and the gloss which cites the Houses is an adaptation of mEd. Hence both
differences between the two versions suggest that the subsection of mQid was adapted
from mEd.
The second and third laws are found verbatim in mGit[ (8:4 and 8:9). Nothing
about the structure or context provides any hints to the original location of these
mishnayot.
24
ח:
ד תוידע
ןירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל תורצה תא ןיריתמ ימש תיב ( 15
15) Beit Shammai permit the rival wives [of a forbidden relation] to marry the levir
but Beit Hillel prohibit.
The mishnah appears at the end of the first chapter of mYev (1:4) followed by
a long exposition about the consequences of the respective opinions of the Houses.
An analysis of the structure of the first chapter of mYev, suggests that the mishnah
was not formulated in that context:
ולאו םלועה ףוס דע םוביה ןמו הצילחה ןמ ןהיתורצ תורצו ןהיתורצ תורטופ םישנ הרשע שמח
... ןה
.... תורתומ ןהיתורצ תוינוליא ואצמנש וא ושרגתנ וא ונאימ וא ותמ םא ןלוכו
145
... ןהיתורצ תורטופ דציכ
... תורתומ ןהיתורצ ותמ םא דציכ
24 The rest of the mishnah found in the printed editions is probably a medieval addition
to the original mishnah copied from the mishnah in mYev (1:4). It is found only in
Maimonides’ autograph of the mishnah, MS JTS-Rab1622 (a Yemenite manuscript
dependent upon Maimonides) and the editio princeps. The Palestinian representatives
of the mishnah (MSS Kaufmann, Parma 138, Cambridge), MS Munich 95, and the
Northern Spanish MSS (Parma 984, Paris 339, Oxford 1272) contain nothing beyond
the first line.
1ב
'2ב
א
1
א
2

. תמביתמ אלו תצלוח התרצ הנאימ
אלו ןאמל הלוכיה לכו
146
" 2ב
... תורתומ ןהיתורצ םירחאל תואושנש ינפמ ולאמ תורומח תוירע שש
... הנוהכה ןמ ןילסופ יאמש תיב וצלח םירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל תורצה ןיריתמ יאמש תיב
א1 Fifteen women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival
wives ad infinitum from h9alis9ah and levirate marriage, and they (i.e. the
fifteen) are as follows ...
א2 If any of them died or performed mi)un 25 or were divorced or were
discovered to be an )aylonit 26 their rival wives are permitted [to the levir] ...
...
ב1 What is an example of their exempting their rival wives? ...
ב1' What is an example of their rival wives being permitted if they die?
ב2' And if anyone who could have performed mi)un but did not, her
rival wife must perform h9alis9ah and may not marry the levir.
ג In the case of six forbidden relations which are more severe and thus can only
be married to non-relatives (i.e. and not any of the brothers), the rival wives are
permitted.
ד Beit Shammai permit the rival wives [of a forbidden relation] to marry the
levir but Beit Hillel prohibit.
א1 lists fifteen possible scenarios in which a levir may potentially encounter
yibbum with a forbidden relation (with whom, the Houses agree, he may not perform a
levirate marriage). The mishnah focuses on finding those relations who are allowed to
marry the levir’s (now deceased) brother (but not him), and assumes that no levirate
25 A minor woman whose father has died or has already married her off once (if the
marriage reached the stage of ןיאושינ) is unable to marry on a Scriptural level because
she no longer has a father empowered by biblical law to marry her off and she cannot
marry by herself as the actions of minor have no standing. The Rabbis instituted
marriage (initiated by her or by close family members) for her on a Rabbinic level but
allowed her to dissolve this marriage via mi)un, a verbal declaration of refusal to
continue in the marriage. Cf. mYev 13:1-6.
26 A woman who never undergoes a normal puberty. Cf mNid 5:7-9.
ג
ד

marriage is allowed for any of the wives when any one is relative forbidden to the
levir. א2 qualifies this rule, limiting it to situations where the relation in question was
still married to the deceased brother at the time of his death; otherwise the obligation
of levirate marriage (or h9alitzah) remains in force. ב1 and ב2 present exemplar for א1
and א2 and are followed by an aside elaborating upon the mi)un mentioned at the end
of א2. ג presents the antithesis of the א1; i.e. situations in which one may marry a rival
wife of a woman who is a forbidden relation who could never have married the
deceased brother precisely because they are both married to a complete stranger and
the case does not involve levirate marriage. Until this point, the mishnayot all take for
granted the prohibition of the rival wife of the forbidden relation ( הורעה תרצ)
.
Suddenly the last mishnah notes that this assumption is the subject of debate between
the Houses. Why did the editor wait until now to inform us of the debate? A more
logical formulation would have been to begin the chapter as follows:
ףוס דע םובייה
ןמו הצילחה ןמ ןהיתורצ תורצו ןהיתורצ תורטופ םישנ הרשע שמח
... ןה ולאו ןירטופ ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיבו ללה תיב ירבדכ םלועה
The presentation of the mishnah as if it were an afterthought suggests that the last
mishnah was taken from another source and appended to the chapter and hence we
assume that the mishnah is original to mEd. 27
27
There is troubling aspect of the formulation of the mishnah which raises doubts
about its originating in mEd; that is that the mishnah refers to " תורצה"
but there is no
antecedent to explain which rival wives we are discussing. (The parallel mYev finds
an antecedent in the first mishnah.) One could then suggest the following scenario:
The mishnah’s formulation originated outside of mYev and was placed there at the
end of the first chapter where it found a natural antecedent to describe which " תורצ"
we are dealing with. This last mishnah alone was then copied into mEd and thus lacks
147

ט:
ד תוידע
הנפומ דחאו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ ןהמ םינש ןיחא השלש ( 16
ינשה ויחא תמ ךכ רחאו רמאמ הנפומ הב השע תויחא ילעבמ דחא תמ
השא תוחא םשמ אצת זלהו ומע ותשא 'מוא
ימש תיב
הצילחב ויחא תשא תאו הצילחו טגב ותשא תא איצומ 'וא
ללה תיבו
. ויחא תשא לע ול יאו ותשא לע ול יא ורמאש איה וז
16) In a case of three brothers where two are married to a pair of sisters and one is
single,
If one of the brothers married to the sisters died and the single brother
performed a ma)amar and then the second brother died:
Beit Shammai say, “His wife (i.e. the one with whom he made a ma)amar)
remains with him and the other one (i.e. sister) goes out [without even
h9alis[ah] as a sister’s wife.”
but Beit Hillel say, “He must send out his wife with a bill of divorce and
h9alis[ah and his brother’s wife with h9alis[ah .”
This is the referent of “Woe to him on his wife and woe to him on his brother’s
wife”.
The mishnah appears verbatim in mYev among a sequence of mishnayot which
deal with a scenario in which there are three brothers (" םיחא השלש")
, two of whom are
married to a pair of sisters (" תויחא יתש ןיאושנ םהמ םינש")
, and the third who is either
" הנפומ"
, single, or " תירכנ יושנ"
, married to a woman who is not related at all to the pair
of sisters. The mishnayot then describe different scenarios which consist of the
sequence of the death of one of the brothers followed by some permutation of levirate
the antecedent. The problem with this approach is that the redactor of mYev chose not
to edit and interpolate this material to fit in neatly with the chapter. If so, then the
material which he received was formulated with this ambiguous " תורצ"
. So even in
the original formulation the ambiguity must have existed (unless we posit a larger
body of source material which contained its own antecedent). What is more likely is
that the term " הרצ"
in the mishnah is used as a shorthand for " הורעה
תרצ"
. More than
half of the occurrences of the term come in the context of such a case. If so, the
original conclusion remains sustainable.
148

marriage: either via consummation (which all agree is acceptable on a Scriptural
level), or ma)amar, a marriage consisting of either kesef or shet[ar 28 the validity of
which, on a Scriptural level, is debated by the Houses in our mishnah. There are a
total of six cases found in the sequence. The first (mYev 3:4) is actually a
continuation, or alternate scenario, of the case of four brothers discussed in mYev 3:1
and begins with the formulation of " תויחא ינש ןיאושנ ןהמ םינש םיחא השלש"
but does not
describe the status of the third brother (single or married to an unrelated woman). The
second (3:5) is our mishnah in which the third brother is described as " הנפומ"
. 29 The
remaining four cases, which can be broken down into two pairs of symmetrical
scenarios, all describe the third brother as " תירכנ יושנ"
. From a logical perspective,
neither our case nor the fifth case (the first half of 3:6) require that the third brother
28 The institution is modeled upon the standard marriage following mQid 1:1.
29
In mishnaic literature the term is a found nowhere else. Elsewhere it occurs only
once in mToh (10:5 " הנפומה םוקמ"
– an emptied place) and in Sifrei Zuta (11:6 s.v.
התעו). The expanded parallel in the tYev 5:4 uses the term " " יונפ.
The use of this term
as well to refer to a bachelor is also extremely rare in Rabbinic literature. It occurs in
the often quoted statement of R. Elazar " הנוז האשע הייונפה לע אבה יונפ"
from tQid 1:4
and in passage in the Sifrei BeMidbar which parallels the Sifrei Zuta mentioned
earlier, in place of the even rarer " הנפומ"
. The most common term (although not
terribly so) found in Rabbinic literature for a single male is " קוור"
(mQid 4:14-15)
However, it is not clear that the two terms are exactly interchangeable. The term יונפ
suggests availability but does necessarily imply that the man had never been married
previously. " קוור"
may be used specifically for a single man who has never married.
(cf. bQid 82a).
It is tempting to speculate that the particularly odd form found in our mishnah
is an echo of an earlier formulation which has not been updated. While this may be
the case, it does not help shed light on the original context of our mishnah because
there are no other occurrences of the “single male”s elsewhere in mYev to compare
with the usage here.
149

specifically be single or married to another unrelated woman; either one would fit in
either case. 30 The fact that the choice of language was not the same suggests that our
mishnah and the sequence of 3:5-6 do not stem from the same formulator. It is
therefore likely that our mishnah was formulated elsewhere and placed adjacent to the
unit in mYev. If so, the mishnah is original to mEd.
( י:
ד)
1י:
ד תוידע
תחא תבש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תותבש יתש 'מוא
ימש תיב הטמה שימשתמ ותשא תא רידמה ( 17
ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןברקה ןמ ןירטופ ימש תיב דחאו םינומשל רוא תלפמה ( 18
ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תיציצב ןידס ( 19
. ןיבייחמ
ללה תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תבש תלכלכ ( 20
17) If a man vows to refrain from sexual intercourse with his wife: Beit Shammai say,
“[Up to] two weeks [but beyond that he must divorce her and pay her ketubah]”, but
Beit Hillel say, “Only [up to] a week.”
18) If a woman miscarries on the night preceding the eighty-first day [to the birth of a
daughter]: Beit Shammai exempt her from bringing a[n extra] sacrifice but Beit Hillel
obligate her.
19) A [linen] sheet: Beit Shammai exempt it from the commandment of fringes but
Beit Hillel do not.
20) The basket of fruits set aside for the Shabbat: Beit Shammai exempt [it from
tithes] but Beit Hillel mandate [the separation of tithes].
The mishnah contains four disputes between the Houses on unrelated issues
(one each relating to the orders of Nashim, Qodshim and Zera(im, and one on s9is9it
which is not discussed anywhere in the mishnah). The first one, dealing with issues of
30 We should note here that by our mishnah choosing to make the brother single rather
than married, the formulator avoids having to deal with the not-so-simple status of the
rival wife (the תירכנ). However, an cursory glance of the fifth mishnah indicates that
the mishnah there mentions the תירכנ but does not discuss her status at all, an issue in
which the medievals became entangled (Maimonides’ Commentary to the Mishnah,
mYev 3:7 and Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yibbum, 7:11). Apparently, the formulator of
3:7 had no qualms about leaving the rival wife’s status ambiguous and could have
done so in our mishnah, had he been its formulator.
150

the Order of Nashim, naturally connects to what preceded it. As a group they break up
the flow of the chapter which began with issues of the Orders of Mo(ed (4:1-2),
Zera(im (3-5), Teharot (6) and Nashim (7-9, 11). The last three of our mishnah share
a common denominator in that the language of the Houses is couched in the terms of
" ןיבייחמ"
and " ןירטופ"
. 31 It appears as we have a mini-unit (for the moment excluding
the first case) incorporated here from some external source. The first place, naturally,
to search for the source would be in the parallels in the Mishnah. Unfortunately, the
second case, dealing with the permissibility of sha(atnez in s[is9it is not found
elsewhere. 32 Furthermore, the last case of " תבש תלכלכ"
which appears in mMa 2:4
appears to be secondary in that context as well. 33 The mishnah there states:
31 This form of debate used with the Houses is rarely found in the mishnah. Aside
from our mishnah and its parallels, it is found in mEd 5:2 and in mDem 1:3. Even
with other tannaim, it is found approximately ten times.
32 The term s9is9it is mentioned only twice in the entire Mishnah (here and mMQ 3:4)
and the term tekhelet in the context of s9is9it is used only three times (mMQ 3:4, mMen
4:1 and mQin 3:6).
33
Lewy (ibid. p. 108) asserts that our mishnah must be original to mMa on the basis of
what he asserts is the complete ambiguity of the terms " ןיבייחמ"
and " ןירטופ"
, i.e. that
from mEd we would not know what they are arguing about. In mMa, the context is
clear. There are two fundamental problems with his assertion:
1) The term " הלכלכ"
appears in the Mishnah most frequently in connection with
tithing. The reference to “liability” and “exemption” was probably obvious to
anyone following the mishnah. mEruv 3:8 provides another example of this:
. ינשב הלכואו ןושאר בוט םויב הלכלכה
לע םדא הנתמ הדוהי יבר רמא דועו
Here R. Yehudah does not spell out what the stipulation is because, again,
what one needs to do with a " הלכלכ"
is obvious to all.
2) If he is correct that our mishnah was formulated in the context of mMa, why
do both the preceding and subsequent statements in mMa use the expression
" רשעיש דע ( ו)
לכאי אל"
but not our mishnah? It might have said simply, תלכלכ"
151

ורשעיש דע תבש יאצומל ולכאי אל ןרשעל וחכשו תבשל םינאת ונמטש תוקונית
ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב תבש תלכלכ
. רשעתיש דע לכאי אל ורבחל חולשל הלכלכה תא טקולה ףא רמוא הדוהי יבר
Minors who designated 34 figs for the Sabbath and forgot to tithe them –
they (the figs) may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they have been
tithed.
A basket [of fruit] designated for the Sabbath: Beit Shammai exempt
from tithes but Beit Hillel mandate tithing.
R. Yehudah says, “Even one who gathers a basket [of fruit] to send to
his friend, it (i.e. the basket of fruit) may not eaten until it has been
tithed.”
Ordinarily, food which has not reached the final stages of its processing (" הכאלמ רמג")
is exempt from the strictures of t[evel, i.e. one may eat from it without separating the
requisite tithes. Several exceptions to this leniency do exist. The mishnah begins with
a case in which children designated a basket of figs to be used on the Shabbat. The
mishnah takes for granted that designating food for Shabbat creates an immediate
liability for tithes, despite the incomplete processing of the food; the novel point of the
mishnah is that such a designation may be legally effected by minors, whose intent
( הבשחמ)
is often considered legally deficient. The mishnah then informs us that this
assumption in fact is the subject of debate between the Houses. A singular formulator
should either have reformulated the debate between the Houses using the first
scenario, or have presented the debate first and followed it with the case that implicitly
assumes Beit Hillel’s position. Thus it appears that the debate of the Houses along
" רשעיש דע לכאי אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו ןיריתמ יאמש תיב תבשה.
Placing the formulation of
mishnah elsewhere explains the difference.
34 Literally, hid or wrapped. Cf. mShab 4:1.
152

with R. Yehudah’s comment 35 is a unit of material inserted as an afterthought. Of
course, R. Yehudah’s comment can’t derive from mEd because it isn’t found there;
whether or not the debate of the Houses does one can only speculate.
The first and second cases are found elsewhere in the mishnah; the first in
mKet 5:6 and the second in mKer 1:6. There exists no evidence which points to the
original location of the material.
( אי:
ד)
2י:
ד תוידע
ץראל אב ךכ רחאו ותוריזנ תא םילשמהו הבורמ תוריזנ רזנש ימ ( 21
םוי םישולש ריזנמ 'וא
ימש תיב
הליחתכ ריזנ 'וא
ללה תיבו
שמח רזנש םידיעמ ולאו םיתש רזנש םידיעמ ולא ותוא תודיעמ םידיע יתיכ יתש ול ויהש ימ ( 22
תוריזנ ןאכ ןיא תודעה הקלחנ 'וא
ימש תיב
. םיתש ריזנ אהיש םיתש שמח ללכב שי 'וא
ללה תיבו
21) One who vowed a long vow of nezirut (i.e. more than thirty days) [and fulfilled it]
and then moved to the Land of Israel:
Beit Shammai say, “He need only observe again thirty days.”
Beit Hillel say, “He must start his observance from the beginning.”
22) One who had two sets of witnesses – one attesting that he accepted two periods of
nezirut and the other attesting that he accepted five periods of nezirut:
Beit Shammai say, “The testimony is contradictory and [thus] there is no
obligation of nezirut
Beit Hillel say, "Included in “five” is two and therefore he must observe two
periods of nezirut."
The two mishnayot deal with two fundamentally unrelated issues. The first is
a nazirite-specific issue, i.e. whether the time period of the nazirite-vow observed
outside of the Land of Israel satisfies one’s obligation. The second deals with an
evidentiary issue that is theoretically relevant to almost any area of judicial concern,
35
The term " הלכלכ"
makes it clear that R. Yehudah is responding to the issue of תלכלכ"
" תבשה.
153

i.e. whether to adopt the lowest common denominator of two conflicting accounts,
rather than dismiss both sets of witnesses completely. These two laws are found
verbatim in mNaz 3:6-7.
The context in mNaz indicates that they were inserted as a unit from elsewhere
into mNaz and not originally formulated there. The third chapter there begins (3:1-2)
with a discussion of the minimum number of days that must be observed by a nazirite
in order for the head-shaving ( חוליג)
at the end to satisfy the Biblical requirement of
ושאר רעש ערפ לדג (Num. 6:5). The mishnah (3:3-5) then discusses how an individual’s
contact with a corpse during and at the end of his nazirite period affects his fulfillment
of the nazirite-vow. In this context, the first of the two laws (3:6) forms a natural
continuation. The issue which is being debated between the Houses is how the ritual
impurity of the Diaspora (םימעה ץרא תאמוט) affects the nazir’s vow in light of the fact
that the impurity is only Rabbinic in nature. The mishnah continues with an account
(not found in mEd) of Queen Helene of Adiebene’s vow and how the Sages dealt with
it. The mishnah then cites the second law, which has no relevance to that which
precedes it or that which follows in the next chapter. The logical place for a
discussion of the length of period that must be observed for multiple nazirite-vows is
at the end of the first chapter of mNaz where the mishnah (1:3-7) discusses questions
of how to calculate multiples of nazirite-vows. The placement at the end of the third
chapter, makes sense only if the unit of the two leniencies of Beit Shammai in the laws
154

of nazirite-vows had been adopted from another source. Hence, the mishnah is
original to mEd. 36
( בי:
ד)
אי:
ד תוידע
קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש ןדא ( 23
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב
. האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה דצהו אוה לולח םדא 'מוא
ללה תיבו
23) If a person is straddling [lying down] a crack [in the roof] (where there is source of
t[um)at meit on one side):
Beit Shammai say, “He does not transfer the impurity [from one side to the
other].”
Beit Hillel say, “A person is [regarded as] hollow and the top side transfers the
t[um)ah.”
The last mishnah in the chapter addresses a question of joining two structures
together by means of a common “roof” so that ritual impurity from a dead body found
under the roof of one structure to spread to under the roof of a second. The mishnah
takes for granted that if one has a house whose roof is split down the middle and there
is a gap in the roof which runs the entire length or width of the house, then a dead
body found under the roof of one half does not spread ritual impurity under the roof of
the other. If, however, there is, for example, a table (hollow underneath) which spans
the gap, and that table is at least one handbreadth off the ground, the impurity first
spreads out to underneath the table (as the table is located partially in the house which
contains the body), and then it spreads out into the entire second half of the house.
This is only true if there is a space of one handbreadth ( " חפט חתופ"
) underneath the
object that spans the gap. If there is, for example, a solid object there, even many
36
Subsequent to its incorporation into mNaz the story about Queen Helene was added
from another source.
155

handbreadths tall, no impurity is conveyed from one half to the other because there is
no joining airspace (" הכשמהה להא")
. This however is only the case of the object is one
solid piece. If, however, one has a thick piece of clothing folded over a number of
times where the uppermost fold has a space of a handbreadth underneath it (despite the
fact that that space is filled up by the lower folds), we view the situation as if there
were an open space of a handbreadth. The debate between the Houses relates to the
status of the human body. Do we view a person (lying down) as being made up of a
top and a bottom and a hollow middle and thereby visualize a gap of a handbreadth
(Beit Hillel), or do we view the body as one solid whole (Beit Shammai).
The mishnah has a near verbatim parallel in mAh 11:3:
ד-א:
אי תולהא
םינפבש םילכ ץוחב האמוט קדסנש תיבה ( א)
יאמש תיב ץוחבש םילכ םינפב האמוט ןירוהט
ללה תיב םיחפט העברא קדסב אהיש דע םירמוא
ללה תיב םושמ רמוא יסוי יבר אוהש לכ םירמוא
הז דצב האמוט הקדסנש הרדסכא ( ב)
חפט חתופ
הנק וא ולגר תא ןתנ םירוהט ינשה דצבש םילכ
וניא ץראב הנקה תא ןתנ האמוטה תא בריע ןלעמלמ
חתופ ץראה ןמ הובג היהיש דע האמוטה תא איבמ
תא ןיאיבמ ןניא הבע תפוכו הבע סוגס ( ג)
חפט
חפט חתופ ץראה ןמ םיהובג ויהיש דע האמוטה
דע האמוטה תא תואיבמ ןניא וז יבג לע וז םילופק
היה חפט חתופ ץראה ןמ הובג הנוילעה אהתש
תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב םש ןותנ םדא
דצהו אוה לולח םדא םירמוא ללה תיבו האמוטה
דעב ףיקשמ היה ( ד)
האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה
םירמוא יאמש תיב תמה ירבוק לע ליהאהו ןולחה
תא איבמ םירמוא ללה תיבו האמוטה תא איבמ וניא
ויהש וא וילכב שובל היה םאש םידומו האמוטה
. האמוטה תא ןיאיבמ םהש הז יבג לע הז םינש
156
תוידע
אוהש ןדא
תא איבמ וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב קדסה תחת ןותנ
דצהו אוה לולח םדא 'מוא
ללה תיבו האמוטה
: האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה
(1) A House [the roof of] which was split: If the source of impurity is in the outer part,
the vessels in the inner part remain pure. If the source of impurity is in the inner part,

the vessels in the outer part [are impure]: Beit Shammai say, “Until the split is four
handbreadths”, but Beit Hillel say, “Any amount”; R. Yose says in the name of Beit
Hillel, “A handbreadth”.
(2) A portico [the roof of] which was split: if the source of impurity is on one side, the
vessels on the other side remain pure. If he placed his foot or a stick above [the split],
he has blended the impurity (i.e. transferred it to the other side). If he placed the stick
on the ground, it does not transfer the impurity until it (i.e. the stick) is one
handbreadth off the ground.
(3) A thick wool garment and a think block of wood 37 [placed on the floor under the
split] do not transfer the impurity until they are raised one handbreadth off the ground.
If they are folded (or stacked) one on the other they do not transfer the impurity until
the upper one is raised one handbreadth off the ground. If a man was straddling the
gap there (lying down): Beit Shammai say, “He does not transfer impurity”, but Beit
Hillel say “A person is [regarded as] hollow and the upper side transfers the impurity.”
(4) If he was looking out of the window and he hovered over those burying the dead:
Beit Shammai say that he does not transfer impurity [into the house] but Beit Hillel
say that he transfers impurity. They (i.e. Beit Shammai) agree that if he was wearing
clothing or if there are two people, one on top of the other, that they transfer the
impurity.
There is one seemingly minor textual variant between the two versions. mEd begins
ןותנ אוהש םדא"קדסה תחת" whereas mAh begins ןותנ םדא היה"םש". In mAh the pronoun
" םש"
refers to the antecedent (11:2) " הקדסנש הרדסכא"
. mEd contains no antecedent and
hence the mishnah must spell out where it is that the person is lying. Lewy 38 has
argued that this difference demonstrates that the mishnah was adapted from mAh and
placed in mEd. He argues that the " קדס"
referred to in mEd is ambiguous (i.e. about
what קדס are we speaking?) and can only be understood against the background of
mAh 11:2. The redactor of mEd must have taken the mishnah from mAh but realizing
that the pronoun " םש"
had no antecedent and therefore filled in " קדסה תחת"
.
37 This translation follows R. Samson of Sens ad loc.
38 Qeta‘im MiMishnat Abba Shaul, pp. 106-7.
157

There are numerous problems, however, with Lewy’s suggestion. First, with
respect to the ambiguity of the term " קדס"
, the word used in the nominal form is only
found five times in the mishnah. Thrice (mPes 3:3, 3:5, mMiq 6:1) it is found in the
construct form ( " קצב יקדס"
, " ויקדס"
(referring to the same dough), and " הרעמה יקדס"
),
which automatically provides the referent. 39 The other three times (mMQ 1:10 and
our two mishnayot), it used to refer to a split in a roof. Both in mMQ and mEd there
is no previous reference to a קדס to explain the use of " קדסה"
. It may be that the term
" קדס"
was commonly understood to refer to a split in the roof of a house. In mEd,
once the mishnah uses the preposition “under”, the reference becomes crystal clear. If
so, it is equally possible that the mishnah could have been taken from mEd and the
pronoun was substituted in mAh to eliminate the repetition of the subject.
Second, as Lewy himself acknowledges, there are four disputes cited in mAh
11:3-6 which all revolve around this very issue. If a redactor were choosing a
mishnah from to place in mEd the second case (11:4) would have been a more logical
choice than the first one, which he chose. Lewy does not explain why, but one can
surmise that this is so because adopting the second mishnah would have required no
39
As an aside, this raises the question what the expression " הרעמה יקדס"
refers to. We
instinctively wish to translate, “slits in the walls of a cave”, but the mishnah actually
refers to " הרעמה יקדסו הרעמה ירוח"
. How do these two terms (which often appear in
parallel – in English we would probably say “nooks and crannies”) differ? One
possibility is that the םירוח are holes (round) and the םיקדס are slits (long and narrow).
Based upon our discussion, we could posit that םירוח are in the walls and םיקדס are in
the roof.
158

adaptation to fit in mEd, as it is not dependent upon the antecedent of 11:3. If we
assume that the mishnah was copied from mEd to mAh that there is no question.
Third, when we examine the four cases in mAh, we note that the first three all
deal with the question of transferring across impurity to a “pure” side of the structure
via the )ohel potentially formed by a person’s body. The opinions of the Houses are
presented as follows:
דצהו אוה לולח םדא םירמוא ללה תיבו
האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה
האמוטה
תא איבמ םירמוא ללה תיבו
האמוטה תא איבמ םירמוא ללה תיבו
159
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב
The latter two mishnayot seem as if they were formulated separately from the first, for
had they been formulated together, we would have expected the refrains to be the
same as is so common in the mishnah. It is difficult to imagine that the extra five
words were so great a burden to have deterred the formulator from repeating them
again. 40 All this taken together suggests that mEd was probably the source for mAh.
Certainly, Lewy is not justified in assuming the reverse.
40 My sense is that the pattern of repeating a full formulation in a series of mishnayot
is so common in the Mishnah that it hardly needs pointing out. For example, in mKet
1:6-9 we find a series of disputes between R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer on the one side
and R. Yehoshua on the other. We find:
וז ירה אלא ןייח ונא היפמ אל רמוא עשוהי יבר
: הירבדל היאר איבתש
דע [...] תקזחב
וז ירה אלא ןייח ונא היפמ אל רמוא עשוהי יברו
: הירבדל היאר איבתש דע [...] תקזחב
וז ירה אלא ןייח ונא היפמ אל רמוא עשוהי יברו
: הירבדל היאר איבתש דע [...] תקזחב
וז ירה אלא ןייח ונא היפמ אל רמוא עשוהי יבר
:
הירבדל היאר איבתש דע [...] תקזחב
תנמאנ םירמוא רזעילא יברו לאילמג ןבר
תנמאנ םירמוא רזעילא יברו לאילמג ןבר
תנמאנ םירמוא רזעילא יברו לאילמג ןבר
תנמאנ םירמוא רזעילא יברו לאילמג
ןבר

Summary: One mishnah (6) and one out of four parts of another (101c) are not
found elsewhere in the mishnah. Six of the eleven mishnayot in the chapter (1-5, 102)
are found elsewhere in the Mishnah but the context of each of the parallels
demonstrates that the material was lifted from elsewhere as a unit and placed there.
Three other mishnayot (8,9,11), one case out of three in another (7a) and one case out
of four in another (101d) appear elsewhere and an analysis of the parallel occurrence
suggests, although perhaps not conclusively, that the material did not originate in the
parallel location. Only in two of the three cases in one mishnah (7b,7c) and two out of
four cases in another (101a,101b) is there no indication one way or another in which
location the mishnah was originally formed. Thus most of the chapter, if not all, is
original to mEd.
The expression " ןייח ונא היפמ אל"
did not have to have been repeated every time to
make the point, and nonetheless it is there. Such repeated expressions are probably
used to facilitate memorization.
160

Chapter Five
Eduyot Chapter Five
1. Tannaim of Usha and the Stringencies of Beit Shammai
Four small collections of debates of the Houses in which Beit Hillel adopt the
more stringent position (5:1-5) comprise the first part of the chapter. The collections
differ from the large collection of the fourth chapter in that each of them is attributed to
a specific tanna of the first generation of Usha (R. Yehudah, R.Yose, R. Shimon 1 and R.
Elazar). Regardless of one’s view of the origin of Eduyot, it is obvious that this section
is a product of post-Yavneh redaction, even if the source material is earlier. The fourth
chapter presents its debates anonymously, but it is reasonable to presume as the R.
Yoh9anan does (yShab 7:2, yBes[ 1:3, ySot[ 3:5, yNaz 4:6) that the anonymous voice is R.
Meir. Thus we have then actually five collections in total, encompassing the five major
figures of the first generation of the Usha period, and they are presented in the order of
declining size.
1
The editio princeps reads “Yishmael” instead of “Shimon”; the similarity between the
names (both contain " עמש"
in them) probably contributed to the error (possible an
abbreviated ' עמש with a stray mark before hand which looked like a yud – MS Munich
95 contains ' עמש and MSS Parma 984 and Paris 329 contain ' ועמש where the vav and the
abbreviation mark could appear to join and be a lamed). The error is obvious since R.
Yishmael belongs to the last generation of Yavneh whereas all of the other tannaim
mentioned in the chapter are from Usha. Tosafot Yom Tov (ad loc.) notes that other
versions have R. Shimon and that the parallel discussion in mYad (3:5) also has R.
Shimon. For more examples of this interchange, see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9
HaMishnah, pp. 1191-4.
161

א:
ה תויודע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הדוי 'ר
םימטמ לליה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תוליבנ םד [ א]
ןירסוא ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הרוסא ויאל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמינ הב אצויכ שי םא הלבנה תציב [ ב]
רוסאב הלדגש ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפורט הציבב ןידומו [ 'ב]
הילגר ימימכו הקורכ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תערוצמ
לש הרהט םדו תירכנ םד [ ד-ג]
אלשו הבוטב ןילכוא ןיא 'מוא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הבוטב אלשו הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא [ ה]
הבוטב
. הרורצ הניאש יפ לע ףא 'וא
ללה תיבו תדמוע הרורצ 'וא
ימש תיב תמחה [ ו]
R. Yehudah says, “There are six matters among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the
Stringencies of Beit Hillel”:
[1] The blood of neveilot: Beit Shammai say that it does not defile ritually but Beit
Hillel say that it does.
[2] The egg found inside a neveilah: if there are similar ones (i.e. it is sufficiently
developed) sold in the market it may be eaten but if not, it is prohibited but Beit
Hillel prohibit [eating it].
But they (Beit Shammai) agree that the egg of a tereifah is prohibited because it
developed while [the hen was] prohibited [already].
[3-4] The [menstrual] blood of a Gentile and the post-parturient-pure-blood (see Lev
12:4-5) of a mes[ora(at: Beit Shammai declare them to be ritually pure but Beit
Hillel say that they defile in the same manner as her spittle and urine.
[5] One may eat the fruits of the Sabbatical year with or without expressing gratitude
according to the view of Beit Shammai but Beit Hillel say, “One may not eat with
expressing gratitude.”
[6] A sack-like water container: Beit Shammai say “[that it is only susceptible to ritual
impurity] if it is firmly bound up” but Beit Hillel say, “Even if it is not firmly bound
up [but only tied].”
How the formulator counted six is not entirely clear; it would seem that םד"
" תערוצמ לש הרהט םדו תירכנ are being counted as two. tEd (2:5) introduces its comments
on this mishnah with "... ילוקמ םירבד השמח רמוא הדוהי יבר"
. It only elaborates on the first
two and so it is unclear whether its version lacked one of our sections or counted the
third and fourth laws as one. The first, second and sixth debates appear nowhere
elsewhere in the Mishnah. Of these, only the topic raised by the sixth is discussed
elsewhere (mKel 26:4) but the mishnah there does not mention any dispute between the
162

Houses. Depending upon one’s understanding of the debate here, one could interpret
mKel as adopting a position differing from R. Yehudah’s understanding of Beit Hillel. 2
The fifth dispute is cited in mShev 4:2 as the opinion of R. Yehudah and as being
against the anonymous tanna of that mishnah (who presented Beit Hillel as the lenient
opinion). The combination of the third and fourth debate is a mishnah that appears
verbatim in mNid with no attribution to R. Yehudah.
As a whole the mishnah could not have originated elsewhere in the Mishnah, as
three of the six debates exist nowhere else in tannaitic literature. Theoretically, the fifth
debate could have been drawn from mShev where it is identified as R. Yehudah’s
opinion, but the third and fourth would have required additional information, mentioned
neither in mNid nor its Tosefta, to attribute it to R. Yehudah.
The third debate appears in mNid, but its context suggests that it was
transplanted from elsewhere. The fourth chapter of mNid begins with a discussion of
sects who were marginalized according to Mishnaic law. mNid 4:1-2 discusses the
status of Samaritans and Sadducees. mNid 4:4-7 sets down the status of women who
experience bleeding during the stages of pregnancy preceding labor. mNid 4:3
combines our third and fourth debates, without mentioning R. Judah, with the first of
the two debates cited by R. Elazar in mEd 5:4-5. From a structural perspective, the
amalgamation of the two parts forms a nice segue between the two halves of the
chapter, and explains their placement here. The first part of the mishnah deals with a
2 See Epstein, ibid., pp. 128-9.
163

marginal group (Gentiles) and the second part focuses on woman who has given birth
but has not yet immersed in the ritual-bath. Nonetheless, neither part of the mishnah
appears to have been formulated in this context. The sequence, as it appears, is:
164
... םיתוכ תונב ( א
... ןיקודצ תונב ( ב
... םיבכוכ תדבוע םד ( ג
First, if the law of תירכנ םד had been formulated here, we would have expected it to
begin much like the preceding two and to focus on the Gentile women themselves.
Instead, the focus is on the blood. Furthermore, the topic of תערוצמ לש הרהט םד is
completely out of context. That issue, which has no implications for the status of the
woman herself, 3 more naturally belongs in context of several other locations in the
Mishnah, 4 and its presence here can best (and perhaps only) be explained as due to its
belonging to a unit of the leniencies of Beit Shammai among the laws of niddah.
The fifth case of our mishnah deals with how one eats fruits from someone
else’s field in the Sabbatical year. Since the produce is hefqer, one does not require
3 This is in contrast to the issue of תירכנ םד and the second part of the mishnah, תדלוי םד
הלבט אלש, which relate to whether or not the woman themselves are treated as
תודנ/תודלוי. The mes@ora‘at’s personal status (in terms of touching her), however, is clear
– the only issue is how to treat her bodily fluids.
4
The following two examples are contexts more suited for this law:
mNid 7:1
הלבנהו
ץרשהו קורהו עינהו בוזה לבא ןישבי ןיאמטמו ןיחל ןיאמטמ תמה רשבו הדנה םד
ןהש תומכל רוזחלו תורשהל ןילוכי םאו ןישבי ןיאמטמ ןיאו ןיחל ןיאמטמ ערז תבכשהו
. ןישבי ןיאמטמו ןיחל ןיאמטמ
mZav 5:6-7
שרפ דחא לסופו םינש אמטמ בשומו בכשמב ערוצמבו תדלויבו הדנבו הבזבו בזב עגונה
לש ובוזב עגונה : אשינה דחאו אשונה דחאו טיסמה דחאו עגונה דחא 'א
לסופו דחא אמטמ
דחא אמטמ שרפ דחא לסופו םינש אמטמ הדנה םדבו וילגר ימימב וערז תבכשב וקורבו בז
.
אשונה ףא רמוא רזעילא 'ר
טיסמה דחאו עגונה דחא דחא לסופו

permission to partake, nor should any gratitude need be expressed to the owner of the
field. The debate centers on whether one is allowed to express gratitude anyway, or if
doing so would give the impression that the field’s owner was actually in possession of
the produce that necessitated thanking him. mShev (4:2) records the dispute in the
reverse fashion and then notes that R. Yehudah holds that the opinions are reversed:
הבוטב ןילכוא םירמוא ללה תיבו הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיב
. ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ וז םירבדה ףולח רמוא הדוהי יבר הבוטב אלשו
The formulator of mEd could have expanded R. Yehudah of mShev simply reversing
the anonymous tanna there, or the formulator of mShev could simply have abbreviated
R. Yehudah of mEd. On the internal evidence alone, there is no way of determining.
Since, however, the rest of the mishnah does not draw from elsewhere in the Mishnah,
the latter option is more likely. 5
Summary: Three (1, 2, 6) of the six cases in this mishnah appear nowhere else
in the Mishnah, two (3, 4) appear elsewhere but show signs of being secondary in the
parallel locations and the origin of one case (5) cannot be determined with certainty.
ב:
ה תויודע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הסוי 'ר
לכאנ אלו הלוע אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ לכאנ וניאו ןחלושה לע הניבגה םיע הלוע ףועה [ 1]
ןימרות ןיא 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ ןייה לע םיבנעו ןמשה לע ןיתיז ןימרות [ 2]
תורוש יתש שדיק 'וא
ללה תיבו תחא הרוש שדיק 'וא
ימש תיב םרכבש תומא
עברא עירוזה [ 3]
ןיבייחמ ללה תיב ןירטופ ימש תיב הסיעמה [ 4]
ןיליבטמ ןיא 'וא
ללה תיב ימש תיב ירבדכ תילדרחב ןיליבטמ [ 5]
5 We might note further that is even possible that the anonymous tanna’s position was
created from mEd by simply reversing the opinions of the Houses.
165

הלרועה
ןמ שרופה 'וא
ללה תיבו ברעל וחסיפ תא לכואו לבוט
166
'מוא
ימש תיב םיחספ ברע רייגתינש רג [ 6]
. רבקה ןמ שרופכ
R. Yose says, “There are six matters among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the
Stringencies of Beit Hillel”:
[1] Flesh of a bird may be placed on the same table as cheese but may not be eaten with
it according to the view of Beit Shammai but Beit Hillel say, “It may neither be placed
[on the table] nor eaten [with it].”
[2] One may separate terumah from olives to exempt oil and from grapes to exempt
wine according to the view of Beit Shammai but Beit Hillel say, “One may not separate
terumah [in such a fashion].”
[3] If one plants within the four-cubit buffer zone of a vineyard: Beit Shammai say, "He
has “sanctified” (prohibited for use because of kila)yim; cf. Deut 22:9) one row” but
Beit Hillel say, "He has “sanctified” two rows."
[4] A cooked-dough is exempt from h9allah according to the view of Beit Shammai but
Beit Hillel say that it is liable.
[5] One may immerse [vessels] in a deluge of water according to the view of Beit
Shammai but Beit Hillel say, “One may not immerse.”
[6] A convert who converted on the day before Passover: Beit Shammai say, “He may
immerse [in the ritual bath] and eat his paschal sacrifice that evening” but Beit Hillel
say, “One who has just separated from his foreskin is like one who has just [touched
and ] separated from a grave.”
Six laws comprise Rabbi Yose’s collection, of which all but the second are found
verbatim elsewhere in the mishnah. Of the five parallels, only one is attributed to R.
Yose, while three of them are not disputed at all.
The first of the cases is found in mH9ul (8:1):
לע הניבגה םע ותולעהל רוסאו םיבגחו םיגד רשבמ ץוח בלחב לשבל רוסא רשבה לכ ( א
םיבגחו םיגד רשבמ ץוח ןחלשה
[ םיבגחו םיגד רשבב
רתומ רשבה ןמ רדונה ( 'א]
אל םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד לכאנ וניאו ןחלשה לע הניבגה םע הלוע ףועה ( ב
לכאנ אלו הלוע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ וז יסוי יבר רמא ( ג
הז ןתונ לישבתה תא וילע רדוסש ןחלושב לבא וילע לכואש ןחלושב ורמא ןחלש הזיאב
:
ששוח וניאו הז דצב
( ד

The mishnah first asserts that all meat (including fowl), with two exceptions, may not
be placed on the same table as cheese. It follows this with an analogy to the law of
vows, i.e. the same two kinds of animal flesh are not included when a person vows to
refrain from “meat”. It then states that the issue of fowl is actually a dispute between
the Houses followed by an editorial comment of R. Yose that this dispute is among the
leniencies of Beit Shammai. Two points suggest that the dispute of the Houses was
added later to the original formulation of the mishnah. 1) The anonymous assumption
in the first part of Beit Hillel’s opinion 6 followed later with the fact that the issue is
actually disputed by the Houses. 2) The interruption of the discussion with clause ', א
which is unrelated to the theme of the first part and of the debate between the Houses.
The comment of R. Yose may have been placed there by the redactor to indicate the
source of the assertion, 7 or perhaps in light of differing opinions as to the opinions of
the Houses. 8
6
bH9ul 104b, noting this, comments, " אמק אנת ונייה יסוי יבר"
; its response is that the
mishnah is informing us that the anonymous tanna is R. Yose.
7 We should note that this kind of an assertion appears only three times in the Mishnah.
The other two are R. Yehudah in mShev 4:2 (=mEd 5:1) and R. Shimon in mYad 3:5
(=mEd 5:3). In both of those cases, however, they are presented as disputing the
anonymous tanna who presented the lenient opinion as Beit Hillel’s. Here, there
appears to be no disagreement.
8
tH9ul 8:2-3 records two opinions that may differ with R. Yose; one (R. Elazar of 8:3)
assuming that Beit Hillel would permit placing fowl on the table with cheese, and one
(the anonymous tanna of 8:2) assuming that even Beit Shammai do not permit. The text
reads:
אלו הלוע אל ףועה םיבגחו םיגד רשבב רתומו רשב ןימ לכב רוסא
רשבה ןמ רדונה [ ב]
ןיאו הלוע םירמוא יאמש תיב ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ
הז יסוי 'ר
רמא לכאנ
167

The second debate of R. Yose is not alluded to anywhere else in tannaitic
literature. According to mTer 1:10, one may not separate tithes from produce whose
agricultural labor is unfinished to exempt a finished portion. According to R. Yose,
Beit Shammai are lenient in the case of grapes and olives, which are usually pressed to
produce their liquid by-products, and permits one to separate from the whole fruits to
exempt all of the produce. But mTer 1:4 states:
ןייה לע םיבנע אלו ןמשה לע םיתיז ןימרות ןיא
. המורת ןתמורת ןיא א"
הבו םהב ןמצע תמורת א"
שב ומרת םאו
One may not separate terumah from olives to exempt oil and from grapes
to exempt wine.
If they did: Beit Shammai say, “Their own terumah is contained within”,
but Beit Hillel say, “Their separation of terumah is not valid at all.”
Both Houses agree that one may not, ab initio, separate from the solids for the liquids
and that doing so is not legally valid; Beit Hillel views the action as completely invalid,
and Beit Shammai partially so. Neither mTer nor its Tosefta allude to R. Yose’s
םע הלוע ףועה רמוא קודצ 'רב
רזעלא 'ר
[ ג]
. לכאנ אלו הלוע אל םירמוא ללה תיבו לכאנ
. לכאנ ףא ומשמ םירמוא םירחא לכאנ ןיא רמוא סולוקיפא ןחלושה לע הניבגה
The Tosefta’s presentation suggests that the anonymous tanna and R. Yose debate
whether or not Beit Shammai are indeed lenient in this issue. If so the first proof would
no longer be evidence of an interpolation from an external source since the first part of
the mishnah records an opinion (that both Houses prohibited fowl and cheese on the
table together) that is then contradicted by R. Yose.
However, the mishnah as we have it cannot be interpreted as such, because all
Mishnaic disputes provide the name of the second disputant before beginning the
citation. In our mishnah, R. Yose is presented only after the opinions of the Houses,
suggesting that even if somehow R. Yose does disagree with the anonymous tanna the
whole of the mishnah that precedes him is still the product of multiple sources. Only in
the Tosefta’s presentation where R. Yose’s assertion follows that of the anonymous
tanna (who, unlike in the mishnah, explicitly spells out ףוע רשב) can we find an opinion
that even Beit Shammai are stringent in the issue of fowl and cheese.
168

alternate presentation of the Houses. Thus, the second case of our mishnah must be
original to mEd.
The third case centers on the size of the swath of land whose produce becomes
forbidden when one has created a situation of kil)ayim of the vine. mKil (4:5) ties this
issue to the minimum size required to be treated legally as a “vineyard”: 9
תורוש יתש םש והיש דע םרכ וניא א"
הבו םרכ א"
שב םינפג שמח לש הרוש עטונה
: ךכיפל
שדיק םירמוא ללה תיבו תחא הרוש שדיק םירמוא יאמש תיב םרכבש תומא עברא ערוזה
. תורוש יתש
If one plants a row of five vines: Beit Shammai say, “it is a ‘vineyard’ ”,
but Beit Hillel say that it is not a ‘vineyard’ until there are two rows.”
Therefore:
If one plants within the four-cubit buffer zone of a vineyard: Beit
Shammai say, "He has “sanctified” one row" but Beit Hillel say, "He has
“sanctified” two rows."
The formulation mKil is unusual. The mishnah records one dispute and then links it to a
second, separately formulated dispute, with the word ךכיפל. The linking of disputes in
such an explicit fashion is unique in the mishnah. One might have expected the
formulator of the mishnah to put the two together along the lines of the following
mishnah (mEd 4:5):
. ול שי 'מוא
ללה תיבו רועיב ול ןיאו שמוח ול ןיא 'מוא
ימש תיב יעבר םרכ
Two reasons might be suggested to explain the formulation in mKil: 1) The difficulty of
formulating the two issues compactly together led the formulator to opt for two parts. 2)
9 The issue is important in the context of kil)ayim because the space of separation
required when planting near “individual vines” is significantly smaller than that
required when planting near a “vineyard”.
169

The two debates were formulated independently and subsequently linked. If the former
is the case then the mishnah’s formulation betrays nothing about its origin. If, however,
the latter is true, then at least one of the two halves of mKil had to have originated
elsewhere. 10
The fourth part of the mishnah appears in mH9al (1:6) without any attribution:
ללה תיבו ןיבייחמ יאמש תיב הטילחה ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב הסיעמה
ןירטופ
H9alit[ah: Beit Shammai exempt [it] from h9allah but Beit Hillel say that it
is liable.
Me(isah: Beit Shammai say that it is liable for h9allah but Beit Hillel
exempt [it].
What is the difference between " הסיעמ"
and " הטילח"
? tH9al (1:1-2) comments:
ןימח הסיעמה ןימח ךותל חמק ןתונה טולח והז יא ויבא םשמ 'וא
הסוי 'ר
יב לאעמשי 'ר
. חמק ךותל
R. Yishmael b. R. Yose says in the name of his father, “What is ‘h9alut[ ’
(i.e. h9alit[ah)? One who puts the flour into the hot water. The ‘me(isah’?
Hot water into the flour.”
10 At first glance, the context suggests that the second half of the mishnah was
incorporated from elsewhere due to the connection between the two debates. The fourth
through seventh chapters of mKil deal with the laws of kil)ayim of the grapevine. The
entire fourth and the first half of the fifth chapter deal with the definition of a kerem
(vineyard) vs. a group individual vines; the requisite space around a kerem which must
be left unplanted is larger than the space required around individual vines. The first half
of the mishnah (4:5) belongs in this section. The second half of the fifth chapter treats
the consequences of planting within the prohibited zone, and what part of the kerem
becomes forbidden because of the violation; this is where the second half of the mKil
4:5, our mishnah in mEd, belongs. Upon further consideration, it is difficult to sustain
this line of argument, because if the formulator/editor had wished to connect these two
issues, he had no choice but to place one of them in the “wrong context”. That is, either
the first half or the second half was going to have to be in the wrong place and thus the
placement of the second half of mKil 4:5 indicates nothing about the original
formulation.
170

Both the Bavli (Pes 37b) and the Yerushalmi (H9al 1:4, Pes 2:6) cite variants of this
tosefta and question why the positions of the Houses flip if the two kinds of bread
would seem to be identical for the purposes of h9allah; 11 both respond that the mishnah
represents and amalgamation of two conflicting traditions, and in reality each of the
Houses adopts the same position for both " הטילח"
and " הסיעמ"
. The continuation of tH9al
(1:2) supports their interpretation:
. תבייח רונתב תשענה הרוטפ הרדקבו ספלאב תשענה וז דחאו וז דחא 'מוא
םימכחו
But the Sages say, “Both this and that: If made in a pan or pot [they] are
exempt, but if in an oven [they] are liable.”
The Bavli cites this tosefta with a slight expansion:
? הטילחה והזיאו הסיעמה והזיא
. חמק יבג לעש ןישלגומ הטילחה ןישלגומ יבג לעש חמק הסיעמה
בויחל הזו הז הל ירמאו רוטפל הזו הז ויבא םושמ רמוא יסוי יברב לאעמשי יבר
. בייח רונתב רוטפ ספליאב ןאשע הז דחאו הז דחא םירמוא םימכחו
What is me(isah and what is h9alit[ah?
Me(isah is flour on top of boiling water. H9alit[ah is boiling water on top
of flour.
R. Yishmael b. R. Yose says in the name of his father that this and that
are exempt and there are those who say that he said this and that are
liable.
But the Sages say, “Both this and that: If made in a pan [they] are
exempt, but if in an oven [they] are liable.”
Both R. Yose and the anonymous Sages assume that " הטילח"
and " הסיעמ"
have the same
status with respect to h9allah. 12 Thus, at least one of these formulations could not have
11
That is, they both possess the same ingredients and both produce the same
consistency of dough.
12
For a discussion of the position of the Sages see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Feshut@ah,
Zera(im, pp. 791-2.
171

een composed in the context of mH9al. Furthermore, mEd could not have been derived
from mH9al alone because mH9al does not contain any attribution to R. Yose. It is
possible, but not certain, that mH9al was taken from mEd and the attribution dropped in
the process. 13
The fifth section of the mishnah discusses a תילדרח, large flash of rainwater 14
that contains at least forty se)ah of water in its total volume and comes rushing down
the mountain. Beit Shammai believe that even though the water is in motion and there
is no accumulation of forty se)ah in one location, one may still treat it as a stationary
collection and immerse in it, while Beit Hillel do not allow immersion. The parallel
mishnah appears in mMiq (5:6):
םירוהט םילכה לעו םדאה לע לפנו האס םיעברא ובו שלתנש לג
ןיליבטמו ןילבוט האס םיעברא וב שיש םוקמ לכ
העקבב תברועמה רומחה תסרפבו םיצענבו ןיצירחב ןיליבטמ
ןיליבטמ
ןיא םירמוא ללה תיב תילדרחב ןיליבטמ םירמוא יאמש תיב
. ולבטוה אל םהב רדגש םילכו םהב לבוטו םילכ רדוג אוהש םידומו
A wave which was detached [from the ocean] containing forty se)ah and
landed on a person or on vessels: they are purified.
13
The decision of the editor of mH9al to incorporate conflicting traditions without
acknowledging them as such is perplexing; if he had understood " הסיעמ"
and " הטילח"
as
being legally identical he should have presented the mishnah as follows:
. ה"
ב ירמוחמו ש"
ב ילוקמ וז םירבדה ףוליח רמוא יסוי 'ר
ןירטופ ה"
בו ןיבייחמ ש"
ב הסיעמה
One could conjecture that he did not (correctly or not) understand the two as being one
and the same.
14 tMiq 4:10. A number of medieval commentators (Maimonides, R. Samson of Sens,
R. Asher) suggest the etymology of תילד רה, water that is drawn down the mountain.
This sounds like a folk etymology, but the word is extremely rare in rabbinic Hebrew.
(It occurs twice in mMiq and in one sugya in the Bavli.)
172

[In] any location which contains forty se)ah one may immerse [himself]
or immerse [vessels].
One may immerse [vessels] in ditches and furrows and donkey foot
prints which are joined in a plain.
Beit Shammai say, “One may immerse [vessels] in a deluge of water”
but Beit Hillel say, “One may not immerse.”
They (i.e. Beit Hillel) agree that he may enclose the water with
[a wall of] vessels and immerse [vessels] in them, but the vessels
with which he enclosed [the water] are not considered immersed.
It appears from the placement of the debate in mMiq that the Houses argue about the
definition of the maqom (place) which must contain forty se)ah. Beit Shammai regards
the entire slope of the mountain as one maqom and if the entire slope contains forty
se)ah then one may immerse in it any point where a body can actually be submerged.
Beit Hillel asserts that the maqom must be a location which is more stationary. Hence,
the mishnah asserts that even Beit Hillel would agree that if one established a barrier
where the rainwater collected, the pool could be used for immersion. 15
The location of the mishnah in mMiq makes sense and hence we have no basis
to assert that it must have been introduced there from an external source. At the same
time, the mishnah there does not attribute the debate to R. Yose and hence mEd could
not have been drawing from mMiq alone.
The sixth and final section deals with a convert who converts within a week of
the paschal sacrifice. The parallel is found in mPes 8:8:
15
The Tosefta as well adopts this position:
ףורצ ןפוס דעו ןתלחתמ שי םא ןתוא ןיאור ןורדמ ןיאבה םימשג ימ תילדרח והזיאו
דע [ ןהב ןיליבטמ ןיא םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד]
ןהב ןיליבטמ האס םיעברא
םילכה תא ןיררוג ויהש םלשוריב ויהש םיסבוכב השעמו האס םיעברא לגוע וינפל אהיש
.
ולבטוה אל ןהב ררגש םילכש םידומ לכהו ןהב ןילבוטו
173

םישדקב אל לבא ברעל וחספ תא לכואו לבוט ןנוא
םישדקב
לכואו לבוט תומצע ול טקלמהו ותמ לע עמושה
ברעל וחספ תא לכואו לבוט םירמוא יאמש תיב חספ ברעב רייגתנש רג
. רבקה ןמ שרופכ הלרעה ןמ שרופה םירמוא ללה תיבו
An onen 16 may immerse [in a ritual bath] and eat his paschal sacrifice in
the evening but not [the meat of] other sacrifices.
One who hears about the passing of a relative or gathers the bones [of a
relative for reburial] may immerse and eat [the meat of] sacrifices.
A convert who converted on the day before Passover:
Beit Shammai say, “He may immerse [in the ritual bath] and eat
his paschal sacrifice that evening”
but Beit Hillel say, “One who has just separated from his foreskin
is like one who has just [touched and ] separated from a grave.”
The context in mPes fits the mishnah and the formulation of Beit Shammai, לכואו לבוט"
" ברעל וחספ תא fits well with the preceding clauses in the mishnah. At the same time,
there is no attribution here to R. Yose, and so mEd would have required an additional
source other than mPes. At the same time, there is nothing to indicate that mPes was
drawn from mEd.
Summary: One of R. Yose’s opinions does not exist elsewhere in the Mishnah,
two show signs of being transferred elsewhere from mEd and the original location of
three cannot be determined.
ג:
ה תויודע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ
ןירבד השלש 'וא
ןועמש 'ר
םידייה תא אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב 'רבדכ
םידייה תא אמטמ הניא תלהק [ 1]
ןימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ יימש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ [ 2]
. תורשעמל ןכו םימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב חצקה [ 3]
16 A person whose relative has died and either has not yet been buried or was buried tha
day.
174

R. Shimon says, “There are three matters among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the
Stringencies of Beit Hillel”:
[1] Ecclesiastes does not ritually defile the hands according to Beit Shammai but Beit
Hillel say, “It does defile the hands”.
[2] Water of the red heifer which has been used already to purify: Beit Shammai declare
that they do not defile but Beit Hillel rule that they do (see Num 19:21)
[3] Black cumin: Beit Shammai declare it not susceptible to ritual impurity and Beit
Hillel declare it susceptible; and so [they debate] with regard to liability for tithing.
The third mishnah lists the three cases that R. Shimon asserts are among the
leniencies of Beit Shammai. The first issue is whether or not the Biblical book of
Ecclesiastes conveys ritual impurity to those who touch it. 17 mYad (2:5) cites a debate
about the status of Ecclesiastes and Canticles:
םידיה תא ןיאמטמ שדקה יבתכ לכ
םידיה תא ןיאמטמ תלהקו םירישה ריש
תקולחמ תלהקו םידיה תא אמטמ םירישה ריש רמוא הדוהי 'ר
תקולחמ םירישה רישו םידיה תא אמטמ וניא תלהק רמוא יסוי יבר
ללה
תיב
ירמוחמו יאמש תיב
ילוקמ תלהק רמוא ןועמש יבר
הבישיב הירזע
ןב
רזעלא
יבר
תא ובישוהש םויב ןקז ב"
ע יפמ
ינא לבוקמ יאזע ןב ש"
רא
םידיה תא םיאמטמ תלהקו םירישה רישש
םידיה תא אמטת אלש םירישה ריש לע לארשימ םדא קלחנ אל םולשו סח ע"
ר רמא
לכש לארשיל םירישה ריש
וב ןתינש םויכ יאדכ ולכ םלועה לכ ןיאש
לע אלא וקלחנ אל וקלחנ
םאו םישדק שדוק םירישה רישו שדק םיבותכ
תלהק
All scrolls of Scripture defile the hands.
Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.
R. Yehudah says, “Canticles defiles the hands but Ecclesiastes is the
subject of debate [between the houses].”
R. Yose says, “Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, but Canticles is the
subject of debate.”
R. Shimon says, “Ecclesiastes is from the leniencies of Beit Shammai
and the stringencies of Beit Hillel.”
17
The debate centers on whether or not the book of Ecclesiastes was composed with the
spirit of prophecy, or was merely wisdom literature written by King Solomon, לש ותמכח"
" המלש (tYad 2:14).
175

R. Shimon b. Azzai said, “I have received a tradition from seventy-two
elders on the days that they seated R. Elazar b. Azaryah in
the academy that Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the
hands.”
R. Akiva said, “God forbid, no Jew ever disputed Canticles to say that it
does not defile the hands because there was never a time as
special as the day Canticles was given to the Jewish people;
if they argued, they could only have argued over
Ecclesiastes.”
The mishnah is composed of two layers fused together; the second half is from sages of
Yavneh while the first from those of Usha, all of whom appear to be discussing the
scope of the debate between the Houses over the status of Ecclesiastes and Canticles.
The introductory formulas in the two sections are different; those in the first half
introduced with " רמוא ינולפ 'ר"
while those in the second with " ינולפ 'ר
רמא"
.
R. Shimon’s presentation differs from his contemporaries’ in three ways: 1) He
does not discuss or even mention Canticles. 2) He mentions the Houses by name 3) He
does not use the terminology of “x metamei) )et ha-yadayim”. These three points
suggest that R. Shimon’s opinion is an addition from another source; whether as a
digest of mEd 18 or from elsewhere cannot be determined.
The second debate addresses the status of water mixed with the ashes of the red
heifer after it has been sprinkled upon a person. Before the sprinkling, the water
conveys ritual impurity to the ritually pure people who come in contact with it (Num.
19:21). Beit Shammai is of the opinion that the water loses it special qualities once it
18 One factor that complicates this assumption is the question of why the redactor of
mYad didn’t simply take the mishnah from mEd verbatim; the language would have fit
the context of mYad better.
176

has been used, whereas Beit Hillel asserts that they retain their holiness permanently.
mPar (12:4) states:
ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ ורמאש ינפמ ןיענמנ אלו ןיסרודו םיבר לש ןולח ינפל ויה ןיקילחמ
. ןיאמטמ
ןיא
They made slippery [the ground] before the window of the public portion
of the red heifer’s ashes (by sprinkling so much water there) and people
would not refrain from stepping there because they said, “Water of the
red heifer which has been used already to purify does not defile.”
The mishnah there ignores R. Shimon’s opinion entirely and takes what he attributes to
Beit Shammai to be the accepted ruling.
The final case appears verbatim in mUq (3:6).
. תורשעמל ןכו ןיאמטמ ה"
בו ןירהטמ ש"
ב חצקה
The Houses are divided over whether or not black cumin (used to flavor bread)
possesses the status of food and is consequently susceptible to ritual impurity, and if
must be tithed before consumption. The context of the mUq makes sense and tells us
nothing about the mishnah’s origin. 19 On the other hand, it does not attribute the debate
to R. Shimon and thus cannot be the sole source for mEd. 20
19
The presence of the line at the end " תורשעמל ןכו"
suggests, at first glance, that the
mishnah was an external unit incorporated into mUq. However, since the following
mishnah (3:7) speaks about the same issues in the context of another fruit, i.e. its purity
status and its ma(aser status, it may be that the topic of ma(asrot is viewed as part of the
discussion of mUq and thus a formulator in the context of mUq might very well have
written the last line.
20 The debate itself is not cited in mMa. The term qetzah9 is referred to in one other
place in the mishnah (mT9Y 1:5) and twice in the Tosefta (tTer 5:7 and tT9Y 1:5); the
unstated assumption in those locations follows the opinion of Beit Hillel.
177

Summary: One of the three cases (the second) cannot have originated elsewhere,
one (the third) cannot be completely derived from the parallel mishnah, and one’s (the
first) relationship to its parallel is unclear.
ה-ד:
ה תויודע
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ינש 'וא
רזעל 'ר
שביו חל אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ 'וא
ימש תיב הלבט אלש תדלוי םד
. שביו חל אמטמ אוהש בוזב תדלויב ןידומו
םא תומביתמ אלו תוצלוח ולא ירה תויחאה-תא
ןיאושנה ותמו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ םהמ םינש םיחא העבראו
. ואיצוי 'מוא
ללה תיבו ומייקי ימש תיב םשמ 'וא
רזעל 'ר
ואיצוי וסנכו ומדק
R. Elazar said that there are two matters among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the
Stringencies of Beit Hillel:
[1] The blood of a post-parturient woman who has not immersed in the ritual-bath: Beit
Shammai say, “[It defiles] like her spittle and urine (it defiles only when still moist)”
but Beit Hillel say, “It defiles both dry and moist.”
They (Beit Shammai) agree that when she was a zavah at the time of birth that it
defiles both dry and moist.
[2] And [the case of] four brothers, two of whom are married to sisters and the ones
married to the sisters die that they (the two sisters) must receive h9alis9ah and may not
enter into a levirate marriage. If they (the two surviving brothers) went ahead and
married them (the two sisters) that they must divorce them. R. Elazar says [that in such
a case] Beit Shammai say, “They may remain in the marriages”, but Beit Hillel say,
“They must divorce them.”
The last tanna in this sequence is R. Elazar. As is common, there is some confusion in
the manuscripts and printed editions between R. Elazar (b. Shamua, 1 st generation
Usha) and R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanus, 1 st generation Yavneh). In this case, only one
manuscript (Parma 984) and the editio princeps contain R. Eliezer; context alone (R.
Yehudah, Yose, Shimon of the preceding mishnayot) is sufficient to establish that the
correct reading is R. Elazar.
Both of R. Elazar’s cases exist elsewhere in the Mishnah. The first is found in
identical form in the fourth chapter of mNid without any attribution to R. Elazar. As we
178

concluded earlier (mEd 5:1, debates three and four), the two debates of the Houses
which focused on the issues of mNid were taken together and place in their closest
thematic location in mNid.
The second debate is found in nearly identical form in mYev (3:1) and provides
one of the few cases where we can be certain that the mishnah was not formulated in the
context of mEd. The case of the mishnah is complex and as a result it does not fit
neatly into the mold of most of the debates between the Houses cited in this chapter. In
every previous dispute, the mishnah presents the views of the Houses following tanna
x’s opinion. Here we would have expected the following:
or:
. ואיצוי םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ ומייקי וסנכו ומדק םאו
. ואיצוי םירמוא ללה תיבו ומייקי םירמוא יאמש תיב וסנכו ומדק םאו
179
... םיחא העברא
... םיחא העברא
Instead the mishnah first presents a the view of an anonymous tanna according to whom
there is no debate between the Houses followed by R. Elazar, according to whom Beit
Shammai rules leniently and Beit Hillel stringently. Thus it appears that mYev was
transferred to mEd. 21
2. Testimonies of Akavia
21 Consistent with my assumption throughout, I assume that the text as we have it
represents the original text of the mishnah. It is always possible that somebody leveled
the two mishnayot and in the process distorted the presentation in mEd, but I ignore this
in the absence of compelling evidence.

The second part of the chapter contains four testimonies of Akavia b. Mahallalel
with which his contemporaries disagreed. The mishnah elaborates upon the discussion
which took place regarding the fourth of these disputes and in the process addresses a
number of major issues regarding the nature of Rabbinic dispute. This section returns
to the “testimonial” agenda which started at the beginning of the second chapter (four
testimonies of R. H9anania).
( ז-ו:
ה)
ט-ו:
ה תויודע
םירבד העברא דיעה לאללהמ ןב היבקע
'רשיל
ןיד תיב בא ךשענו 'וא
התיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח היבקע ול ורמא
ליבשב ןירמוא והי אלש םוקמה ינפל עשר תחא העש תושעל אלו ימי לכ הטוש תורקיל יל בטומ ןהל 'מא
. וב רזח הררס
ןירהטמ 'מכחו
קוריה םדו הדוקפה רעש אמטמ היה אוה
ןירסוא 'כחו
וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב וחיניהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש ריתמ היה אוה
ןיקשמ 'וא
'מכחו
תררחושמ החפשה תא אלו תרויגה אל םיקשמ ןיא 'וא
היה אוה
ןוילטבאו היעמש אהוקשהו םלשוריב התיהש תררחושמ החפש תימכרכב השעמ ול ורמא
אהוקשיה אמגכיד ןהל 'מא
. ונורא תא ןיד תיב ולקסו ויודינב תמו והודינו
אטח תואריבו המכחב 'ארשימ
ןדא לכ לע תלענינ הרזעה ןיאש הדנתינ היבקעש םולשו סח הדוהי 'ר
'מא
לאללהמ ןב היבקעכ
םיידי תרהטב קפקיפש ךנה ןב רזעילא תא ודינ ימ תאו
. ונורא תא ןילקוס תמו הדונמה לכש דמלל ונורא לע ןבא וחיניהו ןיד תיב וחלש תמשכו
'וא
יתיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח ינב ונבל 'מא
ותתימ תעשבו
ךב התרזח
אל המל-התאו
ול 'מא
התא לבא ןתעומשב ודמע ןהו יתעומשב לע יתדמע ינא ןיבורמ יפמ ועמש ןהו ןיבורמ יפמ יתעמש ינא ול 'מא
ןיבורמה ירבד תא זוחאלו דיחיה ירבד תא חינהל בטומו ןיבורמה יפמו דיחיה יפמ התעמש
ךריבחל ילע דקפ אבא ול 'מא
דקפמ יניא ול 'מא
יב התאצמ הלווע המש
22 The division of this section follows that of the majority of the manuscripts.
MS Paris 329 and the editio princeps combine the first three mishnayot into one
and that division is followed in all of the modern printings of the Mishnah.
180
22

181
. ךוקחרי ךישעמו ךובירקי ךישעמ ואל ול 'מא
Akavia b. Mahallalel testified to four matters.
They said to him, “Akavia! Retract regarding the four things which you say and we will
make you the Chief Justice of the Jewish people.”
He said to them, “I prefer to be called a fool all of my days rather than be wicked for a
moment before the Almighty lest they say that he retracted for [the advancement in]
political office.”
He used to declare [a mes[ [ora(] ritually impure [as a result of a] se(ar ha-pequdah 23 and
[a menstrual women who saw] yellow blood but the Sages do not.
He would permit using the hair shed by a blemished first-born which he set aside (i.e.
the hair) and then slaughtered it but the Sages forbid its use.
He used to say that we do not give a convert or freed maid-servant [the sot[ah waters] to
drink but the Sages say that we do.
They said to him, “There was an incident with Kurkemit the freed maid-servant where
Shma(yah and Avt[alyon gave here [sot[ah waters] to drink.
He said to them, “They only gave to her as an example.”
And they excommunicated him and he died in a state of excommunication.
R. Yehudah said, “God-forbid” that [one should say that] Akavia was excommunicated
as the Temple courtyard was never closed on a person among the Jews who was as
wise and God-fearing as Akavia.
Who did they excommunicate? Eliezer b. Hanakh who cast aspersions on the ritualwashing
of the hands.”
And they excommunicated him and he died in a state of excommunication and they
court stoned his coffin which teaches you that whenever someone is
excommunicated and dies in that state they stone his coffin.
At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four things which I used to say.”
He said to him, “Why didn’t you retract?”
He said to him, “I heard [my views] from a majority and they heard from a majority
[and thus] I stood behind my tradition and they stood by their tradition; you,
however, have [now] heard [both] from a minority (Akavia) and a majority (the
Sages) and it is preferable to set aside the opinions of the minority in favor of the
opinions of the majority.”
He said to him, “Father, please request of your friends [to accept me].”
He said to him, “No.”
23 A hair which was found in a patch of white skin of a potential mes9ora( in which the
skin turned healthy again but the hair remained white and then the skin turned white
again.

[He said to him] “Perhaps you have found flaws in me?”
He said to him, “No. But your actions will make you accepted and your actions will
cause you to be ostracized.”
This section contains several fascinating passages about the nature of legal
argumentation and personal of integrity. For the current discussion, however, all of the
material except for the first part of the seventh mishnah appears nowhere else in the
mishnah (or in tannaitic literature) and hence is original to mEd. The seventh mishnah
records four debates between Akavia and the Sages. The first three are found elsewhere
in the mishnah, although none verbatim; the fourth is found only here.
The first two issues were compressed into one statement since they both involve
ritual impurity and both could be formulated using " ןירהטמ"
and " אמטמ"
. The first
addresses the question of a הדוקפה רעש. In order for a patch of white skin to be treated
as s[ara(at there must be one of three additional symptoms (mNeg 3:3), one of which is
the presence of two white hairs within the patch which turned white after the skin
turned white. הדוקפה רעש refers to a case in which a hair turned white and then the skin
healed and then turned white again while the hair remained white all along. mNeg 5:3
states:
ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ לאללהמ ןב איבקע הדוקפ רעש
הדוקפ רעש אוה הזיא
איבקע הרזחו ומוקמב ןבל רעשל החינהו תרהבה הכלה ןבל רעש הבו תרהב וב התיהש ימ
. ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ לאללהמ ןב
A se(ar pequdah: Akavia b. Mahallalel declares ritually impure but the
Sages do not.
What is a se(ar ha-pequdah?
182

A person who had a baheret 24 which contained a white hair; if the
baheret turned healthy again and the white hair remained and
then [the baheret] returned: Akavia b. Mahallalel declares it
ritually impure but the Sages do not.
The mishnah here preserves traces of being a composite mishnah. The duplication of
the opinions at the end suggests that the second part of the mishnah began with ימ"
" תרהב וב התיהש and presented the debate between them. The first part of the mishnah,
possibly drawn from mEd, 25 presents the debate with only the technical terminology,
" הדוקפה רעש"
, and no explanation. The two parts were joined by the redactor with the
expression " ? הדוקפ
רעש אוה הזיא"
.
There is one additional point which suggests that the redactor of mNeg draws
from the passage in mEd. The continuation of mNeg 5:3 cites R. Akiva who limits the
scope of debate between Akavia and the Sages, to which his contemporaries respond:
. ןימיוקמ ןניא ךירבד ףא איבקע ירבד תא ולטבש םשכ ול ורמא
They said to him, “Just as they invalidated Akavia’s words, so too your
words are not valid.”
The formulator/redactor of mNeg betrays his awareness of the dialogue in this section
of mEd (in which Akavia implores his son to retract his own opinions) which contains
the topic of הדוקפה רעש as one of its debates.
24 A patch of white skin which could potentially be declared s9ara(at.
25
In doing so the editor reshaped mEd into a standard presentation (from " אמטמ היה אוה"
,
which relies upon the antecedent of " היבקע"
from the previous mishnah, into רעש"
"... אמטמ היבקע 'ר
הדוקפה)
and then inserted it into mNeg with the connecting phrase.
183

The second debate centers on the ritual purity status of a woman who
experienced a discharge of yellow “blood”. mNid (2:6) lists five shades of blood which
qualify as impure menstrual blood and then records our debate:
גוזמכו המדא ימימכו םוכרכ ןרקכו רוחשהו םודאה השאב םיאמט םימד השמח
ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ילצ רשב ימימכו ןתלת ימימכ ףא םירמוא יאמש תיב
םירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ
לאללהמ ןב איבקע קוריה
אל רמוא יסוי יבר הקשמ םושמ אמטמ םתכ םושמ אמטמ וניא םא ריאמ יבר רמא
. ךכ אלו ךכ
Five shades of [menstrual] blood are ritually impure in a woman: Red,
black, [colored] like a stalk of saffron, [colored] like water with clay and
[colored] like diluted wine.
Beit Shammai say, “Even [colored] like clover juice and the juice of
roasted meat”, but Beit Hillel declare [them] pure.
Green: Akavia b. Mahallalel declares ritually impure but the Sages do
not.
R. Meir said, “If it does not defile as a [menstrual] stain, it should
defile as a liquid.”
R. Yose says, “It does not [defile] as either.”
The debate appears in its appropriate context; the formulation, slightly different in
presentation than mEd, 26 is also appropriate to that mishnah. As such, nothing can be
determined about the origin of this case.
The third debate between Akavia and the Sages relates to the status of the wool
shed by a blemished first-born sheep. An unblemished first-born animal is given to the
priest, who brings it as a sacrifice in the Temple. 27 When the animal is blemished, the
priest may slaughter it anywhere and may feed its meat to anyone, 28 but is prohibited
26 See the preceding footnote.
27 Lev. 27:26, Num. 18:17.
28 Deut. 15:21-22.
184

from using the sheep (or bovine) for working or shearing. 29 If a first-born (even
unblemished) dies without a proper slaughtering, the carcass must be buried and no part
of it may be used for any purpose. 30 If the animal is slaughtered properly, then all of the
parts attached to it at the time of the slaughtering may be used or consumed.
The case in our mishnah is one of a blemished first-born which sheds some hair
and is subsequently slaughtered. Had the hair been attached at the time of slaughtering,
its use would be permitted; because it was detached, however, the slaughtering process
does not automatically permit for use that which is no longer part of the animal and thus
Akavia and the Sages debate the wool’s status. The mishnah assumes that if the sheep
dies without a proper slaughtering even Akavia prohibits the wool; that is, even he
permits the wool only in a scenario where the sheep is eventually slaughtered. mBekh
(3:4) 31 records a dispute between R. Yehudah and R. Yose as to the scope of the debate
between Akavia and the Sages:
29 Deut. 15:20.
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב איבקע וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב וחינהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש
הדוהי יבר ירבד ןירסוא םימכחו
30 Midrash Tannaim le-Devarim, 12:17, bBekh 15a.
31
tEd 2: 9 and tBekh 2:17-19 contain a similar account. tEd reads:
הז ירה וטחשו ןכימ 'חאל
םומ וב דלונש יפ לע ףא ןילחב וחינהו םת רוכבמ רמצ שלותה
ןירסוא 'מכחו
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקע 'ר
תמ ךכ רחאו ונמיה שלתש םומ לעב רוכב רבקי
ךכ רחאו ונמיה שלתו אמטנש לע וקלחנ המ לע רוסאש הזב היבקע הדומ הדוהי 'ר
רמא
רתומש הזב אתפלח 'ר
הדומ יסוי 'ר
'מא
ןירסוא 'מכחו
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקעש וטחש
אהי וטחש םאו רוסא אהי תמ םאש הוקתשי אמש ןילחב הוחיניי 'מכח
ורמא דוחייב לבא
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקעש תמ ךכ רחאו ונמיה שלתו אמטינש לע וקלחנ המ לע רתומ
.
ןירסוא 'מכחו
185

רחאו ןולחב וחינהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעשב אלא איבקע ריתה הזב אל יסוי יבר רמא
ןירסוא םימכחו ריתמ לאללהמ ןב איבקע הזב תמ ךכ
32
הזיגה ןמ הארנ וניאש תאו רתומ הזיגה ןמ הארנ אוהש תא רוכבב ללבודמה רמצה
. רוסא
The hair shed by a blemished first-born which he set aside (i.e. the hair)
and then slaughtered it:
Akavia b. Mahallalel permits [its use] but the Sages forbid. [This is the
version of the debate] according to R. Yehudah.
R. Yose said, “It is not in this case which Akavia permitted, but rather in
the case of hair shed by a blemished first-born which he set aside and
then it died: In that case Akavia b. Mahallalel permits [its use] but the
Sages forbid.
Dangling wool of a first-born: that which looks like part of the shorn
wool may be used but that which does not look like part of the shornwool
may not.
mEd follows the presentation of R. Yehudah of mBekh. 33 mBekh cannot derive from
mEd because it lacks the opinion of R. Yose and the attribution to R. Yehudah. mEd
32 For more on this unusual word, see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp.185-8.
33 A careful analysis (cf. bBekh 26a) demonstrates that the continuation of the mishnah
assumes R. Yehudah’s opinion. The last part of the mishnah discusses ללבודמה רמצ,
wool that was detached but still enmeshed with the rest of the wool. The mishnah
claims that only if the wool appears to be part and parcel of the wool, would one be
permitted to use it. The scenario here must entail an animal which was properly
slaughtered; if the animal under discussion had died, the entire carcass would be
forbidden and the more the detached wool appears to be part of the still-attached wool,
the more likely it would be forbidden. If, however, the discussion entails an animal
which has been properly slaughtered, then the more attached the wool is to the animal
the more likely it would be permitted since all parts of the animal may be used once it is
slaughtered. The mishnah rules that if the hair appears to be attached in such a case, it
may be used; if it appears to be detached, and a fortiori if it “fell off and he left it in the
window”, then it is forbidden. According to R. Yose, everyone permits the wool that
shed in a case where the animal was subsequently slaughtered, so this last line would be
inconsistent with both Akavia and the Sages. For R. Yehudah, however, this opinion is
perfectly consistent with that of the Sages who argue with Akavia. The function of this
statement, according to R. Yehudah, is to acknowledge that even the Sages only
186

could theoretically be a selection from mBekh, but no evidence exists to prove or refute
the possibility.
Summary: One of the four debates of Akavia as well as the setting of the material is
original to mEd. A second is highly likely to originate here. The internal evidence for
the other two cases doesn’t exist. In this section, two scenarios exist: 1) The editor of
mEd possessed the story of Akavia and his possible excommunication (which centered
around the last debate, which has no parallels in the Mishnah) and supplemented it with
the other debates by drawing from the other locations in the mishnah. 2) All of the
material originated in mEd and the editors of the other tractates drew upon mEd. The
absence of any other debates between Akavia and the Sages in the Mishnah 34 allows for
the first possibility; 35 but the analysis above of mNeg 3:5 suggests that at least one of
the other three cases originated in mEd, which makes the latter possibility more
probable.
prohibit the wool if it appears to be detached already from the sheep, but if it was
already detached but did not appear so then they would accept Akavia’s lenient ruling.
34 mNeg 1:4 contains a three-way debate between R. Hanania Segan HaKohanim, R.
Dosa and Akavia, as to how to count the number of possible םיעגנ תוארמ (16, 36 or 72
shades). All disagree with presentation of mNeg 1:1 (4 shades). The dispute, however,
seems to be one of presentation and not one with legal ramifications.
35 If there had been a number of other debates found in the Mishnah, one would then
have to account for the selection process made by the editor of mEd. In the absence of
additional debates, the editor’s job was simply that of an anthologizer.
187

Chapter Six
Eduyot Chapter Six
א:
ו תויודע
ןירבד השמח דיעה אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
תונטקה תא םינאממש
דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמשו
שפנה תא גרהש לע םלשוריב לוגנרת לקסינשו
חבזמה יבג לע ךסנתינש םוי םיעברא ןב ןייה לעו
. תועש עבראב ברקש רחשלש דימת לעו
R. Yehudah b. Abba testified regarding five matters:
One may [allow/encourage] a minor woman to perform mi)un.
One may allow a woman to remarry based upon [the testimony to her
husband’s death] of one witness.
A chicken in Jerusalem which was stoned to death for killing a person.
Wine that has been aged forty days may [already] be poured as a
libation on the altar.
The daily sacrifice of the morning is brought at/during the fourth hour.
The mishnah records five unrelated testimonies of R. Yehudah b. Abba. None
are cited elsewhere in the Mishnah and thus the entire mishnah is original to mEd. R.
Yehudah’s view in the second law, however, is referenced. At the same time, none of
R. Yehudah’s opinions are explicitly rejected elsewhere in the mishnah. The third
testimony is assumed, the first and fifth are debated elsewhere, the second is debated
(but ultimately accepted), and the fourth one is not discussed at all.
The first testimony relates to ןואימ ישודיק, “a betrothal of refusal”. That is,
when a minor’s father is no longer alive 1 the Rabbis allowed her to marry, but the
1
Or had married here off already once and she subsequently was divorced or widowed
after full consummation of the marriage ( ןיאושינ)
.
188

marriage is only binding on a Rabbinic level (ןנברדמ). To dissolve such a marriage,
the Rabbis allowed the girl, before reaching the age of majority, to opt out of the
marriage by means of a simple mi)un, “refusal”, in the presence of a court of three, or
perhaps even a pair of witnesses. The relationship of R. Yehudah’s testimony to the
rest of the Mishnah depends on what is seen as the primary thrust of his testimony.
The Bavli and Yerushalmi understand his point differently. The Bavli (bNid 8a)
understands that R. Yehudah was advocating that the court actively advise the girl to
perform mi)un in certain situations. The issue of whether the court should ever advise
mi)un is debated in several cases discussed in mYev (13:7 and 13:11). The Yerushalmi
(Yev 13:1) interprets R. Yehudah as testifying to the general existence of the category
of mi)un. According to the Bavli’s reading, R. Yehudah’s view is not universally
accepted among the tannaim, 2 but according to the Yerushalmi’s approach it is as the
Mishnah records no opinion that does not recognize the institution of mi)un.
The second testimony permits a married woman to remarry based upon the
testimony of one witness that her husband died. A number of mishnayot at the end of
mYev work with this assumption. 3 The last mishnah in mYev (16:7) focuses directly
on this issue. In the course of the discussion, reference is made to R. Yehudah’s
opinion:
2 The Bavli itself does accept R. Yehudah’s view and on that basis accepts the view of
R. Elazar (mYev 13:11) and perhaps even R. Eliezer’s view (ibid. 13:7) that in
specific cases we advise the girl to perform mi’un.
3
mYev 15:4 and 15:5 explicitly adopt such a position. mYev 16:5 and 16:6 accept
even a lesser standard of evidence.
189

יל רמא ילד תיב שיא הימחנ יתאצמ
הנשה רבעל אעדרהנל יתדרישכ אביקע יבר רמא
אבב ןב הדוהי יבר אלא דחא דע יפ לע לארשי ץראב השאה תא ןיאישמ ןיאש יתעמש
תשבושמ הנידמהש םיעדוי םתא ימשמ םהל רומא יל רמא םירבדה ןכ ול יתימונו
יתאבשכו דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמש ןקזה לאילמג ןברמ ינלבוקמ תוסייגב
. אבב ןב הדוהי יברל רבח ונאצמ רמאו ירבדל חמש לאילמג ןבר ינפל םירבדה יתיצרהו
The mishnah subsequently debates the qualifications required for the single witness,
but the principle of R. Yehudah (against the opinions of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer
cited there) is accepted.
The third testimony is that a chicken was executed for killing a human being.
His point is that the scriptural description of an ox that gores and kills as being liable
for capital punishment is not limited to the ox referred to in Scripture, but rather we
assume that, " הווהב בותכה רבד"
, Scripture uses examples of common occurrences. His
statement is never cited in the Mishnah, but mBQ 5:7 states:
תבשהלו לפכ ימולשתלו יניס רה תשרפהלו רובה תליפנל המהב לכ דחאו רוש דחא
רוש רמאנ המל ןכ םא ןהב אצויכ ףועו היח ןכו תבשלו םיאלכל המיסחל הקירפל הדיבא
. הווהב בותכה רבדש אלא רומח וא
The mishnah does not mention the specific case of an animal killing a person but
mSan 1:4 enumerates animals other than oxen (lions, snakes, etc.) included within the
category of “ox” in discussing the composition of the court required to execute the
animal. A passage in the Mekhilta de-Rashbi (21:29) indicates that R. Yehudah’s
testimony was directed against the opinion of R. Eliezer (mSan 1:4) that the owner of
190

an ox, and no other animal, requires the due process of a capital trial for his animal. 4
It reads:
םגו לקסי רושה ל"
ת רושב אצויכ ףועו היח המהב ראש תושעל ןינמ רוש אלא יל ןיא
ותימהש ףועו היח המהב ראשו השלשו םירשעב ותתימ תימהש רושה 'מוא
רזעילא 'ר
םימשל הכז ןגרוהל םדוקה לכ
. שפנה תא גרהש םלשוריב לוגנרת לקסנש אבב ןב הדוהי [ 'ר]
דיעה
The fourth testimony of R. Yehudah touches on the time frame for the morning
tamid sacrifice. mPes 5:1 discusses the timing for the afternoon tamid but nowhere
else in the Mishnah is the morning sacrifice discussed. R. Yehudah’s intent in his
testimony is unclear because the stative " בֵר
ָקש"
is grammatically ambiguous. It can
mean “that it is brought” (participial) or “that it was brought” (perfect). The former is
ambiguous in meaning - it could either indicate that the regular practice was to bring it
at that time (not that the fourth hour was the deadline 5 ) or it could mean that the fourth
hour is the deadline. 6 If the latter (meaning of ברקש), R. Yehudah’s testimony would
only establish that the tamid brought as late as the fourth hour it is valid, but not
necessarily that afterwards it would be invalid. 7
4 This is not surprising since the rest of the sixth chapter of mEd as well as the bulk of
the seventh chapter consist primarily of testimony directed against the opinions of R.
Eliezer.
5
This would be parallel to mPes 5:1 which refers not to the last eligible time but to the
standard practice in the Temple.
6 The linkage made in bBer 27a between R. Yehudah b. Abba’s position here and R.
Yehudah (b. Ila(i) in mBer 4:1 regarding the morning prayers assumes that his
testimony was about a deadline.
7 The Sifrei Zuta 28:7 in fact adopts exactly this opinion:
191

The final testimony was that wine which had been aged for forty days after its
pressing was suitable, ab initio, for libations on the altar in the Temple. Forty days is
assumed to be the minimum period for the wine to ferment sufficiently to intoxicate,
thereby satisfying the requirement of " רכש ךסנ ךסה"
(Num 28:7). 8 In its discussion of
the requirements of the wine used for libations, mMen (8:6-7) does not mention of a
minimum aging period for the wine. tMen (9:12), however, records:
9
. רשכ ותיגמ איבה םאו םוי םיעבראמ תוחפ ןיי ןיאיבמ ןיא
From silence, one could argue that, at least post facto, the mishnah accepts wine of
any age; certainly there is no basis to assume that the mishnah disagrees with R.
Yehudah’s testimony.
אל עברא ורבע םא לוכי תועש עברא דע רשכ שבכה רמול אבב ןב דיעהש יפל רבכש
. 'הל
רכש ךסנ ךסה ל"
ת רשכ אהי
The connection between the verse and what is derived from it is not clear. It seems as
if the verse should actually have taught us something about the fifth testimony of R.
Yehudah (the requisite age of the wine brought as a libation) which is the continuation
of the passage:
. עבש אנאד יור אנאד רכש ךסנ חבזמל םוי םיעברא ןב ןייה רשכ רמול דיעה אוה ףא
What is certain, however, is that R. Yehudah believes that the morning sacrifice may
be brought even after the fourth hour. Thus, it is clear that (in his testimony in mEd)
R. Yehudah was focusing on history and not law.
8 Sifrei Zuta, ibid.
9 Elsewhere, tKer 1:20 asserts that a priest is not liable for performing service in the
Temple after drinking wine unless he had consumed wine that was aged more than
forty days. If these two passages are in agreement, one must distinguish between the
case of a priest who is only liable for drinking wine that actually intoxicates, and the
wine for libations which is acceptable if it can still potentially ferment and thus
intoxicate (even if not presently intoxicating).
192

( ב:
ו)
ד-ב:
ו תוידע
אמט אוהש תמה ןמ רבא לע ילבבה רפכ שיא ןתנלא
ןב ( הינ(
ו)
חנ י"
'יתכה
לכב)
הימחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
. יחה ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל 'וא
רזעילא יברש
ןיד וניא אמט אוהש תמה אמט ונממ שרופה רבא רוהט אוהש יחה םא המ אוה רמוחו לק אלהו ול ורמא
. יחה ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל ןהל 'מא
אמט ונממ שרופה רבא אהיש
אמטל םדא אמטל ויתחתמ בשומו בכשמ השוע יחהש םיתמה תאמוטמ
םייחה תאמוט הבורמ רחא רבד
. אמטמ תמה ןיאש המ ןיקשמו ןילכא אמטל ףדמ ויבג לע םידגב
R. Yehoshua and R. Neh9emiah (all other mss. read Neh9uniah) the son of Elnatan of
the Babylonia village that a [n intact] limb of a corpse defiles ritually for R.
Eliezer says that they only said [that an intact limb defiles] in reference to a[n
intact] limb from a living person.
They said to him, “Is it not a fortiori: If a living person is ritually pure but a limb
which is detached from him defiles, then certainly with regard to a corpse which
defiles, a limb which is detached defiles.” He said to them, “They only said [this
law] regarding the limb from a living person.”
A different response [of R. Eliezer]: The forms of ritual impurity imparted by a living
person are more than those imparted by corpses as a living person (zav, zavah etc.)
can make the seat or bed underneath them (even without direct contact, i.e.
midras) impure so that they can [subsequently] defile people and vessels and can
make the clothing on top of them (even without direct contact) impure so that they
defile food and liquid, whereas a corpse cannot do these things.
The second mishnah addresses the ritual-purity status of an תמה ןמ רבא, and
entire limb which was detached from a corpse. An amputated limb, יחה ןמ רבא,
possesses the same status as an entire corpse. 10 Can one draw an analogy between the
limb amputated from a live person (which conveys impurity only when whole) to the
limb of a dead person, and have the latter convey impurity by virtue of being an intact
10 The rule of an amputated limb is that in order to convey ritual impurity the bone
must be whole and there must be enough flesh on it that, when still attached to the
body, it would be able to heal. The case of the limb from the corpse deals with a limb
whose bone is smaller than a barley-corn and contains less than an olive-size amount
of flesh; if the bone were larger than a barley-corn, it would convey ritual impurity of
עגמ and אשמ, regardless of the debate in our mishnah, by dint of the bone itself.
Similarly, if there were an olive-sized piece of flesh on it, it would convey ritual
impurity even through להא by virtue of the flesh itself.
193

limb (םלש רבא)? R. Eliezer asserts that the tradition of a wholly intact limb conveying
impurity is limited to an amputated limb, whereas R. Yehoshua and R. Neh9uniah
argue for a more expansive category.
The mishnah, along with the accompanying dialogue is found nowhere else
and hence is original to mEd. The issue, per se, is never discussed elsewhere in the
mishnah, 11 but the assumption of a number of mishnayot (mNaz 7:2, mH9ul 9:7, mAh
2:1,3:5:6) that an תמה ןמ רבא conveys ritual impurity follows the testimony of R.
Yehoshua and R. Neh9uniah.
( ג:
ו)
ה:
ו תויודע
םירהטמ הינוחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
אמטמ רזעילא 'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ
. םירהטמ עשוהי 'רו
רזעילא 'רו
אמטמ הינוחנ 'ר
יחה ןמ רביאמ שרופה הרועסכ םצע
An olive size piece of flesh which separates from a[n intact] limb detached
from a living person: R. Eliezer declares that it ritually defiles but R.
Yehoshua and R. Neh9uniah say that it does not.
An bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from a[n intact] limb
detached from a living person: R. Neh9uniah declares that it ritually defiles
but R. Yehoshua and R Eliezer say that it does not.
[The lengthy argumentation (mEd 6-11), the details of which are not
significant to the discussion here, can be found in the critical edition
below in Chapter Twelve.] 12
11 bH9ul 129b first attempts to connect the debate between R. Shimon and R. Meir in
the mishnah there to the debate here. Later, the sugya rejects the linkage and suggests
instead that their debate is tied to the next mishnah (mEd 6:5). We adopt neither
reading here since the plain sense of the mishnah suggest that their debate is in a very
specific case which falls in the cracks between an amputated limb and a limb from a
corpse, but both acknowledge the principle of both larger categories. The second of
the two readings is more forced and less likely the original intent of the mishnah.
12 One item worthy about the mishnah is the unusual length of the argumentation. By
way of comparison, the Order of Zera(im contains a total of fourteen cases of
argumentation between disputants (mPe 6:6: 7:7, mDem 2:2, 2:3: mKil 3:7, mShev
5:1: 7:2, mTer 5:4: mMS 2:2, 3:2, 3:10, 4:10, mH9al 2:5). Seven of them consist of a
194

The debate here revolves around how one visualizes the ritual-impurity of an
amputated limb. It is accepted that when the amputated limb is whole it conveys
impurity as if it were an intact corpse. The question arises how far the analogy
between a “limb” and a “corpse” is to be taken. R. Yehoshua, who restricts the
impurity of an amputated limb to an intact limb and does not expand it to any
derivatives, views the analogy as superficial and not conceptual, i.e. an amputated
limb conveys the same impurity as a corpse, not that it is to be equated in any way
with a corpse. On the other hand R. Eliezer and R. Neh9uniah, each in their own way,
view the analogy as more substantive and hence are willing to treat a part which
separates from the amputated limb in the same way as we treat some of the parts
which separate from a corpse. Hence, according to R. Eliezer, flesh the size of an
olive which is removed from the amputated limb conveys impurity the same way such
flesh would if it had been detached from a corpse. And according to R. Neh9uniah, a
bone the size of a barley-corn detached from the amputated limb conveys impurity the
same way it would have if it had been detached from a corpse.
one-sentence response of one of the parties that remains unanswered. Six consist of a
single comment of response from each of the two parties involved. Only once (mPe
6:6) is there an exchange back and forth twice, with a total of approximately fifty
words. By way of contrast, our mishnah contains a number of lengthy arguments
going back and forth and almost three hundred words. Such argumentation is more
characteristic of the Tosefta.
195

This mishnah itself is found nowhere else in the Mishnah, and thus is original
to mEd. 13 The topic of the mishnah is never discussed in the Mishnah, nor does the
mishnah elsewhere clearly assume an opinion on the topic.
In conclusion, all of the material in the sixth chapter is original to mEd as
none of its material is found elsewhere in the Mishnah. A number of its conclusions
are clearly assumed elsewhere and none are explicitly rejected, although several are
debated elsewhere in the Mishnah.
13 See the footnote 11 for the discussion of bH9ul 129b.
196

Chapter Seven
Eduyot Chapter Seven
Miscellaneous Testimonies
א:
ז תוידע
םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ ןוידיפ לע קודצ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ןבלש םיעלס שמחכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
. יניש רשעמ ןוידיפכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok testified regarding the sheep used to redeem a first-born
donkey that died (before entering the possession of the priest) that the priest is
entitled to no compensation.
In contrast to R. Eliezer who says that they (i.e. the owners) are liable for it
just as for the five selas of a first-born human.
But the Sages say that they are not liable for it just as with the redemption of
the second tithe.
The mishnah records a dispute regarding the level of responsibility that the owner
of the first-born donkey bears in assuring that the priest receives the lamb that was used
to redeem the donkey. It begins with the testimony of R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok
followed by a reference to the target of their testimony, i.e. R. Eliezer, who asserts that
the owner of the donkey is financially liable until the priest actually receives the lamb.
The mishnah then cites the opinion of the Sages whose opinion agrees with the testimony
of R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok. The presentation of R. Eliezer's opinion as a foil to the
testimony of R. Yehoshua makes sense, as they are commonly paired in Tannaitic
literature, and in our chapter we find that virtually every testimony of R. Yehoshua 1 is
followed by a reference to R. Eliezer's opinion. The appearance of the Sages opinion at
the end, however, is somewhat perplexing from a literary perspective. One would have
1
In mishnayot 1, 5a, 6, 7a and 7b, R. Eliezer is the foil. In 7c an anonymous ויהש"
" םירמוא is used; only in 7d does R. Yehoshua have no foil.
197

expected that the "Sages" who argue with R. Eliezer include R. Yehoshua. If so, one
wonders why this opinion is repeated. If we assume, however, that R. Yehoshua and R.
S9adok are responding to an already existing debate between R. Eliezer and the Sages,
what exactly are R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok adding from the redactor's perspective?
Presumably, they can be lumped together with the anonymous “Sages”.
The parallel occurrence in mBekh 1:6 helps shed some light on the problem. All
of the material in mEd appears there, but in a different order:
תמו רומח רטפ ןוידפ שירפמה
. ןב לש םיעלס שמחכ ותוירחאב ןיביח רמוא רזעילא יבר
. ינש רשעמ ןוידפכ ותוירחאב ןיביח ןיא םירמוא םימכחו
. םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ ןוידפ לע קודצ יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה
If one sets aside a redemption for a first-born donkey and it (i.e. the
redemption) dies:
R. Eliezer says, “They (i.e. the owners) are liable for it just as for the five
selas of a first-born human.
But the Sages say that they are not liable for it just as with the redemption
of the second tithe.
R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok testified regarding the sheep used to redeem
a first-born donkey that died that the priest is entitled to no
compensation.
The dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages there is framed independently of the
testimony of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer. The mishnah begins with a formulation not
found in mEd, " תמו רומח רטפ ןוידפ שירפמה"
, and then presents the dispute between R.
Eliezer and the Sages in a manner similar to the presentation of most disputes in the
mishnah. Only afterwards is the testimony introduced.
A scenario in which mBekh was created in its entirety from mEd is possible, but
not likely. To adopt such a view, one has to assume that the redactor created a new
frame, i.e. the opening phrase, in which to repeat all of the information found in mEd. By
way of contrast, take the following mishnah from later in our chapter (7:5) and its parallel
198

in mPar 10:3, and assume for the moment (as we will attempt to demonstrate later) that it
too served as the basis for the mPar:
הרפ
יבר ויבג לע ונתנ . רוהט ץרשב עגנש תאטח לש ללק
. םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא
199
תוידע
תאטחלש ללק לע דידח שיא םיקי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
. רהטמ 'זעילא
'רש
אמט אוהש ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש
mEd
R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim )Ish H9adid testified about a[n earthenware] jar of red
heifer ashes which he placed on top of a [dead] rodent that they are invalid in
contrast to R. Eliezer who maintains that they are [still] valid.
mPar
A[n earthenware] jar of red heifer ashes which touched a [dead] rodent are [still]
valid.
If he placed them on top of a [dead] rodent R. Eliezer maintains that they are
[still] valid but the Sages say they are invalid.
mPar does not include the testimony of R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim because the opinions
of the "Sages" reflect their opinion. mEd, on the other hand, does not cite an opinion of
the "Sages" following that of R. Eliezer because the "Sages" in mPar are shorthand for R.
Yehoshua and R. Yaqim.
The reverse possibility, that mEd is completely based upon mBekh is more
reasonable, but still unlikely. The reason is that the "testimony" in the context of mBekh
adds nothing that the mishnah there has not already told us. One might, for example,
have expected that the testimony would contain additional information to support the
position of the Sages, such as a ma(aseh or eyewitness testimony from the tradent that
frequently accompanies “testimonies” found in the mishnah.
The most likely possibility is the one suggested by Epstein: mEd originally
contained the testimony, along with, perhaps, the reference to R. Eliezer's position. 2
2 Mevo)ot leSifrut haTannaim, pp. 439. Epstein does not assume that R. Eliezer's
position forms part of the original mishnah in mEd, but I believe, based upon the
parallels in the rest of this chapter that it is part of the original mishnah.

MBekh contained only a dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages. At some point, both
elements were copied into the other location. The hypothetical original mishnayot would
read:
תורוכב
, רמוא רזעילא יבר , תמו רומח רטפ ןוידפ שירפמה
םימכחו . ןב לש םיעלס שמחכ , ותוירחאב ןיביח
. ינש רשעמ ןוידפכ , ותוירחאב ןיביח ןיא , םירמוא
200
תוידע
תמש רומח רטפ ןוידיפ לע קודצ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ןיבייח 'וא
'זעילא
'רש]
םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש
[ ןבלש םיעלס שמחכ ותוירחאב
If we assume that Epstein is correct regarding the original form of the two
mishnayot, we may then ask whether or not one depends upon the other. The answer is
that clearly mEd could not have been formulated using mBekh because of two pieces of
information lacking there: (1) the testimonial context of the law and (2) the names of R.
Yehoshua and R. S9adok which correspond to the opinions of the Sages. 3 The reverse,
that mBekh was derived from mEd, is entirely plausible. The redactor took the testimony
of R. Yehoshua and R. S9adok against the opinion of R. Eliezer and reframed it and made
them anonymous in the process; this follows a pattern throughout this chapter, where the
view of the scholars whose names appear in mEd is that of the anonymous Sages in the
parallel source elsewhere in the mishnah. 4
ב:
ז תוידע
רוהט
אוהש םיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
. ןריצ תא ולספ אל םירוהט ןיבגח םע ושבכינש םיאמט םיבגח הנושאר הנש ימש
R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper are t[ahor (may
be eaten)
3 In this regard, I believe that the real proof comes from R. S9adok, for if one wanted to
create a hypothetical edut from a dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages, the first sage
who would be chosen to "testify" against R. Eliezer's opinion would be R. Yehoshua.
The choice of R. S9adok by the inventive redactor, however, is puzzling unless we
assumed that he flipped a coin to pick a random sage to couple with R. Yehoshua.
4 This occurs in mishnah 5, 6, 7a and 7b.

In contrast to the earlier mishnah [which stated only] that non-kosher
grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers do not render the
secretions (i.e. the admixture) non-kosher.
There are three issues of status in relationship to the s[ir (secretions) which oozes out of
pickled grasshoppers: 5 1) The permissibility of eating it, 2) Its status as a liquid with
respect to rendering other foods which come in contact with it susceptible to ritual
impurity ( ןירישכמ)
and 3) Whether it is susceptible to ritual impurity itself. The mishnah
rishonah assumed that s[ir from non-kosher grasshoppers may not be eaten, but only if
not part of a mixture. The Sifra (Shemini 3:5) records the opinion contained in the
mishnah rishonah and the testimony of R. S9adok as follows:
אל םירוהט םיבגח םע ושבכנש םיאמט םיבגח םימכח ורמא ןכימ ויבוריעל טרפ אוה ץקש
. רוהט אוהש םיאמט םיבגח ריצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה ; ןריצ תא ולספ
“It is loathsome for you” – this comes to exclude its admixture. From this
the Sages said, “Non-kosher grasshoppers which were pickled with
kosher grasshoppers do not render the secretions (i.e. the admixture) nonkosher.”
R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper
are t[ahor (may be eaten).
R. S9adok goes one step further than the mishnah rishonah and asserts that the s[ir itself
may be eaten and does not have the status of a liquid, and hence does not render others
foods susceptible to ritual impurity upon contact. tEd 3:1 cites R. S9adok's opinion as
follows:
6
. המורת ילכואל רתומו רוהט והש ןיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
5 The meaning of the mishnah rishonah and R. S9adok's modification is not clear. The
interpretation is not significant here for studying the relationship of the mishnah to its
parallel in mTer so it will suffice here to follow Maimonides' approach which fits best
with the parallel source in tEd.
6
In all likelihood, the expression " המורת ילכואל"
should be understood as modifying
" רוהט"
and not " רתומ"
. If one were to read it as modifying the latter, the Tosefta would
201

R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper are
t[ahor and permissible to those who eat terumah.
The Sifra placed together with the Tosefta suggests that the Sages of the mishnah
rishonah prohibited eating the s[ir itself but R. S9adok permitted it.
The mishnah itself is found in mTer 10:9 in reverse order:
תומורת
תוידע
ולספ אל םירוהט םיבגח םע ושבכנש םיאמט םיבגח רוהט אוהש םיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
. ןריצ תא
הנושאר הנש ימש
םיאמט םיבגח ריצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה ולספ אל םירוהט ןיבגח םיע ושבכינש םיאמט םיבגח
. רוהט אוהש
ןריצ
תא
mTer
“Non-kosher grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers do not
render the secretions (i.e. the admixture) non-kosher.”
R. S9adok testified that the secretions of non-kosher grasshopper are t[ahor (may
be eaten).
Epstein observes that what we find referred to as mishnah rishonah is in fact the
anonymous tanna of mTer, and there R. S9adok's testimony is presented as a response to
it. He suggests 7 that the two halves of the mishnah have a similar relationship to that
which is found in the first mishnah in this chapter; i.e. the mishnah rishonah here is the
mishnah from mTer which has been inserted here, while R. S9adok's testimony has been
copied from mEd and added to mTer.
have to be understood as referring to someone who ate only food which was prepared לע"
" המורתה תרהט.
7
This is my interpretation of his comments in his Mevo’ot leSifrut haTannaim (p. 439).
Following Epstein's dissection of the first mishnah into the mEd part and the mBekh part,
he writes:
" הנושאר הנשמ"
ט"
מ י"
קרפ תומורתב -- 'וכו
הנושאר הנשמש 'וכו
צ"
ר דיעה : ב"
מ ב"
ויכו
.
( ליעל 'יע)
צ"
ר דיעה : וירחאו , ק"
ת אוה
202

Epstein's opinion here is more difficult to sustain than in the first mishnah.
Whereas in the first mishnah there was superfluity in both occurrences of the mishnah,
here there is none. Here it would be more reasonable to assume either that the mishnah
originated in mEd and was rearranged into natural order and placed in mTer, or that it
originated in mTer and was rearranged putting the testimony first to fit into mEd. 8 Two
factors suggest that the mishnah originated in mEd: 1) Had the redactor been reshaping
mTer to fit into mEd, from where did he obtain the language of “mishnah rishonah”?
The term itself is extremely rare 9 and may carry some technical connotation beyond
simply the “earlier opinion”. 10 Were the redactor merely trying to conform to the style of
the chapter in mEd, he would have used the expression " םירמוא ויהש"
which is used in the
seventh and eight mishnayot to mark earlier stages of the law. 2) The formulation of the
mishnah is inconsistent with the other formulations in the same context in mTer. The
sequence of mishnayot in mTer (10:7-9) read:
... המורת יתיז םע ןשבכש ןילוח יתיז
... רוהט גד םע ושבכש אמט גד
... םירוהט םיבגח םע ושבכנש םיאמט םיבגח
Olives of h9ulin which he pickled with olives of terumah ...
A non-kosher fish which he pickled with a kosher fish ...
8 Epstein (ibid., p.428) attempts to demonstrate (against Albeck) that a redacted form of
mishnah existed before Yavneh by citing our mishnah and pointing to the fact that the
mishnah rishonah as cited in mEd is that of mTer. In doing so, he fails to take into
account the possibility that the mTer is simply a reworked version of mEd.
9
It occurs four other times: mKet 5:3, mNaz 6:1, mGit[ 5:6 and mSan 3:4. There are
an additional twenty places in the mishnah where the expression " הנושארב"
is used to
refer to two stages of a law; in two of them (mNed 11:2, mBekh 1:7) the Bavli refers
to the respective positions as mishnah rishonah and mishnah ah9aronah.
10 See Epstein, ibid., p.428 and Albeck in Mavo laMishnah, p. 259.
203

Non-kosher grasshoppers which were pickled with kosher grasshoppers
...
The use of the passive verb, which breaks the sequence and could easily have been
formulated actively, suggests that our mishnah has been interpolated from another source
into the context of mTer. 11 Thus we conclude that the entire mishnah is original to mEd.
ג:
ז תוידע
ןירישכ ןהש םיפטונה לע וברש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
. ורישכהו 'מכח
ינפל השעמ אבו אייליפה תריבב היה השעמ
R. S9adok testified that if trickling water (which is treated as a ma(ayan [a spring] and
does not require forty se)ah for immersion) overwhelms dripping water (which is only
valid when pooled in a miqvah and requires forty se)ah) that it is valid (for immersion as
a ma(ayan).
There was an incident in Birat HaPilayya and the matter was brought before the
Sages who validated it.
The mishnah appears in mMiq 5:6 without the ma(aseh. The testimony there is preceded
by what might be considered an introduction, which reads:
204
. הוקמכ ןיפטונהו ןיעמכ ןילחוזה
Trickling water is like a spring but dripping water is like a mikvah.
The story’s absence in mMiq indicates that mEd could not have been drawn from there
alone. More likely, the law itself was taken from mEd and the story was omitted as it
adds nothing of legal substance. A structural analysis of mMiq supports this possibility.
The testimony of R. S9adok breaks up the flow of the mishnah. The entire mishnah reads:
הוקמכ םיפטונהו ןיעמכ ןילחוזה א
םירשכ םהש םיפטונה לע וברש ןילחוזה לע קודצ יבר דיעה ב
ןילחוז ןאשעש םיפטונו ג
11
MS Munich (in mEd; the mishnah is missing in mTer) and the genizah fragment MS
Antonin read " ןשבכש"
, but all of the other manuscripts as well as the Sifra (Shemini 3:5)
read " ושבכנש"
. In addition, every single witness to mTer contains a passive form of the
verb.

הדוהי 'ר
ירבד לבוטו דרוי הבזו בז וליפא הנק וליפא לקמ וליפא ךמוס
. וב ןיליחזמ ןיא האמוט לבקמ אוהש רבד לכ רמוא
יסוי 'ר
Trickling water is like a spring but dripping water is like a mikvah.
R. S9adok testified that if the trickling water overwhelms the dripping
water that it is valid (for immersion as a ma(ayan).
And dripping water which he made into trickling water:
One may use even a staff or a reed, even a zav or a zavah and one
may enter and immerse in it according to the opinion of R.
Yehudah.
R. Yose says, “Anything which is susceptible to ritual impurity,
one may not funnel [dripping water] with it.”
The mishnah is composed of three parts. א establishes the difference between " םיפטונ"
(dripping water) and " םילחוז"
(trickling water). ב, R. S9adok’s testimony, addresses
how one views water that is a mixture of the two sources. ג discusses turning
“dripping water” into “trickling water” (by narrowing the flow close to the source).
The conjunctive vav on the beginning of the third part attaches it to that which came
before. 12 The problem in the mishnah is that using the conjunction creates the
impression that R. S9adok testified 1) about a mixture of " םיפטונ"
and " ןילחוז"
and 2)
about turning " םיפטונ"
into " ןילחוז"
. The continuation, containing the dispute between
R. Yehudah and R. Yose makes it clear that the mishnah is not citing a second
testimony from R. S9adok, but rather a new discussion. 13 The conjunction, however,
makes perfect sense if we read the third part immediately following the first:
12 The vav is found in MSS Kaufman, Cambridge, Munich 95 and the editio princeps
and in all the printed editions. R. Ovadiah Bartenura in the modern printing of the
Mishnah is missing the vav (in the s.v.) but the substance of his comments does not
indicate whether he actually possessed such a reading, or whether it is a printer’s error.
13 The discussion in the third part of the mishnah, in some sense, is an elaboration
upon the testimony given by R. S9adok in the next mishnah in mEd. One might have
205

הוקמכ םיפטונהו ןיעמכ ןילחוזה א
ןילחוז ןאשעש םיפטונו ג
הדוהי 'ר
ירבד לבוטו דרוי הבזו בז וליפא הנק וליפא לקמ וליפא ךמוס
: וב ןיליחזמ ןיא האמוט לבקמ אוהש רבד לכ רמוא יסוי 'ר
Thus, the second part, R. S9adok’s testimony, appears to be a later interpolation from
mEd.
ד:
ז תוידע
ןירישכ ןהש זוגא ילעב ןחליקש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
. ורישכהו תיזגה תכשילל השעמ אבו איילהאב היה השעמ
R. S9adok testified about trickling water which he funneled into a stream with walnut
leaves that they are valid for immersion in (as the a ma(ayan [a spring] and do not require
forty se)ah for immersion).
There was an incident in Oholiya and the incident was brought to the “Room of
Hewn-Stone” (i.e. the seat of the high court) and they declared it valid.
The mishnah discusses a scenario in which flowing spring water slows to a drip,
thereby losing the status of a ma(ayan. 14 Someone then converts the dripping water
into a solid trickle by funneling it together using the leaves of walnut trees, which are
not susceptible to ritual impurity. 15
suggested that the debate between R. Yehudah and R. Yose was over the contents of
that testimony. That is, we might read the mishnah, “R. S9adok testified A and
regarding B he testified x according to R. Yehudah and y according to R. Yose”. The
problem with reading this way is that the formulations of the two Sages are not at all
alike. If they were debating the contents of R. S9adok’s testimony, one would have
expected their formulations to be identical except in the point of departure, i.e. what
one may use to convert ןיפטונ to ןילחוז.
14 A ma(ayan does not require forty se)ah of water to purify whereas a mikvah does.
Additionally, a ma(ayan is require for the immersion of a zav (Lev. 15:13), the
purification of a mes[ora (Lev. 14:5) and for mixing the ashes of the red heifer (Num.
19:17).
15 bZev 25b adopts such an approach by asserting that R. S9adok’s testimony was the
source for mPar 6:4 which states that one may direct the spring water for the red
206

This mishnah has no parallels elsewhere in the Mishnah, but the issue is
addressed in mMiq 5:6:
ןילחוז ןאשעש םיפטונו
הדוהי 'ר
ירבד לבוטו דרוי הבזו בז וליפא הנק
וליפא לקמ וליפא ךמוס
. וב ןיליחזמ ןיא האמוט לבקמ אוהש רבד לכ רמוא יסוי 'ר
And dripping water which he made into trickling water:
One may use even a staff or a reed, even a zav or a zavah and one may
enter and immerse in it according to the opinion of R. Yehudah.
R. Yose says, “Anything which is susceptible to ritual impurity, one may
not funnel [dripping water] with it.”
Both R. Yehudah and R. Yose agree with R. S9adok’s testimony; R. Yehudah,
however, goes one step further and argues that even items that are susceptible to ritual
impurity 16 may be used to funnel the water. 17 From a literary standpoint there is no
connection between either view and our mishnah and thus the mishnah is original to
mEd.
ה:
ז תוידע
אמט אוהש ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטחלש ללק לע דידח שיא םיקי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
. רהטמ 'זעילא
'רש
י
םוי היינשה תא חילגמ םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חליג םאש תו ריזנ יתש רזנש ימ לע סיפפ 'ר
דיעה
. ןינמה ןמ הלוע םישלש םויש אצי דחא םוי רסח םישש םוי חליג םאו םישש
heifer’s ashes into the vessel with an intermediary only if that intermediary is not
susceptible to ritual impurity. The mishnah uses walnut leaves as an example of that
which may be used.
16 See the commentaries of Maimonides and Tosafot Sens who present differing views
on whether or not the item itself may be impure according to R. Yehudah (T.S.) or if
only may be susceptible to impurity but not actually impure (Maimonides).
17 R. Yehudah is 1) rejecting R. S9adok’s testimony 2) debating R. Yose over the actual
contents of R. S9adok’s testimony or 3) asserting that R. S9adok gave the example he
did because of the story, but would even allow ritually impure items to be used for the
funneling.
207

R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim )Ish H9adid testified about a[n earthenware] jar of red
heifer ashes which he placed on top of a [dead] rodent that they are
invalid
in contrast to R. Eliezer who maintains that they are [still] valid.
R. Papias testified about one who accepted a vow of two periods of nezirut, that if
he shaved (i.e. performed the finishing rituals of a nazir 18 ) on the thirtieth day
he may [ipso facto] shave the second on the sixtieth day and if he did so on
the fifty-ninth day he has satisfied his obligation because the thirtieth day
counts (for the second period).
Two testimonies comprise this mishnah. In the first, R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim 19
assert that the ashes of the red heifer which are in a pottery container that is placed on
top of a source of impurity are rendered invalid. 20 R. Eliezer disagrees, since contact
with outside of an earthenware container does not transmit impurity to the container or
its contents. mPar records the same debate:
18 Num. 6:13-20.
םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא יבר ויבג לע ונתנ רוהט ץרשב עגנש תאטח לש ללק
19
This tanna is found nowhere else in Rabbinic literature. In the printed editions, the
name became " רדה שיא"
, a term attested to nowhere else in Rabbinic literature. All of
the manuscripts, with the exception of Paris 329 (reads " רירח"
), contain " דידח
שיא"
.
There is a city mentioned three times in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ez. 2:23: Neh. 7:37, 11:34)
by that name. It is described in mAra 9:6 (and referred to in bAra 32b and yMeg
1:1[=70a]) as a city walled from the days of Yehoshua b. Nun. In all probability, the
title refers to his geographic origin. The word דידח is found once in the Yerushalmi
(Shab 1:2[=3b]) to describe an individual who was intellectually sharp; it is possible
that the title here is one of praise.
20
An earthenware vessel is not susceptible to impurity when touched on the outside; it
becomes impure only if the source of impurity is suspended within its airspace (mKel
2:1). Their ruling rests upon the verse (Num. 19:8), " רוהט םוקמב הנחמל ץוחמ חינהו"
, i.e.
even though the vessel and its contents are not defiled by being placed on a dead
rodent, nonetheless the space it occupies is not a רוהט םוקמ and hence invalidates the
ashes.
208

. םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ יסוי 'ר
ןהיבג לע ונתנ רוהט שדקה יבתכבו ןיקשמו םילכואב
עגנ
A[n earthenware] jar of red heifer ashes which touched a [dead] rodent
are [still] valid.
If he placed them on top of a [dead] rodent R. Eliezer maintains that they
are [still] valid but the Sages say they are invalid.
If it (i.e. the vessel) touched [impure] food or drink or scrolls of Scripture
they (i.e. the ashes) are [still] valid. If they placed them (i.e. the food,
drink etc.) on top of them (i.e. the ashes), R. Yose declares that they are
[still] valid, but the Sages declare [them] invalid.
Presumably, the anonymous sages of mPar are R. Yehoshua and R. Yaqim. Two
points are lacking in mPar and therefore it cannot be the sole source for mEd: 1) The
identity of the “sages” who disagree with R. Eliezer. 2) The fact that the Sages’ view
was given as “testimony”. 21 Looking in the other direction, all of the information
required to construct mPar is contained in mEd. At the same time, the literary
formulation of the mishnah in mPar is consistent with the context there. 22 If mPar
originated in mEd the redactor arranged it well to fit into its new setting.
21 There are several other cases in the order of Teharot where R. Eliezer and “the
Sages” argue over purity matters and are not cited here in mEd. Thus, one cannot
argue that there was a general editorial policy of copying such material into mEd.
22 The text (mPar 11:2-4) reads:
אמט ףדמב עגנש תאטחל רוהטה
אמט ףדמב עגנש תאטח לש ןיגל
רוהט ולגרבו אמט ודיב
םיקשמו םילכואב עגנש תאטחל רוהטה
: םירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ עשוהי יבר ודיב ןטיסה
רוהט ץרשב עגנש תאטח לש ללק
םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא יבר ויבג לע ונתנ
רוהט שדקה יבתכבו ןיקשמו םילכואב עגנ
: םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ יסוי 'ר
ןהיבג לע ונתנ
.
רוהט ולגרבו אמט ודיב רונתב עגנש תאטחל רוהטה
209

The second testimony is attributed to R. Papias and concerns the thirty-day
period of a nazirite-vow. He asserts that if the nazir engaged in the end-of-vow
process on the last day of his nazirite period, the beginning of the last day, post facto,
counts towards his obligation and he has satisfied his requirement. He adds that, in the
event that a nazir who had vowed to observe two consecutive periods of nezirut
conducted the finishing rituals of the first nazirite-vow on the final day, the end of that
day is also counted as the first day of his second nazirite period.
The testimony of R. Papias is cited in mNaz (3:2) as follows:
דחאו םישש םוי הינשה תאו דחאו םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חלגמ תוריזנ יתש רזנש ימ
רסח םישש םוי חלג םאו םישש
םוי הינשה תא חלגמ םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חלג םאו
םוי הנושארה תא חלג םאש
תוריזנ יתש רזנש ימ לע סייפפ יבר דיעה תודע וזו אצי דחא
םישלש םויש אצי דחא רסח םישש םוי חלג םאו םישש
םוי הינשה תא חלגמ םישלש
. ןינמה ןמ ול הלוע
One who accepted a vow of two periods of nezirut should shave (i.e.
performed the finishing rituals of a nazir) on the first on the thirty-first
day and the second on the sixty-first. If he shaved on the thirtieth day he
may [ipso facto] shave the second on the sixtieth day and if he did so on
the fifty-ninth day he has satisfied his obligation.
This is the testimony given by R. Papias about one who accepted a vow
of two periods of nezirut, that if he shaved on the thirtieth day he may
shave the second on the sixtieth day and if he did so on the fifty-ninth day
he has satisfied his obligation because the thirtieth day counts (for the
second period).
The entire statement of R. Papias is duplicated within the mishnah, with the exception
of the last clause, " ןינמה ןמ אל הלוע םישלש םויש"
. The duplication is most easily
explained by the fact that second part was taken from mEd to function as a proof-text
for mNaz. The introduction of the material with " דיעה תודע וזו"
points to its originating
from another source.
210

The relationship of the first part of mNaz and our mishnah is not as clear. The
opening of mNaz discusses a point not explicit in mEd, i.e. what the proper procedure
is for the nazirite who has vowed to observe two periods of nezirut. According to
mNaz, he is supposed to complete the first on the thirty-first day and the second on the
sixty-first. This point is not mentioned in mEd, but nonetheless it is clearly implied by
R. Papias’ formulation of " םישש םוי חליג םא"
, 23 and even more explicitly by the
statement that after performing the finishing rituals, post facto, on the thirtieth, he is
supposed to wait until day sixty to conclude the second vow. Therefore, even the first
half of mNaz could have been constructed from mEd. The first half of mNaz does not
refer to R. Papias and thus mEd cannot derive solely from it. The most likely scenario
is that the first half of the mishnah was formulated in mNaz using the content of mEd.
A later editor added the entire text from mEd to serve as proof (perhaps not realizing
that the first stage of mNaz was constructed from the same source).
ו:
ז תוידע
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלוו לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ברקי 'מוא
'מכחו
'מלש
ברקי אל םימלש דלוו 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
. גחב םימלש הדלוו ונלכאו חספב אהונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סיפפ 'ר
'מא
R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified about the offspring of a peace-offering that it
(too) may be brought as a peace-offering
in contrast to R. Eliezer who says, “The offspring of a peace-offering may not
be brought as a peace-offering”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”
R. Papias said, “I attest that we had a cow which was a peace-offering and we ate
it on Passover and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on Sukkot.”
23 Which indicates that shaving on the sixtieth day is acceptable only post facto.
211

R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified that the offspring of a peace-offering (born after
the mother had already been dedicated as a sacrifice) possesses the same status as its
mother and may be brought in the Temple as a sacrifice. The text as we have it in
most of the manuscripts includes the dissenting opinion of R. Eliezer, who does not
allow the offspring to be sacrificed. 24 Both MS Munich 95 and the Genizah fragment
from the Antonin collection, however, lack the presentation of R. Eliezer’s statement.
On the basis of our mishnah alone, one would probably conclude that the scribes of
those texts skipped a line 25 and that R. Eliezer’s opinion was part of the original
mishnah. The mishnah concludes with a first person statement of R. Papias relating an
incident to corroborate the testimony he and R. Yehoshua had delivered.
The mishnah appears in parallel in mTem (3:1). 26 The mishnah reads:
דע ןדלו דלוו ןדלוו ןתרומתו םימלש דלו ןהב אצויכ ןהיתורומתו ןהיתודלוש םישדק ולא
קושו הזחו הפונתו םיכסנו הכימס םינועטו םימלשכ ולא ירה םלועה ףוס
24
R. Ami and R. H9iyya b. Abba (bTem 18b) debate whether R. Eliezer’s objection
was on scriptural grounds or Rabbinic grounds. The commentators generally follow
the conclusion of the sugya that the concern was " םירדע םירדע םהמ לדגי אמש"
, “Lest he
attempt to raise from them flocks and flocks.”
25
We cannot however point to a reason why the scribe should have missed the line.
The last words not omitted are " םימלש ברקיש"
and the last word omitted is " ברקיש"
.
The genizah fragment here has a different problem, i.e. it reads " םימלש םימלש ברקי"
.
One could speculate that the text from which its scribe copied read:
[ ברקי 'מוא
םימכחו םימלש ברקי אל םימלש דלוו 'מוא
רזעילא 'רש]
םימלש ברקיש
םימלש
This still does not explain why the scribe of our Genizah fragment would have skipped
a line, but such a text could explain how the scribe of MS Munich could have lost the
line since both lines would have ended or begun with " םימלש ברקי"
.
26 The breakup of the individual mishnayot follows MS Kaufmann.
212

ברקי םירמוא םימכחו םימלש ברקי אל םימלש דלו רמוא רזעילא יבר
ברקי אלש הרומת
דלו דלו לעו םימלש דלו דלו לע וקלחנ אל ןועמש יבר רמא
ברקי םירמוא םימכחו ברקי אל רמוא רזעילא יברש דלוה לע וקלחנ המ לעו
דיעמ ינא סייפפ יבר רמא םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלו לע סייפפ יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה
. גחב םימלש הדלו ונלכאו חספב הונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש
The following are sacrifices the offspring of which has the same status.
The offspring of peace-offerings and their substitute(s): their offspring
and their offspring’s offspring ad infinitum have the status of a peaceoffering
and require (when sacrificed) ceremonial-leaning, libations and
ceremonial-waving of the chest and leg.
R. Eliezer says, “The offspring of a peace-offering may not be brought as
a peace-offering”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”
R. Shimon said, “They never disagreed about the offspring of the
offspring of a peace-offering or the offspring of the offspring of a
substitute that it may not be brought. About what did they
disagree? About the offspring, as R. Eliezer says, “It may not be
brought”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”
R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified about the offspring of a peaceoffering
that it (too) may be brought as a peace-offering
R. Papias said, “I attest that we had a cow which was a peace-offering and
we ate it on Passover and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on
Sukkot.”
Two things stand out in mTem: 1) The mishnah repeats its point at least once, perhaps
twice. The first section establishes the rule that the offspring of a peace-offering is to
be treated like its progenitor. The second section, tells us that this point is in fact the
subject of debate between R. Eliezer and the Sages. The third part then recites the
opinion of the Sages in the guise of testimony from R. Yehoshua and R. Papias. 2)
The absence of the entire R. Eliezer-Sages clause after the testimony.
213

The first conclusion to be drawn from the redundancy in mEd is that the R.
Eliezer-Sages clause 27 in mEd is secondary. The absence of the clause in two of the
manuscripts of mEd (especially MS Antonin 28 ) as well as its universal omission in
mTem suggests that it is the work of a scribe who leveled (intentionally or not) the
two sources. In addition, as we demonstrate in Chapter Four, the editors of the sugya
in bTem 18b appear not to have had R. Eliezer’s opinion in mEd nor have had R.
Yehoshua’s and R. Papias’ testimony in mTem.
This brings us to the last question, that of the relationship between our
hypothesized “original” mEd, i.e. the testimony, and the “original” mTem, i.e. the
debate between R. Eliezer and the Sages. As has been the pattern throughout the
chapter, mEd requires another source to determine who the anonymous “Sages” are,
and hence cannot derive from mTem alone. It is possible, however, that mTem was
adapted from mEd.
( ז:
ז)
ח-ז:
ז תוידע
רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
תואמט ןהש םימותחנ לש תובורא לע ודיעה ןה
רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
אמט אוהש איילוחל איילח ןיב לוח ןתנו תוילח וכתיחש רונת לע ודיעה ןהו
ב
םירופה דע ןירמוא ויהש רדא לכ הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה
. יינת לע הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה
יינת לע הנשה תא ורביעו אובל אהשו היירוסבש ןומגיהמ תושר לוטיל ךלהש 'אילמג
ןברב
השעמ
. תרבועמ הנשה אצמנו ינא הצור ןהל 'מא
אבשכו 'אילמג
ןבר הצרייש
27 Or at least the “Sages” clause at the end. The real evidence to the absence of R.
Eliezer opinion from mEd comes from the sugya in bTem 18b referred to here and
discussed fully in Chapter Ten, pp. 270-3.
28
MS Munich is replete with omissions even in situations where every other witness
contains the passage.
214

They testified regarding the trays of bakers that they are susceptible to ritual impurity in
contrast to R. Eliezer who declares that they are not.
They testified that an oven which he cut up into rings and placed sand between each of
the rings is susceptible to ritual impurity in contrast to R. Eliezer who declares that
it is not.
They testified that we can intercalate the year at any point in Adar in contrast to that
which they used to say [that one may intercalate] only until Purim.
They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.
It happened once that Rabban Gamliel went to procure permission from the
Governor in Syria and he was delayed in coming and they intercalated the year on
the condition that Rabban Gamliel would desire so and when he returned he said, “I
desire so”, and it turned out that the year was intercalated.
The mishnah cites four testimonies which are attributed to " ןה"
, R. Yehoshua and
R. Papias of the preceding mishnah. The first two testimonies are directed at or
contrasted with the opinion of R. Eliezer. The third testimony is contrasted with the
anonymous, “They used to say …”. The final one is not juxtaposed with any opposing
opinion.
The first issue is that of תוכורא 29 םימותחנ לש , the trays of a baker. The issue is
discussed in mKel 15:2 (=tEd 3:1) followed by a debate between R. Eliezer and the
Sages regarding a ןימותחנ לש ףד. The mishnah states:
תואמט ןמכרכ וא ןקרס תורוהט םיתב ילעב לשו תואמט םימותחנ לש תובורא
. םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ א"
ר לתוכב ועבקש ןימותחנ לש
ףד
29
In a majority of MSS and in the printed editions, the term is " תוכורא"
, i.e. with a kaf.
Most of the MSS (including MS Kaufmann) in mKel (15:2) have a kaf, but the printed
editions contain a bet, " תובורא"
. The orthographic confusion is common. The Arukh
()rb) cites both versions and suggest three possible etymologies. Two of them involve
substituting an (ayin for the )aleph –תובירע, a common mishnaic Hebrew word for
tray, and תוכורע, the trays on which the bread is arranged ( ךרענ)
before baking. The
most likely etymology of those he suggests is that these were long trays, תוכורא, on
which the bread is kneaded or arranged for baking.
215

Trays of bakers that are susceptible to ritual impurity but those of a homeowner
are not. [But] if he decorated them they are susceptible.
A tray of a baker which he attached to the wall, R. Eliezer declares not
susceptible to ritual impurity but the Sages declare susceptible.
The difference between an )arubah and a daf is not clear. mKel cites no dissenting
opinion on the matter of )arubot while mEd does not discuss the issue of a daf.
Clearly, mEd does not draw upon mKel, nor can the second part of mKel draw from
mEd. Theoretically, the opening part of mKel could have been drawn from mEd if the
redactor simply adopted the position of R. Yehoshua and R. Papias and made it
anonymous. Epstein 30 asserts that mKel (and tEd) disagree with mEd regarding the
issue about which R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified; according to mKel it was
about a daf and according to mEd it was about )arubot. His assumption is reasonable
but not conclusive. It is equally conceivable that there are indeed two debates between
R. Eliezer and the Sages. mEd records only the one in which there was testimony
given, and (therefore) mKel adopts the testimony as an accepted position. 31
The second testimony in the mishnah regards the famous oven over which the
story of R. Eliezer’s excommunication by his colleagues is told (bBM 59b). The so-
called " יאנכע לש ורונת"
was an oven which was cut up into horizontal slices and
rejoined by means of sand (acting as a kind of glue) between each of the layers. R.
30 Mevo)ot leSifrut haTannaim, p. 434.
31 The difficulty with this assumption is that in the other cases in this chapter the
parallel mishnayot contain the dissenting opinion of R. Eliezer, whereas mKel does
not mention R. Eliezer’s opinion.
216

Eliezer rules that the oven is still “broken” and thus not susceptible to ritual impurity;
the sages disagreed. The closest parallel is mKel 5:10:
לש ורונת הז ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
אילוחל אילוח ןיב לוח ןתנו תוילוח
וכתח
. יאנכע
If he cut it into rings and placed sand between each of the rings: R.
Eliezer declares [it] not susceptible to ritual impurity but the Sages
declare [it] susceptible. This is “The oven of Akhna(i.”
As was the case with several mishnayot earlier in the chapter, the opinion of R. Eliezer
is presented there as differing with the anonymous “Sages”. mEd can not be derived
from mKel which lacks the identity of the “Sages” and the testimonial context of their
view. mKel (with the exception of the last clause 32 ) could have been adapted from
mEd. If it was, the redactor removed the antecedent " רונת"
(which already exists in
mKel 5:9) to make it fit better into its new context.
The last two testimonies in the mishnah address the terminus ad quem for the
Sanhedrin to declare a leap-year. The earlier tradition permitted such a declaration up
until the middle of Adar, the last month of the year. R. Yehoshua and R. Papias assert
that the court can make the declaration until the end of the month. In the second
32
The expression sounds like a gloss; the usage of " הזו"
or " והזו"
(MS Kaufmann) with
the meaning of “and this is the” plus a known referent is extremely rare in the
Mishnah. mYev 3:8 contains two, but both refer to expressions earlier in the same
mishnah. mBekh 7:5 uses the expression " הרותב רומאה ךשא חורמ והזו"
, thereby
providing the context for the referent. In mKel, it is unclear why the reader will know
the reference of " יאנכע לש ורונת"
or the reference in the second half of the mishnah, והזו"
" יאניד ןב לש ורונת.
The former is known also from tEd 2:1, which could have served as
a source for such a gloss:
. ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
אילוחל אילוח ןיב לוח ןתנו תוילח וכתיח
. לארשיב תוקולחמ ובר וילעש יאנכע
לש רונת ארקנ היהו
The latter is referred to nowhere else in Rabbinic literature.
217

testimony, they assert that the court can conditionally declare the leap-year, i.e.
declare it subject to later clarification, and they buttress their testimony with the
account of R. Gamliel’s visit to Syria. Neither of the two topics is discussed
elsewhere in the Mishnah and thus they are original to mEd.
( ט-ח:
ז)
ט:
ז תוידע
ה
ףוליח 'מוא
ויהש רוהט אוהש םיעבצ לשו אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש לש ארוי ףסומ לע ייגנס ןב םחנמ דיעה
ןירבדה
הדגדוג ןב ןנחוי
'ר
דיעה
טגב אצוי
איהש היבא האישיהש תשרחה לע
השרוי הלעב התימ םאו המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש 'ארשי
תב הנטק לעו
וימד תא ןתיש הריבב ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו
. חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ תרפכמ איהש םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה תאטחה לעו
Menah9em b. Signai testified regarding the additional lip [of the pot] of olive-cookers that
it is susceptible to ritual-impurity and regarding that of dyers that it is not, in contrast to
that which they used to say, i.e. just the opposite.
R. Yoh9anan b. Gudgedah testified regarding:
A deaf-mute (minor) whose father married her off that she may be divorced by
means of a bill of divorce.
A minor girl of non-priestly lineage who married a priest that she may eat
terumah and if she dies her husband inherits her estate.
A stolen beam which [the thief] built into a tower that he [only] needs to return its
value (and not the beam itself).
A stolen sin-offering that was not known publicly (as being stolen) that it
achieves atonement because of the benefit of the altar.
The first testimony in the mishnah is attributed to Menah9em b. Signai. 33 He
33
The origin of the name is unclear; he is mentioned only here and in the parallel in
tEd (3:1). The manuscripts that reflect the Palestinian tradition all have the nun before
the gimmel. Most of the others, including MS Antonin, have it reversed. In tEd, MS
Vienna reads " ינגיס"
, while MS Erfurt reads " יאגנוס"
, the reverse of what we might
have expected. The editio princeps reads, bizarrely, " יגביפ"
and the Vilna edition,
following it, reads " יגבופ"
. Etymologically speaking, the root sng does not exist in
Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew. The form " יאנגס"
provides one obvious possibility for
an etymology. The Mishnah twice, including once in mKel 5:4 where Menahem’s
testimony is cited anonymously, refers to a place called " הנגס"
. The term " יאנגס ןב"
may be a place name, not a family name.
218

asserts that the pot-addition (an extended earthenware lip attached to the rim) of the
olive-cooker is used to contain additional liquid and hence is susceptible to impurity,
whereas that of a dyer is not susceptible to impurity because the liquid level in the pot
must remain below the rim (so as not to damage the wool). This, the mishnah
observes with the same " םירמוא ויהש"
as in the second testimony of mEd 7:7, was the
reverse of the earlier view.
Menah9em’s testimony is found in mKel 5:5:
דופשה תא וילע ךמוס אוהש ינפמ אמט ןימותחנ לשו רוהט םיתב ילעב לש רונתה ףסומ
קחדנ אוהשכ וב הפוא אוהש ינפמ רמוא רלדנסה ןנחוי יבר
. רוהט םיעבצ לשו אמט םיתיז יקלוש לש הרויה ףסומ וב אצויכ
The extension of an oven of home-owners is not susceptible to ritual
impurity but that of bakers is because he rests the spit on it. R.
Yoh9anan HaSandlar says, “Because he bakes with hit when he is
pressed [for space].”
Similarly, The additional lip [of the pot] of olive-cookers that it is
susceptible to ritual-impurity and regarding that of dyers that it is not.
His testimony is cited as accepted practice without any attribution and without any
assertion about an earlier practice and thus mEd can not originate in mKel. Since the
formulation of the two is identical, mKel may well have derived from mEd.
Four testimonies of R. Yoh9anan b. Gudgedah comprise the second half of the
mishnah. They are: (1) A deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father, where the
marriage is binding on a scriptural level, may be divorced by her husband with an
ordinary get (despite her being legally incompetent). (2) A minor (whose father is
dead or uninvolved) who was married off to a priest is to be treated as the man’s wife
219

for the purpose of allowing her to eat terumah (despite the fact that the marriage is
only rabbinic in nature) and so that he will inherit from her in the event of her
predeceasing him. (3) A thief who builds stolen property (a beam) into a structure
without actually modifying the beam (by which he would acquired legal title to the
property through the principle of " הנוק יוניש"
) may pay for the value of the stolen
property and is not obligated to demolish the structure to return the actual stolen
property. (4) A stolen animal brought as a sin-offering is valid so long as the stolen
status of the animal was not publicly known. 34
The mishnah appears elsewhere in the Mishnah twice; once completely and
once partially. mGit[ 5:5 is identical to our mishnah. The reason for its citation there
is that the fourth and most of the fifth chapters of mGit[ contain a collection of laws
which were classified as " תונקת"
. Most of them end with an expression such as ינפמ"
" םלועה ןוקית.
The last two testimonies of R. Yoh9anan fit the context, although the third
testimony does not actually use the term " הנקת"
. The mishnah was clearly copied from
mEd since the first two testimonies have no relevance to the context in mGit[. The
redactor did not want to cut up his source material, and hence he copied the unit in
toto.
The second parallel is mYev 14:2. There, only the first testimony of R.
Yoh9anan was cited, as that was the only one which was relevant. 35 mEd cannot derive
34 The connection between the ruling and the reason given by the mishnah is not clear.
See bGit 55a-b where R. Yehudah and Ulla debate the intent of this testimony.
35 MSS Munich 95 and Paris 329 both contain the first half of the second testimony,
220

from mYev because three of the four testimonies are not found there. Nothing in the
formulation of mYev suggests that the line is out of context. Since, however, the
parallel in mGit[ demonstrates that R. Yoh9anan’s testimonies formed an early unit, it is
likely that the redactor of mYev transferred R. Yoh9anan’s first testimony from mEd
and truncated it after the first. The redactor of mYev was able to do so because the
testimony that he needed was the first one; mGit[ would have required modifying the
mishnah by eliminating the first two cases.
Summary: There are twelve statements of testimony in the chapter. 36 Three (7:4,
7:7b,c) exist nowhere else and hence must be original to mEd. In four of the cases, the
context of the parallel occurrence of the mishnah, in all probability, shows that the
mishnah is foreign to that location, either because of linguistic issues (7:2), relevance
of content (7:9) or literary considerations (7:3,7:5b). In three cases (7:5a, 7:7a, 7:9a)
the parallel occurrences lack both the names of the tradents in mEd and the fact that
the content was given as testimony; thus they cannot have been transferred to mEd
from the parallel locations, but visa versa is possible. Finally, two cases (7:1: 7:6)
show a cross fertilization between mEd and its parallels in the mishnah; at a stage after
the original formulation, material was transferred in both directions. When we delete
the hypothetical later additions in these last two cases, we again are confronted with
" המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשנש לארשי תב הנטק לעו"
. This may be attributed to what is
often referred to as " אנשילד ארגישא"
or perhaps be under the influence of bYev 113a
where the mishnah (perhaps from mEd) was cited up until an including the first half of
the second testimony.
36 For these purposes, I am treating the testimony of R. Yoh9anan (7:9) as one.
221

parallels that contain neither the names of the tradents nor the testimonial context of
the statements found in mEd, and thus once again they cannot have been transferred to
mEd from the parallel locations, but visa versa is possible.
222

Chapter Eight
Eduyot Chapter Eight
א:
ח תוידע
רוהט אוהש תולבנ םד לע אריתב ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ולוכ תא אמיטש ותצקימב אמט עגנש תאטחה רפא לע הריתב ןב ןועמש 'ר
דיעה
. םלוכ תא לספש ןתצקימב םוי לובט עגנש םילחגהו הנובלה תרוטקהו תלוסה הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה
R. Yehoshua b. Beteirah testified regarding the blood of neveilot 1 that it is does not impart
ritual impurity.
R. Shimon b. Beteirah testified regarding the ashes of a red heifer that if a ritually impure
person touched [even a] part of it that he defiles all of it.
R. Akiva added regarding flour [of a flour offering], incense, frankincense and
coals, that if a t9evul-yom 2 touches [even] part of them he defiles them entirely.
Two testimonies comprise the first mishnah.
1) R. Yehoshua b. Beteira testified that the blood of an animal (unlike its flesh)
which died without a proper ritual slaughtering does not convey ritual impurity. mEd 5:1
cites R. Yehudah who enumerates this issue as one of the leniencies of Beit Shammai. R.
Yehoshua presumably does not know or does not accept the opinion of R. Yehudah as he
disagrees with the view attributed to Beit Hillel. The issue is not discussed explicitly
elsewhere in the Mishnah, but the opinion of R. Yehoshua is assumed in two places. 3
2) The second testimony of the mishnah is a statement of R. Shimon b. Beteira 4
1 Animals which died without a proper ritual slaughtering.
2
A ritually impure person who has immersed in the ritual bath, but is waiting for the sun
to set to become ritually pure.
3 mMe 4:3, mMakh 6:5. See yShab 8:1 (=ySheq 8:1) where the simple reading of
mMakh is assumed to be in accordance with R. Yehoshua but an alternative reading is
suggested.
4 This R. Shimon is cited in tannaitic literature only twice: once in the mishnah here, and
once in the Tosefta to the first part of the mishnah. The Mishnah elsewhere cites three
different authorities with the description of ben-Beteira; R. Yehoshua, R. Yehudah and an
223

with an addition by R. Akiva. R. Shimon testifies that a pile of ashes of the red heifer is
viewed as one entity and hence impurity conveyed to one part renders the entire pile
impure. 5 R. Akiva extends this principle to include items used in the Temple ritual.
These statements are not found elsewhere in the Mishnah but the mH9ag 3:2 follows the
opinion of R. Akiva.
Since none of the material in the mishnah appears elsewhere, it is original to mEd.
ב:
ח תוידע
הסנכינש ןויכ המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש 'שי
תב הנטק לע ןהכה הדוהי 'רו
אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
דיעה
הלעבינ
אלש יפ לע ףא הפוחל
ןידיעמ הידיעו החפשמה ינב אהוקחירו ןולקשאב הנח רוהש תקונית לע בצקה ןב הירכז 'רו
ןהכה ףסוי 'ר
דיעה
האמטינ אלשו ארתסינ אלש התוא
'מכח
ןהל ורמא
האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש ונימאה הנחרוהש םתא םינימאמ םא
. הנחרוהש
ונימאת לא האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש ןינימאמ םתא ןיא םאו
R. Yehudah b. Abba and R. Yehudah HaKohen testified about a minor daughter of nonpriestly
lineage who marries a priest that she may eat terumah once she has entered
the wedding-canopy even though she has not yet had sexual intercourse.
R. Yosef HaKohen and R. Zekharyah b. HaQas[av testified about a young girl who had
anonymous ben-Beteira. R. Yehoshua ben-Beteira appears in the Mishnah only six times
(in mPe 3:6 and mEd 8:3 the printed text has Yehudah instead of Yehoshua, probably a
mistaken expansion of the abbreviation י " ר).
Three of those times his statement is
introduced with the word he‘id, two in this chapter of mEd and one in mYev 8:4 (not
cited in mEd). R. Nahman b. Yitzchak (bTa 3a) attributes one anonymous ben-Beteira in
a baraita to R. Yehoshua; Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah, “Introduction”, ed.
Kapah9, p. 29) takes this as a general rule that all references to ben-Beteira are to R.
Joshua. His position is untenable because two of the occurrences of ben-Beteira in the
Mishnah have names in their parallels in the Tosefta and neither is R. Yehoshua (mAZ
1,6 [=mPes 4:3] is R. Yose in tAZ 2:1 and mMen 1:2 is R. Yehudah according to tMen
1:8). It is possible that the unnamed cases of ben-Beteira should, until proven otherwise,
be assumed to be R. Shimon b. Beteira along the model of ben-Nannas, ben-Azai and
ben-Zoma all of whom were Shimon (cf. M. Segal, Sefer Ben-Sira HaShalem, p. 1-3).
5 Were we to view the ashes as being separate entities placed next to one another, then
only those directly touched by the source of impurity would be defiled.
224

een taken as a pledge [by Gentiles] and her family had ostracized her (i.e. declared
her ineligible to marry into the priesthood) even though her witnesses testified that
she had not been secluded [with a Gentile] and had not been defiled.
The Sages said to them (i.e. her family),
“If you believe that she was taken as a pledge, believe that she did not
seclude and was not defiled,
but if you do not believe that she did not seclude and was not defiled, then
do not believe that she was taken as a pledge”.
The second mishnah is comprised of two unrelated testimonies. The first cites R.
Yehudah b. Abba 6 and R. Yehudah HaKohen 7 and contains two significant points.
1) A minor woman of non-priestly lineage who marries a priest is permitted to eat
terumah, despite the fact that the marriage exists only on a rabbinic level as " ישודיק
ןואימ". 8
2) She is permitted to eat terumah only once she has entered the h9uppah (but even
if the marriage had not been consummated). 9 Both aspects of the testimony are
discussed elsewhere in the Mishnah, but both the tradents and the formulations are
different, and hence the mishnah is original to mEd. The first part of their testimony is
affirmed (or preceded) by the testimony of R. Yoh9anan in mEd 7:9 and appears to be the
opinion of the anonymous tanna in mYev 13:2. 10 The second part addresses an issue that
6
In the printed editions his name is generally written as " אבב ןב הדוהי יבר"
. He is cited
only a handful of times in the Mishnah.
7
This (including the parallel in tEd 3:2) is the only mention of such a person in Rabbinic
literature.
8 There is no explicit mention in the mishnah of the fact that the father has died, but if we
were to interpret the mishnah as referring to a situation in which the father was alive and
had married her off himself, in which case the marriage would function on a scriptural
level, then it is not clear what the novelty of the testimony would be.
9 The first of these two points seems to be the primary focus since the latter point is
relevant to any woman who marries a priest.
10 See above, foonote 8.
225

elsewhere in the mishnah is described as the difference between the mishnah rishonah
and the " ןהירחאלש ןיד תיב"
. mKet 5:2-3 states:
, ואשנ אלו ןמז עיגה . .. . המצע תא סנרפל לעבה העבתשמ שדח רשע םינש הלותבל ןינתונ
השאה ןיא , ורמא ןהירחא לש ןיד תיב . הנושאר הנשמ וז ... המורתב תלכואו ולשמ תלכוא
. הפחל סנכתש דע המורתב תלכוא
We allow a virgin twelve months from the time that her husband
summoned her to prepare herself [for the wedding-canopy] ... If the time
arrived and they did not marry she is supported by him and may eat
terumah (if he is a priest) ... This is the mishnah rishonah. The court
which followed them said that a woman may not eat terumah until she
enters the wedding-canopy.
According to the mishnah rishonah, a wife was permitted to eat terumah once her
husband was obligated to support her. Later, they banned eating terumah until she had
entered the h9uppah. The testimony in mEd conforms to what mKet assumes to be the
later mishnah.
The only direct parallel to the mishnah is found in the tEd 3:2:
הסנכנש ןויכש ןהכל תאשינש לארשי תב לע ןהכה הדוהי 'ר(
ו אבב ןב הדוהי 'ר)
דיעה
ןהכ ( אשי)
אל 'וא
רזעילא 'ר
היה ןכו לעבית 'וא
רזעילא
'רש
הלעבנ אלש פ"
עא הפוחל
. לידגתש דע השא
R. Yehudah b. Abba and R. Yehudah HaKohen testified about a minor
daughter of non-priestly lineage who marries a priest that she may eat
terumah once she has entered the wedding-canopy even though she has
not yet had sexual intercourse, in contrast to R. Eliezer who says, “She
must have intercourse”. Similarly, R. Eliezer says, “A priest may not
marry a woman until she reaches the age of majority.”
From the Tosefta, it is apparent that this testimony, as many explicitly are so in the
preceding two chapters of mEd, is directed against R. Eliezer. However, what precisely
R. Eliezer holds is difficult to decipher from this tosefta. 11
11 At first glance, he appears to take issue with the latter of the two points of the
testimony, i.e. he requires that the marriage actually be consummated for the wife to eat
terumah. The continuation in the tosefta, however, renders this reading difficult, because
226

The second testimony of the mishnah is transmitted in the name of R. Zekhariah
haQas9av 12 and R. Yosef haKohen. 13 There is no clear parallel to their testimony
he asserts that a priest may not marry a minor woman. This would contradict his first
statement that the consummation of the marriage (but not h9uppah) permits her to eat
terumah. If such a marriage were invalid, why would he permit her to eat terumah?
mYev (13:2) states:
הניא התעדל אלש הואישה התעדל היחאו המא הואישהש לכ ןאמל הכירצש הנטק איה וז יא
אל ןהכל לארשי תב התופמכ אלא םולכ הנטק השעמ ןיא רמוא רזעילא 'ר
... ןאמל הכירצ
. המורתב לכאת לארשיל ןהכ תב המורתב לכאת
tYev (13:3) elaborates:
השעמב אלו התאיצמב אל יאכז הלעב ןיאו םולכ הנטק השעמ ןיא רמוא רזעילא יבר אינת
רבד לכל ותשאכ הניא רבד לש וללכ הל אמטימ ןיאו השרוי וניאו הירדנ תרפהב אלו הידי
הירדנ תרפהבו הידי השעמבו התאיצמב יאכז הלעב רמוא עשוהי יבר ןואימ הכירצש אלא
. ןואימב האצויש אלא רבד לכל ותשאכ איה ירה רבד לש וללכ הל אמטימו השרויו
According to the account of R. Eliezer in mYev, a marriage bond exists for a minor
woman (who is not married off by her father) only with respect to the fact that in order to
marry someone else she must perform mi)un. R. Eliezer does not forbid such a union but
assigns it minimal legal status and thus the marriage does not allow her to eat terumah.
One might suggest that the intent of R. Eliezer’s first statement in tEd is, אל]
לעבת [ וליפא]"
"[ לכאת,
consistent with his position in Yevamot. This reading would also eliminate the
contradiction between this statement and the immediately following statement in tEd.
Regarding the second half of tEd, that a priest may not marry a minor, bYev (61b)
cites a tradition in R. Eliezer's name that "הנטק אשי אל ןהכ". The sugya concludes with two
possibilities - one is that it refers to a High Priest, in which case it is probably unrelated to
our tosefta; the other is that is dealing with an ordinary priest, in which case we might
interpret our Tosefta in such a light. H9asdei David links the second half to R. Eliezer’s
statement in mYev 61b (originally tQid 1:4) that " הנוז האשע היונפה לע אבה יונפ"
. The
problem with his approach is that most of the manuscript witnesses to the many citations
of this statement throughout the Talmud contain “Elazar”, not “Eliezer”; more
importantly, the sugyot in mYev 59b and 61b make clear that the former reading is
correct. For more on this, see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Feshut@ah, Nashim, pp. 915-6.
12 R. Zekhariah appears in only two other places in the Mishnah - mKet 2:9 in the
discussion of women taken captive and mSot[ 5:1 expounding on the source for the
prohibition of an adulteress returning to cohabit with her husband, the concern with the
captive woman). Interestingly, all three citations focus on the same narrow topic.
13 R. Yosef HaKohen is listed in mAvot one of the five pupils of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai.
He appears elsewhere only twice – mH9al 4:12 and mMiq 10:1. The former establishes
that he was already active before the Destruction.
227

elsewhere in the mishnah, although two laws cited in mKet (2:6 and 2:9) assume their
position:
םידע שי םאו
. ריתהש הפה אוה רסאש הפהש תנמאנ ינא הרוהטו יתיבשנ הרמאש השאה
. אצת אל וז ירה םידע ואב תאשנשמ םאו . תנמאנ הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא איהו תיבשנש
ריע . הלעבל הרוסא תושפנ ידי לע . הלעבל תרתמ ןוממ ידי לע םיוג ידיב השבחנש השאה
ולפא דבע ולפא םידע ןהל שי םאו . תולוספ הכותב ואצמנש תונהכ לכ םוכרכ השבכש
הזה ןועמה בצקה ןב הירכז יבר רמא . ומצע ידי לע ןמאנ םדא ןיאו . ןינמאנ ולא ירה החפש
לע דיעמ םדא ןיא ול ורמא . ואציש דעו םילשוריל םיוג וסנכנש העשמ ידי ךותמ הדי הזז אל
. ומצע ידי
A woman who says “I was taken captive but I was not defiled” is believed
because the mouth which [potentially] forbade is the mouth which
permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive and she
says “I was not defiled”, she is not believed. But if after she had already
married (a priest) the witnesses arrived she need not be divorced.
A woman who was taken captive among the Gentiles for the purposes of
ransom is permitted to her husband; but if to be killed, she is forbidden to
her husband. If a city which was captured by an enemy, all of the
priestesses (i.e. wives of priests) inside are disqualified (from being
married into the priesthood and eating terumah.) But if they have
witnesses, even a slave, even a maid-servant, they are believed. But a
person is not believed about himself. R. Zekharyah b. HaQas[av said, “I
swear by the Temple that her hand never left my hand from the time that
the Gentiles entered Jerusalem until they departed.” They said to him, “A
person may not testify on his own behalf.”
The first mishnah assumes that only the presence of witnesses to her captivity presents a
problem for a captive 14 woman who asserts that she was not defiled; the second makes
clear that even if a woman has been taken captive, one witness (even an invalid one)
14 Literally, “taken as a pledge”. The root hrhn is extremely rare in rabbinic literature.
The root appears in tMS 1:1-2, bPes 31a-b, once in Avot de-Rabbi Natan (Version 1,
Chapter 10, s.v. ןד יוהו) and once in yMS 1:1. For a discussion of the use of this root in
other Semitic languages see Jonas Greenfield, “Kullu nafsin bima3 kasabat rahna3:
The use of rhn in Aramaic and Arabic”, (Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas
C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, pp. 453-9.
228

suffices to establish that she has not been defiled. Since both halves of our mishnah have
no direct parallels elsewhere they are original to mEd.
ג:
ח תוידע
הנוהכל הרישכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע הריתב ןב עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרישכ הסיעה
ךכ לע ןיד תיב
בישוהל אלש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזגו השענ המ לבא ןכתודע ונלבוק 'אילמג
ןבר 'מא
. ברקל אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה
R. Yehoshua and R. Yehoshua b. Beteira testified regarding a widow of mixed-up lineage
that she is permitted to marry into the priesthood. A mixed-up group is accepted to
declare [it] genealogically fit or unfit, to ostracize or embrace (i.e., a court may
attempt verify the facts.)
R. Gamliel said, “We accept your testimony but what can we do since R. Yoh9anan b.
Zakkai has already decreed not to establish a court for such a purpose!
[Besides which,] the priests will listen to you to ostracize but not to embrace.”
Our mishnah has no parallels anywhere elsewhere in the Mishnah and thus is
original to mEd. Evidence from the Bavli (Ket 14a) 15 suggests that the middle clause
(" ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרישכ הסיעה")
might be a later addition, perhaps drawing from tEd
(3:2). 16
ד:
ח תוידע
באסמ התימל ברקי ידו ןייכד הייחבטמ תיב הקשמ לעו יכד הייצימק לייא לע הדירצ שיא רזעוי ןב הסוי 'ר
דיעה
. איירש הסוי היל ןורקו
R. Yose b. Yo(ezer )Ish S9ereidah testified about an )ayal qamis9yah (a kind of
grasshopper) that it is kosher, and that the liquids of the slaughtering area of the Temple
do not defile and that one who touches a dead person becomes ritually impure, and they
called him “Yose the Permissive One”.
This mishnah is highly unusual in a couple of ways. First, aside from several
15 See Chapter Ten, pp. 273-5.
16
The text there states:
.
ועגנ אל הסיע תנמלאב לבא ברקלו קחרל ריתהלו רסאל רהטלו אמטל הסיע תנמאנ 'מוא
ןהירחאש ןיד תיב
229

aphorisms found in mAv and formulaic expressions from legal documents, it is the only
Aramaic mishnah found in the entire Mishnah. 17 One would guess that it reflects a very
old tradition; it is difficult to imagine that a Hebrew statement was translated into
Aramaic. Second, it is the only legal 18 quotation of a pre-Hillelite sage 19 , and a highly
detailed one at that.
The mishnah has no complete direct parallels elsewhere in tannaitic literature.
The second testimony is referred to in the Sifra. 20 Furthermore, the issues raised in the
first two statements do not appear in the places where one would have expected them to
be discussed. The first testimony regarding the permissibility of eating a particular
species of grasshopper is relevant to the discussion of kosher and non-kosher species at
the end of the third chapter of mH9ul. The second issue belongs in the sixth chapter of
mMakh where the kinds of liquids that render food susceptible to ritual impurity are
discussed, but the issue is not even hinted to. Instead, it is referred to in a digression in
mKel 15:6:
. ןירוהט יול ינב ילבנו ןיאמט הרשה
ילבנ
ןירוהט איחבטמ תיב הקשמו ןיאמט ןיקשמה לכ
. הרזעה רפסמ ץוח םידיה תא ןיאמטמ םירפסה לכ
Harps for singing are susceptible to ritual impurity but the harps of the
Levites in the Temple are not.
17 See Albeck, Mavo LaMishnah, pp. 128-9.
18 The material at the beginning of mAv is homiletical. Shma(yah and Avtalyon are cited
twice in mEd (1:3 and 5:6) but the mishnah itself does not actually attribute the
statements to them.
19
mH9ag 2:2 preserves a long running dispute between the five zugot, but the view
attributed to the earlier sages ( ךומסל אלש \ ךומסל)
is a paraphrase, not a quote.
20 Sifra, Shemini, Parsha 3, Chapter 5, #8.
230

All liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity but the liquids of the
slaughtering area in the Temple are not.
All scrolls of Scripture defile the hands except for the scroll of the Temple
courtyard.
The intent of the final testimony is vague. The root qrb in Aramaic means to touch 21 , and
thus he asserts that touching a corpse defiles a person. While certainly true, his testimony
is unnecessary as it adds nothing to the verse in Num. (19:10). bAZ 37b quotes two
suggestions as to Yose b. Yo)ezer’s intent: 1) One who touches the corpse itself is
defiled, but not one who touches a person touching the corpse (" םהל רהט ןירביחב האמוט")
.
2) Only one who definitely touches a corpse becomes ritually impure, but one who does
so doubtfully (in the public domain) is not defiled. Whatever the case, since none of the
testimonies occur elsewhere in the Mishnah, they are original to mEd.
ה:
ח תוידע
דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמש ילדב תיב שיא הימחנ םשמ הביקע 'ר
דיעה
. רוהט לכה םצע םצע טקלמ 'מכח
ורמא םיצעה
רידב ואצמינש תומצעה לע עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
R. Akiva testified in the name of Neh9emiah )Ish Beit Badli that we allow a woman to
remarry based on the testimony of one witness [that her husband is dead].
R. Yehoshua testified about the bones which were found in the “Wood Room” [of the
Temple that] the Sages said that one may collect all the bones [and] everything [else]
remains pure.
The first of two testimonies in the mishnah appears to be a summary mYev 16:7-9:
יתעמש יל 'מאו
ילד תיב שיא אימחנ ינאצמ הנשה רבעל אעדרהנל יתדרישכ הביקע 'בר
רמא
אבב ןב הדוהי אלא דחא דע יפ לע 'רשי
ץראב השאה תא ןיאישמ ןיאש
םירבדה ןכ ול יתימונ
ינלבוקמ תוסייגב תשבושמ תאזה הנידמהש םיעדוי םתא ימשמ ןהל רומאו ךל יל 'מא
דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמש ןקזה 'אילמג
ןברמ
ןב הדוהיל רבח וניצמ 'מאו
יירבדל חמשו 'אילמג
ןבר ינפל
םירבדה תא יתיצרהו יתאבשכו
. אבב
21 The usual translation of Hebrew עגנ in the Targum is ברק.
231

R. Akiva said, “When I went down to Neharda(a to intercalate the year,
Neh9emiah )Ish Beit-Deli encountered me and said to me, "I have heard
that nobody in the Land of Israel permits a woman to remarry on the basis
of one witness (to her husband’s death) except R. Yehudah b. Baba."
I said to him, "That statement is correct."
He said to me, "Go and tell them in my name, “You know that the country
is dangerous because of brigands; I have received a tradition from R.
Gamliel the Elder that one may allow a woman to remarry on the basis of
one witness.” "
When I went and presented the matter before R. Gamliel (II) he rejoiced
over my report and said, "We have found a concurring opinion for R.
Yehudah b. Baba." ”
These two mishnayot mark the only appearance of this R. Neh9emiah in Rabbinic
literature. The content of mEd could easily have been extracted from the version in
mYev. Whether in fact mEd is a restating of " לאילמג
ןבר ינפל םירבדה תא יתיצרהו יתאבשכו"
in
mYev or an alternate, concise version of the events is impossible to know. We can be
certain, however, that mYev is not derived from mEd.
The second half of the mishnah relates to an incident before the Destruction when
they found bones in one of the rooms of the ezrat nashim, the women’s courtyard in the
Temple. The expression " רוהט לכהו םצע םצע טקלמ"
occurs elsewhere (mAh 16:5 and tAh
16:5) but the mishnah’s only parallel is tEd 3:3:
אמטל םימכח ושקבו םיצעה
רידב םילשוריב תומצע ואצמנש השעמ יאזע ןב ןועמש
'ר
'מא
22
יתימ
היא וניתובר
תא אמטנש המילכו ונל איה תשוב
עשוהי 'ר
ןהל
'מא
םילשורי תא
יאדו ורמא לבא
וישכע דעו המחלמה ןמ וגרהנש םיגורה היא רצנדכובנ יגורה היא לובמ
23
. רוהט קפס אמט
22
So reads the text of MS Erfurt. MS Vienna reads " וניתוב"
which is probably the
correct reading, except that the first vav is really an elongated yud, and it should be
understood as " וניתב"
, a reference to the Temple, in which the bones were discovered.
23
Maimonides in his commentary to this mishnah makes full use of the parallels in his
interpretation. He writes that there are three points to R. Yehoshua's testimony: 1) That
anyone who was in doubt about having touched the bones is ritually pure since the room
was a public place ( םיברה
תושרב האמוט קפס)
. 2) There was no need to dig to check for
buried bones; removing whatever was visible is sufficient. 3) There was no need to
232

R. Shimon b. Azzai said, “It happened that bones were found in Jerusalem
in the “Wood Room” and the Sages wanted to declare all of Jerusalem
impure. R. Yehoshua said to them, “It would be a shame and
embarrassment for us to declare impure our Temple! Where are the dead
of the Deluge! Where are the dead of Nevuchadnezzar! Where are the
dead who were killed in the war until now!” But they said, “Cases of
certainty are impure, but doubtful ones remain pure.”
While the story has no parallels in the mishnah, the issues that R. Yehoshua raises 24 may.
If his point is that the “Wood Room” is a public place and therefore doubtful impurity in
the public domain remains pure, the issue is discussed at length in mToh (Chaps. 5-6) and
previously in mEd (2:8c, 3:9 and 8:4 according Rava in bAZ 37b). If his point is that
cleaning the surface is sufficient then mAh (16:5) discusses a similar case and may
possibly even allude to the circumstances behind the event: 25
. רוהט לכהו םצע םצע טקלמ , םיגורה הב וגרהנש הדש
A field in which people were killed, he gathers up all of the [visible]
bones and the entire field is free of ritual impurity.
Regardless of the above issues, the second testimony of the mishnah is original to mEd.
ו:
ח תוידע
תורזעל םיעלקו לכיהל םיעלק ןישוע לכיהב םינוב והיש יתעמש רזעילא 'ר
'מא
םינפבמ םינוב תורזעבו ץוחבמ םינוב לכיהבש אלא
declare Jerusalem impure. The last point is explicit in the Tosefta; the first point he infers
from R. Yehoshua’s distinguishing between יאדוו and קפס; the second point he derives
from the use of the same expression (" רוהט לכהו םצע םצע טקלמ")
in mAh.
24 See footnote 23.
25 I suggest this only as conjecture. The events in the Tosefta involved R. Yehoshua and
hence they took place shortly before the Destruction. Given Josephus' description of the
bloodshed around and in the Temple during the Great Revolt, such a scenario seems
plausible.
233

יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
תיב ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןיבירקמש
םיעלק ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןישדק ישדק ןילכואו
המוח ןיאש
יפ לע ףא ינש רשעמו םילק םישדק
. אובל דיתעל השדיקו התעשל השדיק הנושאר השודקש
R. Eliezer said, “I have heard that when they were building the Sanctuary, they would
build curtains for the Sanctuary and curtains for the courtyards; but [the difference
was] that with respect to the Sanctuary they would build from outside whereas with
respect to the courtyards they would build from inside.
R. Yehoshua said, “I have heard
that one may bring sacrifices even though there is no Temple,
and eat sacrifices of Qodshei Qodoshim even though there are no
curtains,
[and eat] sacrifices of Qodoshim Qalim and the “Second Tithe”
even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]
because the second sanctification [of Jerusalem and the Temple] was sanctified for its
time and forever.
This mishnah introduces its content with the term " יתעמש"
instead of he(id. The term is
used in the Mishnah almost exclusively in the context of a received tradition, often where
the receiver did not fully understand the implications of the statement. 26 Whether there is
a dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is not clear as they do not discuss the same
issue; R. Eliezer's rule relates to the construction of the Temple, whereas R. Yehoshua
discusses an issue relating to sacrifices. The juxtaposition of their positions, however,
could lead one to speculate that there might be a debate over the status of the Temple
location in the aftermath of the Destruction. Indeed, the Bavli (Meg 10a and parallels)
entertains, although ultimately rejects, such an interpretation.
There are no parallels to R. Eliezer's statement elsewhere in tannaitic literature. R.
Yehoshua's statement appears only in tEd 3:3 with the substitution of " ןיחתפ"
for " תיב"
26 For a discussion about this term, see Chapter Nine, p. 228-233.
234

27
and " ןיטחוש"
for " ןיבירקמ"
. Hence, both testimonies are original to mEd.
ז:
ח תוידע
אב והיילא ןיאש יניסמ השמל הכלה וברמ וברו וברמ עמשש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןברמ ינא לבוקמ עשוהי 'ר
'מא
עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו עורזב ןיברוקמה תא קחרל אלא ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל
עורזב ןויצ
ןיב הברקו םש התיה תרחא דועו עורזב ןויצ ןיב הקחירו ןדריה רבעב התיה הפירצ תיב תחפשמ
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל אב והיילא ולא ןוגכ
קחרל אל לבא ברקל 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
תוקלחמה תא תוושהל 'מוא
ןועמש 'ר
'וגו
איבנה היילא תא םכל חלוש יכנא הנה 'נש
םלועב םולש תושעל אלא ברקל אלו קחרל אל 'מוא
'מכחו
. םתובא לע םינב בלו םינב לע תובא בל בישהו
R. Yehoshua said, “I have received from R. Yoh9anan b. Zakkai who received from his
teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, a law given to Moses at Sinai that Elijah
[the prophet] will come not to declare genealogically unfit or fit, nor to ostracize [the
unknown who have assimilated] or embrace, but only to ostracize those who were
embraced by means of force and to embrace those who were ostracized by force.
The family of Beit S9ereifah lived in Transjordan and Bein-S9ion ostracized them by means
of force. And there was another [family] which Bein-S9ion forcibly embraced them by
means of force.
Only for these will Elijah come to declare genealogically unfit or fit and to ostracize or
embrace.
R. Yehudah says [he will come] to embrace but not ostracize.
R. Shimon says [he will come] to resolve disputes.
The Sages say [he will come] not to embrace nor to ostracize but to make peace in the
world as it is said, “Behold I am sending to you Elijah the Prophet ... and he will
restore the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers
(Malakhi 3:23-4).
The mishnah here is homiletic in nature, a feature commonly found at the end of a tractate
and especially at the end of a mishnaic order (cf. mQid 4:14, mQin 3:6, mUq 3:12). 28
Many of these additions are later; there is no evidence with which to date the addition
here in mEd. The only partial parallel to our mishnah in tannaitic literature is tEd 3:4, and
27 Cf. bEruv 2a.
28 One genizah fragment (MS JTS 1487.95) contains what appears to be the concluding
mishnah of each of the six orders and this mishnah is among them.
235

hence the mishnah is original to mEd.
Summary: The entire chapter with the exception of the first part of the fifth mishnah does
not have any parallels elsewhere in the Mishnah. The first, second, third, fifth and sixth
mishnayot each contain two laws, of which one is expanded upon or cited in tEd. The
fourth mishnah, unusual in many ways, is not elaborated upon at all in the Tosefta, and
the seventh cites and expands extensively on the mishnah. Many of the issues raised (1,
3, 4a, 5b, 6 and 7) are not even discussed elsewhere in the Mishnah. The last chapter then
furnishes the strongest argument that our mEd is not merely an "anthological
amalgamation" but an independent work.
236

Section II
237

Chapter 9
Introductory Terminology in the Mishnah
In his Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Jacob Neusner asserts that the
Mishnah as we possess it reflects the work of one generation of formulators or
redactors. 1 In his words:
The literary and redactional traits of the Mishnah did not permit
differentiation among the layers of the document, because the
governing literary traits of the Mishnah were imposed within the
processes of redaction, penultimate and ultimate (see Neusner, Purities
XXI). A single redactional theory governed the formation of both of the
tractates and of their subunits. 2
One of the results of this conclusion which Neusner stresses is that attributions in the
Mishnah cannot automatically be relied upon for historical purposes, because, until
proven otherwise (“verified” 3 , in his words), the citation of a particular tanna can only
be assumed to represent what the authors of the Mishnah placed in his mouth, and not
necessarily what he said. 4 Neusner’s approach is not rooted in a post-modern critique
that any text reflects the cultural milieu of its author. Rather, it is anchored in the
1 Judaism: Evidence of the Mishnah, pp. 14-22. He presents this conclusion already in
“Redaction Formulation and Form: The Case of Mishnah,” JQR 40 (1979), pp. 131-
152.
2 ibid. p. 16.
3 ibid. pp. 15, 17.
4 Neusner lists criteria for verifying sayings attributed to earlier authorities (ibid. pp.
17-21), but in the absence of verification, the assumption is that attributions cannot be
assumed reliable.
238

premise that the formulary traits of the Mishnah are uniform and, hence, from a
literary perspective, the Mishnah itself must be the product of a single group working
at one time. 5 It follows that source criticism is of little value for studying the
Mishnah. 6
Such a hypothesis might well lead us to expect to find a complete uniformity in
all aspects of the Mishnah’s language and idiom. 7 If in fact the Mishnah’s authors are
to be credited with all of its formulation (even if we assume that they drew upon
knowledge of earlier generations’ opinions), we would expect that a comparison, let us
say, of R. Yehudah (Usha), R. Akiva (Yavneh) and the Houses (Jerusalem/Yavneh)
would show no significant differences in the language and idiom in spite of the fact
that they represent three different generations and geographic locales. If an analysis
were to find no differences between the language and idiom of the three, it would lend
support to Neusner’s basic thesis. If, however, it were to show that there are
consistent differences between generations, then the most reasonable conclusion one
5 As noted by Elman (“The Judaism of the Mishnah: What Evidence?,” Judaica Book
News 12 (1982), p. 22), the three or four generations to which the overwhelmingly
majority of the Mishnah is attributed, is a short enough period of time to allow for a
uniform editorial policy.
6 For responses to Neusner’s work, see Yaakov Elman, ibid., pp. 17-25; Shaye J. D.
Cohen, “Jacob Neusner, Mishnah and Counter-Rabbinics,” Conservative Judaism 37
(1983), pp. 48-63; and E.P. Sanders, “Jacob Neusner and the Philosophy of the
Mishnah” in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah:Five Studies, pp. 309-331.
7 Neusner does not actually assert this but it should follow in principle from his
argument. (See Elman, ibid. p. 22.) At the same time, he does not explain
satisfactorily the differences of style that are apparent in various parts of the Mishnah.
239

could draw from it is that the Mishnah, even as we have it, contains markers of more
than one layer of composition, unless we posit that the authors of the Mishnah
systematically set out to deceive the reader of the Mishnah by creating distinct layers
at the same time and merging them into one work. 8
In this study, I have chosen to address issues of the introductory terminology
which the redactors used the Mishnah. A systematic analysis of the vocabulary used is
more difficult to address in many cases because many words in the Mishnah occur so
infrequently as to render any statistics meaningless. I have selected for study the
terms which are found in mEd which belong to the redactor(s) of the mishnayot, as
opposed to the contents attributed to the individual tradents, because mEd contains so
many of these expressions which are worthy of study. None of these terms is unique
to mEd, but some are more common in mEd. In addition, two terms (with similar
meanings) which are used by the tradents themselves (attributed to them by the
8 This study borrows from the idea used by Richard Kalmin in his important
study on the same question within the Bavli, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in
Rabbinic Babylonia, pp. 127-140. In his study, he demonstrated that (a) there are
unique formulations and patterns (used by the Bavli to introduce Amoraic material)
which are used with consistency among specific generations or with specific
Amoraim, (b) alternative formulations existed to introduce the very same material and
(c) that nothing in the content of the statements explained why they were introduced
with that distinct formulation. . He concluded, quite logically, that in the absence of a
super-genius redactor/forger (my term), the differences must stem from layers of the
Bavli which were composed at different times (or in different places), and hence the
Bavli can not be viewed as the product of a single generation of
formulators/redactors.
240

edactors) have been studied as they too stand out: " יתעמש"
, “I have heard” and
" ינא לבוקמ"
, “I have received a tradition.”
There is one factor which potentially may create problems with the results of
this study. Even if the editors of the Mishnah did not level their sources, it is possible
that, over the course of the eight hundred or so years between the Mishnah’s
publication and the first preserved manuscripts, scribes may have unintentionally
leveled differences that were left intact by the editors of the Mishnah. This is
especially a concern when it comes to introductory terminology which can be
modified fairly easily even without intent. In other words, the Mishnah when it left
the hands of its editors may have preserved differences which no longer exist in our
Mishnah text. This means that even if this study were to show uniformity in the usage
of introductory terminology, it would not necessarily prove that Neusner is, in
principle, correct. The editors of the Mishnah may have made no attempt to hide its
sources, and yet they may be invisible in the text that has reached us. However, if the
results do not show uniformity (suggesting that Neusner’s hypothesis is not correct)
then this concern is immaterial, i.e. that despite the tendency of scribes to level, the
layers are still preserved in the introductory terminology of the Mishnah.
The reality, however, is that we can only work with the text that we have. It
may be reasonable to assume that the tendency of scribes to level may contribute to
the lack of perfect consistency in the usage of introductory terminology within the
Mishnah. That is, that if there are definite patterns of usage of terminology within
241

different tannaitic generations, but the usage is not perfectly consistent, we could
reasonably suggest that some of the inconsistency is the product of the leveling of later
scribes. It is, however, unlikely that all of the differences between sources would have
disappeared as a result of the scribes. Thus, despite the above concern, if it would
emerge that there is no differentiation within tannaitic generations, we would still have
to assume that Neusner is correct in his basic hypothesis.
1. תודע and דיעה
The various forms of the verb דיעה ( דיעמ , ודיעה , דיעה)
occur twenty-eight times
within mEd. Every one of these is attached to a tradent from the generation of Yavneh
or from those that preceded it. Eleven of them contain multiple tradents, and one is a
duplicate reference to a single testimony. On the other hand, the material attributed to
the Houses never employs the term he(id, but rather employs terms from the root )mr
or the verbs which are directly relevant to the issue at hand, e.g. ןירהטמ, ןימאטמ, ןיריתמ,
ןירסוא. The latter form is the way in which virtually all attributed Mishnaic material is
introduced elsewhere in the Mishnah. The material which is found in the second and
third chapters, comprised of material from R. Akiva, R. Yishmael, R. Dosa, R. Zadok,
R. Elazar b. Azaryah and R. Gamliel (II of Yavneh), is also introduced with the latter
formulations. One of the most striking aspects of the “testimonies” found in mEd (as
opposed to the material in the second through the middle of the fifth chapter, i.e. the
Houses and Rabban Gamliel, R. Akiva and R. Yishmael) is that almost every tanna
242

who is cited is found rarely, or nowhere else, in the Mishnah. The following table
depicts the number of occurrences of each of these tannaim:
Mentioned
Elsewhere in the
Mishnah
-
6
1
-
6
3
1
1
1
-
3
-
1
2
-
1
336
121
Testimonies
In mEd
1
4
4
1
6
4
1
6
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
243
Tradent
םיידרג ינש
םינהכה ןגס הנינח 'ר
לאללהמ ןב היבקע
ןתנלא ןב אינוחנ
אבא ןב הדוהי יבר
קודצ יבר
דדח שיא םיקי יבר
סייפפ בר
יאנגס ןב םחנמ 'ר
הדגדוג ןב ןנחוי בר
הריתב ןב עשוהי יבר
הריתב ןב ןועמש יבר
ןהכה הדוהי יבר
בצקה ןב
הירכז יבר
ןהכה ףסוי בר
רזעוי ןב יסוי
אביקע יבר
עשוהי יבר
One might suggest that the use of the introduction he(id is a result of the novelty of the
tradent and is unrelated to the origin of the material. If so, however, how would one
account for the fact that most of the rarely cited tannaim elsewhere in the Mishnah are
not introduced with this (or any other) unusual term?
Material introduced elsewhere in the Mishnah as “testimony” (with the
exception of the parallels to mEd) is extremely rare. There are only five such cases

found in the Mishnah. 9 The profiles of the tradents are the same as in mEd: the names
are uncommon elsewhere in the Mishnah ( ירכוב ןב , סומלוטבא occur nowhere else, יבר
הקורב ןב ןנחוי between ten and fifteen times) and they all belong to the period of
Yavneh. In one case (mSheq 1:4), the testimony is explicitly linked to Yavneh.
While not directly relevant, it should be noted that an analysis of the Tosefta
produces almost the same results. There are fifteen cases of edut found in the
Tosefta 10 which are not already mentioned in the Mishnah. Only three clearly
postdate Yavneh (two by R. Yose b. [Ha]Meshullam and one by R. Yose [b. H9alafta])
and all those that do are citations of individuals who belong to the Yavneh period. In
addition, most of the tradents are rarely or never cited elsewhere in tannaitic
literature. 11 The one noteworthy difference between the occurrences in the Tosefta
9
They are:
( mEruv 3:4)
רשכש בורע קפס לע םינקז השמח םושמ דיעה סומלוטבא יסוי יבר רמא
( mSheq 1:4)
אטוח וניא לקושש ןהכ לכ הנביב ירכוב ןב דיעה הדוהי יבר רמא
( mYev 8:4)
ותשא
תא ומביו םדא סירס םלשוריב היהש תסוגמ ןב לע אריתב ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
( mMiq 7:1)...
םהל רמאש ומשמ אבדימ ישנא ודיעהו ... רמול ידגנכ
ןד לאעמשי 'ר
היה אביקע 'ר
רמא
( mShevu 7:7)
לטונו עבשנ הז ירה באה תתימ רחאל ןבה דלונ וליפא הקורב ןב ןנחוי יבר דיעה
The last occurrence is found in the printed editions of the Mishnah as רמא ... ןנחוי יבר
but in all of the manuscripts it is prefaced with he(id and the word רמא is omitted.
10 tDem 3:1, ibid. 6:7, tShev 4:21, ibid. 5:12, tShab 14:3, tEruv 2:16, tYev 1:10, tSan
2:13, tAZ 2:9, tH9ul 3:2, ibid. 3:7, tAh 18:7, ibid. 18:13, ibid. 18:16.
11 R. Yose b. [Ha]Meshullam, Avtulmos, R. Yehudah b. Yeshaya HaBassam,
H9annania ’Ish ’Ono, R. Shimon b. HaGodea, ben Shila, Abba Yudan ’Ish S9idon,
Yehudah HaNah9tom, R. Yehudah b. Ya`akov of Beit Guvrin, Ya`akov b. Yitzchak of
Beit Gufnin, ben Shelaqot. The last name in the list prompted a comment by R. Akiva
(tNid 6:6) , that he had heard neither of the law cited by ben Shelaqot, nor did he
recognize the individual in question. The only familiar and common name among the
244

and those in the Mishnah is that almost half of those in the Tosefta are testimonies in
which an earlier sage is cited, and another third are identified by where they took
place, either geographically (Yavneh) or in the presence of some great sage (ינולפ ינפל),
whereas in the Mishnah two are cited in the name of others (mEd 1:4, mEruv 3:4) and
one is described as taking place in Yavneh (mSheq 1:4). 12
The subtle consistency in the usage of he‘id suggests that it marks a separate,
perhaps earlier, layer within our Mishnah; whether or not the term he‘id was preserved
from the earlier stratum or inserted by the editors of the Mishnah is besides the point.
Even if the term were to have been inserted by the editors, there is nothing in the
content of the mishnayot to explain why the editors would have chosen it to
introduced the tradents in these places. Unless one assumes that the redactors
randomly inserted this introductory formulation and keeping in mind the explicit
chronological consistency of the material, one is left to conclude that the term he‘id
marks a separate stratum of material.
Tosefta’s testimonies is that of R. Yose, who testified himself to something R. Eliezer
b. Ya`akov had stated and that Avtulmus had testified to a particular law.
12 The Bavli (twenty cases) and Yerushalmi (three cases) are consistent with the notion
that “testimony” is usually attributed to figures who are rarely mentioned in Rabbinic
literature. At least half of the sixteen named witnesses in the Bavli are virtually
unknown elsewhere and a number of the others are infrequently mentioned. A handful
of cases actually refer to amoraim as testifying, and a third of the “testimonies” take
place in Usha. Of particular interest is that the cases continue the trend of the Tosefta
in that almost two thirds of the cases involve either identification of another authority
as the source for the law (ינולפ םשמ) or identify before whom the testimony took place.
Of the latter, six of the eight cases where the forum for the testimony was identified
were in the presence of the Patriarch.
245

Our analysis of the usage of testimony in the Mishnah and in mEd may also
highlight several points which could explain the genesis of the “history” of mEd’s
origin given in bBer 28a. 13 That is to say, that in trying to understand the aggadah
there, we should be looking to find the stimulus for its details in the text of mEd itself,
since one of this aggadah’s goals is to explain our oddly formed tractate. The first
issue about mEd which is addressed is why R. Yehoshua is featured so prominently as
a “testifier” in mEd despite the fact that all of the other “testifiers” play no significant
14
role elsewhere in the Mishnah. The answer according to the Bavli is that R.
Yehoshua has just seen his abuse at the hands of the Patriarch avenged by the
members of the academy, and with his chief tormentor having just been deposed it is
not surprising that R. Yehoshua is featured prominently in the proceedings which
follow. In a sense, despite the fact that he had been allowed entrance into the academy
(and was even quite prominent) before the impeachment, he was, at least in the
immediately preceding period, an outsider.
Second, the notion that when R. Gamliel was deposed the doors of the
academy were opened wide for all to come and participate is suggested by the fact that
almost all of the “witnesses” do not figure prominently in the Mishnah. A number of
13 For the literature on this account see above, “Introduction”, footnote 8.
14 The only other prominent “witness” is R. Akiva in mEd 8:5; however, the expansive
account in mYev 16:7 suggests that this was not R. Akiva testifying of his own
volition, but simply testifying on behalf of R. Nehemiah who was physically unable to
appear in front of Rabban Gamliel.
246

the prominent figures from Yavneh (R. Yehoshua, R. Akiva, R. Eliezer, R. Elazar b.
Azaryah) were seemingly already “inside” the academy; their prominence can
(looking backwards) be seen from their widespread appearance in the Mishnah. The
fact that the unknown figures dominate the section of the “testimonies” is explained in
the Bavli’s account by asserting that the non-elites were all of a sudden allowed to
enter the academy and share whatever unique knowledge they possessed. The initial
stimulus for the Bavli’s account was probably the testimony of two weavers (mEd
1:4); as tEd (1:3) and the Bavli emphasize, their profession and address ranked them
among the lower elements of society, and their “sudden appearance” can best be
explained by a sea change in the admission policy of the academy. This initial
stimulus, though, does not stand alone; it is reinforced by the presence of so many
unusual figures in the tractate.
Third, the absence of any notion of place in any of the “testimonies”, a feature
which figures prominently in the other tannaitic materials which we possess, might
have suggested that the context of these testimonies was omitted because their location
was obvious. The most obvious location in which to set the tractate, given the
chronology of most of the tradents, was Yavneh.
Summary: The use of he(id in the Mishnah is restricted to the generations prior to
Usha but never in conjunction with the Houses. It usually appears only in conjunction
with tannaim who are rarely cited in the Mishnah. The converse, however, is not true:
247

tannaim who appear infrequently in the Mishnah are not usually introduced with the
term he(id.
248
2. ירבדכ
When a debate between two tannaitic sages is presented in the Mishnah, it is typically
done in one of two fashions. One way is to present both opinions in same manner, 'ר"
" רמוא ינולפ and " רמוא ינולפ 'רו"
. 15 In a minority of these cases, a form of a verb from the
following list will be substituted for רמא: ריתמ , רסוא , אמטמ , רהטמ , רטופ , בייחמ.
In cases
where the first opinion is anonymous, the mishnah presents the opinion without a
tradent and begins the second opinion with this formulation. The second approach,
used only when the first opinion in the mishnah is attributed, is to present the first
opinion followed by the formula " ינולפ 'ר
ירבד"
. In both scenarios, any opinions
subsequent to the second are introduced with the formulation of " רמוא ינולפ 'ר(
ו)
" .
The following are examples of each:
Two opinions, first anonymous:
( ג:
ב תוכרב)
אצי אל רמוא יסוי יבר אצי ונזאל עימשה אלו עמש תא ארוקה
15
The perfect form of the root amr is never used in the Mishnah in the basic
presentation of multiple opinions. The formulation of one opinion followed by 'ר"
" רמא ינולפ does not exist in the Mishnah. Frequently the Mishnah will cite an opinion
followed by a response by another tanna introduced with רמא but what is quoted from
the second tanna will not be a simple presentation of his opinion, but rather a
qualification of the first opinion or a reason why the second tanna believes the first to
be mistaken. For an overview of the various scenarios which give rise to this
introductory formula see Albeck, Mavo LaMishnah, Appendix 2, pp. 260-264.

One who recites the Shema( but not loudly enough for himself to hear
has fulfilled his obligation. R. Yose says, “He has not fulfilled his
obligation.”
Two attributed opinions, with the same introduction:
( ג:
ב תוכרב)
אצי אל רמוא הדוהי 'ר
אצי רמוא יסוי יבר היתויתואב קדקד אלו ארק
One who read the Shema( but did not enunciate the letters carefully: R.
Yose says, “He has fulfilled his obligation.” R. Yehudah says, “He has
not fulfilled his obligation.”
Two opinions, the first marked with ירבד:
'ר
ריאמ 'ר
ירבד בישמו האריה ינפמ לאוש עצמאבו בישמו דובכה ינפמ לאוש םיקרפב
( א:
ב תוכרב)
... דובכה ינפמ בישמו
האריה ינפמ לאוש עצמאב רמוא הדוהי
Between chapters [of the Shema( and its blessings], he may greet
someone out of respect and reply - but in the middle of a chapter he
may greet someone [only] out of fear and reply, according to the
opinion of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says, “In the middle he may greet
someone out of fear and reply out of respect.”
Three opinions, first anonymous:
הרמוא רמוא אביקע 'ר
תעדה ןנוחב הלדבהו ... םיתמה תייחתב םימשג תורובג ןיריכזמ
( ב:
ה תוכרב)
האדוהב רמוא רזעילא יבר המצע ינפב תיעיבר הכרב
One mentions “Powers of the Rains” in [the benediction concerning]
the Resurrection ... and havdalah in the benediction concerning
wisdom. R. Akiva says, “As a fourth benediction by itself.” R. Eliezer
says, “In the [benediction of] thanksgiving.”
Three attributed opinions, all with the same introduction:
הנומש ןיעמ רמוא עשוהי יבר הרשע הנומש םדא ללפתמ םוי לכב רמוא לאילמג ןבר
ח"
י ןיעמ ואל םאו הרשע הנומש ללפתי ויפב ותלפת הרוגש םא רמוא אביקע 'ר
הרשע
( ג:
ד תוכרב)
R. Gamliel says, “Every day one must pray eighteen benedictions.”
R. Yehoshua says, “A digest of the eighteen benedictions.”
R. Akiva says, “If he is comfortable with [the text of] his prayer he
should pray eighteen benedictions; otherwise, he should say a digest of
the eighteen benedictions.”
249

Two opinions, the first marked with ירבד:
ףוס דע ןתמורתב לוכאל םיסנכנ םינהכהש העשמ תיברעב עמש
תא ןירוק יתמיאמ
דע רמוא לאילמג ןבר תוצח דע םירמוא םימכחו רזעילא 'ר
ירבד הנושארה הרומשאה
( א:
א תוכרב)
רחשה דומע הלעיש
Whence does one read the Shema( in the evening? From the time when
the priests enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first watch,
according to opinion the R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, “Until
midnight.” R. Gamliel says, “Until dawn.”
The first format is used between seventeen and eighteen hundred times 16 in the
Mishnah. The second, less common, format of presentation occurs approximately four
16 Calculating the number without systematically surveying the entire mishnah is
difficult. A survey of seven tractates from different orders of the Mishnah yielded the
following data: (The percentage next to the “Debates” column represents the number
of disputes per mishnah in each tractate, i.e. the density of disputes. The percentage
next to the last column represents the percentage of disputes presented with the ירבד
format.)
Chapters Mishnayot Debates Standard ירבד
mBer 9 57 35 (61%) 31 4 (11%)
mPe 8 69 37 (54%) 30 5 (14%)
mEruv 10 96 61 (60%) 36 22 (38%)
mGit 9 75 39 (52%) 34 4 (10%)
mBQ 10 77 21 (27%) 17 4 (24%)
mHul 12 74 45 (61%) 36 8 (18%)
mNid 10 79 47 (55%) 39 7 (15%)
Total 68 527 285 223 54
The number of chapters and mishnayot in the entire Mishnah is known.
Extrapolating from this for the rest of the data using the number of mishnayot yields
the following:
Mishnah 523 4170 2255 1764 428
The actual total of times where ירבד is used is approximately four hundred ten, a
margin of error in the extrapolation of less than five percent. We presume that the
other extrapolations will be more accurate since they occur far more frequently and
hence will be subject to less distortion in the sample.
250

hundred and ten times in the entire Mishnah. The usage of both formats occurs across
all of the generations. 17 Very rarely, the mishnah will cite the first opinion using ירבד
and follow it by a response from another party using the perfect form of the verb רמא.
For example, mMid 2:2:
ועריאש יממ ץוח לאמש ךרד ןיאצויו ןיפיקמו ןימי ךרד ןיסנכנ תיבה רהל...
ןיסנכנה לכ
ינאש ךמחני הזה תיבב ןכושה
לבא ינאש לאמשל ףיקמ ךל המ לאמשל ףיקמ אוהש רבד
ןתישע יסוי יבר ול רמא ריאמ יבר ירבד ךוברקיו םבלב ןתי הזה תיבב ןכושה הדונמ
ךירבח ירבדל עמשתו ךבלב ןתי הזה תיבב ןכושה אלא ןידה תא וילע ורבע וליאכ
. ךוברקיו
All who enter the Temple Mount enter going right and circle around
and leave going left except for one who has suffered a “matter” (i.e.
death of a relative or excommunication) who enters going left. “Why
are you entering going left?” “Because I am a mourner.” “The one who
dwells in this abode should comfort you.” “Because I have been
excommunicated.” “The one who dwells in this abode should change
their minds and they (i.e. those who excommunicated him) should
reaccept you” according to the opinion of R. Meir. R. Yose says, “You
17
An approximation of the frequency of the mention of tannaim from the Yavneh
period versus tannaim of the Usha period finds slightly less than a two-to-one margin
in favor of Usha. This is calculated using the most frequently found tannaim of each
group (Yavneh: R. Akiva, Yehoshua, Eliezer, Tarfon, Yishmael, Elazar b. Azaryah,
Gamliel, S9adok, Eliezer b. Yaakov, Yose HaGalili and R. Yehudah b. Beteira; Usha:
R. Meir, Yehudah, Yose, Shimon, Elazar, Neh9emiah, S. b. Gamliel). The usage of
ירבד yields a similar ratio (234 to 108).
The only anomaly, at first glance, in the usage of the " ינולפ 'ר
ירבד"
formulation
is that approximately two fifths of the cases cite R. Meir in this fashion. In fact, R.
Meir is cited slightly more frequently in this manner than he is with the more common
citation formula. Much of this can probably be attributed to the fact that in debates
with his contemporaries, R. Meir is usually cited first. While the first tradent in a
debate need not be cited with ירבד, the second and subsequent ones cannot. Hence R.
Meir’s sequential precedence may contribute to the disproportionate use of the less
common formula in comparison to his contemporaries.
The larger question of when the Mishnah uses ירבד and when it does not should
be the focus of a larger study, but is beyond the scope of our efforts here.
251

formulate it as if they have done something wrong [by
excommunicating him], but rather, "The one who dwells in this abode
should change your mind and you should listen to them and they should
reaccept you." ”
This format occurs five or six times in the Mishnah. 18
There is a less common form of the יר בד/רמוא
format in which the word appears
as ירבדכ. 19 The usage appears to be the same, but the prefix is added. An analysis of
the Mishnah shows that it is used almost exclusively with the Houses. There are a
total of eighteen cases in the printed text of the Mishnah, seventeen of which deal with
the Houses. The manuscripts show at least another six examples of the phenomenon,
three of which cite the Houses. 20 The four exceptions to the rule include two cases of
material attributed to the Yavneh generation (both Ben-Nannas) and two attributed to
18 As noted earlier (footnote 15), these cases involve more than a simple presentation
of the second opinion. In the example quoted here, R. Yose first asserts why he finds
R. Meir’s position untenable.
19
See Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, p.403 where he delineates three situations
in which the formulation is used. The second of them is, הנשממ החוקל הכלההש םוקמב"
" תימתס תמדוק.
In essence this type is consistent with the results that we are presenting
here, but Epstein’s argument is circular, because he has not yet demonstrated that such
a " תמדוקה הנשמ"
actually exists. He also failed to note explicitly that the House
material is exclusively cited with the form ירבדכ which would have strengthened his
argument about a separate stratum of material.
20 The additional cases are mSuk 3:9 (MSS Kaufmann, Cambridge Add. 470.1,
Sassoon, ed. Naples and Pisaro), mH9ag 1:1 (MSS Kaufmann, Cambridge, Sassoon),
mGit 8:10 (MSS Kaufmann, Cambridge, Sassoon, ed. Naples), mBM 4:12 (MSS
Kaufmann, Cambridge, Sassoon, Florence), mBB 7:3 (MSS Kaufmann, Munich 95,
Cambridge, ed. Naples) and mNid 5:9 (MSS Kaufmann, Cambridge). For other cases
in late printings which must be regarded as secondary, see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9
HaMishnah, p. 1266.
252

the Usha generation (Abba Shaul and R. Nehora)i). Two of the exceptions are
atypical in that one does not record any opinion other than Ben-Nannas and the other
continues with רמא and a brief dialogue. There was a natural tendency of scribes (and
perhaps redactors as well) to level this usage to the standard form of ירבד. There are a
number of examples of this leveling which can be seen in the Bavli and Tosefta with
ירבדכ/ירבד. 21 In one case, the parallels in some of the Mishnah manuscripts and the
Yerushalmi have also been leveled to the usual form. 22 Nevertheless, a number of
cases of ירבדכ survive and their almost exclusive usage in the context of the Houses’
debates points towards the preservation of an early layer of redacted material which
21 The leveling in the Bavli can be found in the following places:
bGit 41a (=mEd 1:15) (and its four parallel citations) in all Bavli mss.
bHag 22a (=mEd 1:16) in all Bavli mss.
bHul 104b and bShab 13a (=mEd 5:2) in all Bavli mss.
In the tEd 2:7, mEd 5:3 has been leveled.
22
The following are the cases of leveling found in the Mishnaic parallels:
mGit 4:5 (=mEd 1:15) in MS Parma 138 and MS Leiden (of the Yerushalmi). Other
than this case, both the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi are extremely consistent in
preserving the kaf prefix in every citation.
In one very interesting case, the format of the mishnah has been completely
changed to conform to the more common form of citation. mEd 5:2 reads:
. ןיליבטמ ןיא 'וא
ללה תיבו יימש תיב ירבדכ תילדרחב ןיליבטמ
The parallel in mMiq 5:6 reads:
. ןיליבטמ ןיא 'מוא
לליה תיבו תילדרחב ןיליבטמ 'מוא
ש"
ב
The same phenomenon occurs in the text of mEd 3:5 in the Bavli where it is found in
mHul 11:2. mEd reads:
... 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבדכ זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג תוליחר שמח
mHul reads:
זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג תולחר שמח רמוא סניכרה ןב אסוד 'ר
... םירמוא םימכחו
This reading is found both in both available manuscripts, Munich 95 and Vatican 121.
253

was not smoothed over by the editors of the Mishnah or by subsequent transmission.
The possibility that the dichotomy of usage represents an attempt by the editors of the
Mishnah to artificially distinguish the early material (the Houses) from later material
cannot be ruled out because the material from the Houses which is cited in the ירבד
format uses the ירבדכ form exclusively. 23 Nonetheless, one point suggests that the
unusual form represents a vestigial form of an earlier usage and that no attempt was
made to invent a distinct standard format for the material of the Houses. In this we
refer to the four exceptions where the term is used with tannaim other than the Houses.
Why the term is used in these cases is unclear, but it is certain that if there were a
programmatic rule from the outset, these exceptions would not exist. It is also
unlikely that the exceptions are secondary since the tendency of scribes (and
presumably oral transmitters as well) is to level the unusual form to the common one.
And thus while we do not have an explanation for the unusual ירבדכ form, we see that
the editors of the Mishnah did not thoroughly homogenize their sources.
Summary: The common introductory form ירבד appears a number of times as ירבדכ,
although many cases have been leveled (to ירבד) by scribes. The unusual form ירבדכ is
found almost exclusively when introducing material of the Houses.
23 All six occurrences of ירבד in the printed texts are secondary levelings towards the
more common usage. See above footnote 20.
254

3. ףיסוה 24
In two places in mEd we find testimonies of tannaim from the early period in
Yavneh, one by R. H9annania Segan HaKohanim (2:1) and one by R. Shimon b.
Beteirah (8:1), where R. Akiva adds something to their testimony. The use of the term
ףיסוה as it is found in the Mishnah implies that an item is being added to a list that
immediately precedes it. The tanna is “adding” another item to which the law stated
in the preceding mishnah applies as well. For example, R. Shimon b. Beteirah asserts
that the ashes of the red heifer which are piled together are treated as one large object
with respect to contracting ritual impurity despite the fact that the ashes are discrete
physical pieces. 25 R. Akiva then added four other sacral items to the list which are
treated in the same manner: flour (of the flour offering), frankincense, qet[oret and
coals.
This redactor’s term is rarely used in the mishnah. Outside of the two
instances in mEd, it occurs in only three other places, each involving a tanna of the
Yavneh period. One case (mKil1:3), involving R. Akiva again, is identical in its
24 For a discussion of this term in the context of the development of the Mishnah, see
Epstein, Mevo)ot le-Sifrut HaTannaim, p 72.
25 Ordinarily, if one were to have, for example, a pile of apples or grapes and
something that conveys impurity touches one, the others remain pure, or at worst are
only contaminated to the extent that a ritually impure object which touches another
may defile it, albeit with a reduction in the degree of impurity (i.e. האמוטה בא, ןושאר,
ינש etc.).
27 The mishnah there reads:
255

27
usage. The other two cases are similar in concept, but presented somewhat
differently. In mBekh 6:8, )Ayla 28 lists a number of blemishes which render an animal
unfit for a sacrifice. The mishnah continues:
תא ונעמש אל ול ורמא ףיסוה השלש דועו םימכח ול ודוהו הנביב אליא הנמ
ולא ןימומ
... ולא
The following blemishes )Ayla enumerated in Yavneh and the Sages
agreed with him. He added on three more. They said, “We have not
heard about these.”
Here, )Ayla added to a received list of items (which he himself had recited). The
presentation here is very similar to the first three cases.
The fifth and final case is found in mZev 1:3 (=mYad 4:2). The chapter begins
(mZev 1:1) by recording a debate as to which sacrifices are completely invalidated
when the performance of the sacrifice was compromised by the errant intentions of the
priest. 29 The first two opinions cited in the first mishnah list two and three,
respectively, sacrifices which are invalidated by improper intentions. Two more
opinions are then recorded (ibid. 1:2), the second of which gives a principle (for
determining which sacrifices are invalidated) rather than a itemized list. The third
mishnah follows with a side discussion about one of the sacrifices mentioned earlier
28
The vocalization of the name " אליא"
follows MS Kaufmann; Albeck vocalizes with
a h9iriq.
29 According to the mishnah there, most types of sacrifices are valid to the extent that
the blood may be sprinkled on the altar and the flesh eaten by the priests/owners even
though the intentions accompanying the sacrificial worship were compromised. The
owners of the sacrifice, however, do not fulfill their obligation with that sacrifice and
must bring another animal.
256

and then cites a statement from Shimon ben Azzai who gives a different rule. The
mishnah concludes with an editorial addition to ben Azzai’s statement which asserts:
. םימכח ול ודוה אלו הלועה אלא יאזע ןב ףיסוה אלו
And ben-Azzai was not adding on anything except for the burntoffering
but the Sages did not agree with him.
Ben Azzai himself never formulated his principle as if it were an addition to an earlier
list, but the editor of this mishnah extrapolated and treated it as such.
The association of this term with Yavneh and R. Akiva in particular needs to
be viewed against to the larger backdrop of the Mishnah. The equivalent term which
is found elsewhere with much greater frequency is "... ףא רמוא ינולפ יבר"
. This term is
used approximately two hundred and twenty times. At least fifty of those fit the
criteria where the term " ףיסוה"
or " ףיסומ"
could have been used instead. The
occurrences are divided between Usha and Yavneh with nothing particularly striking
about the distribution. R. Akiva appears in the list twice. For example in mSan 10:1
we read:
ןמ הרות ןיאו הרותה ןמ םיתמה תייחת ןיא רמואה אבה םלועל קלח םהל ןיאש ולאו
הכמה לע שחולהו םינוציחה םירפסב ארוקה ףא רמוא
אביקע יבר סרוקיפאו םימשה
'וגו
םירצמב יתמש רשא הלחמה לכ רמואו
The following have no share in the world to come: One who says,
“There is no Resurrection according to the Torah”, [or says] “The
Torah is not from heaven” and an Epicurean. R. Akiva says, “Also one
who reads the "Outside Books" and one who utters incantations on a
wound and says, "Every disease that I have placed among the
Egyptians etc." ”
257

The mishnah could just as well have read: 30
ןמ הרות ןיאו הרותה ןמ םיתמה תייחת
ןיא רמואה אבה םלועל קלח םהל ןיאש ולאו
רמואו הכמה לע שחולהו םינוציחה םירפסב ארוקה אביקע יבר ףיסוה סרוקיפאו םימשה
. אבה םלועל קלח םהל ןיא 'וגו
םירצמב יתמש רשא הלחמה לכ
The following have no share in the world to come: One who says,
“There is no Resurrection according to the Torah”, [or says] “The
Torah is not from heaven” and an Epicurean. R. Akiva added on one
who reads the “Outside Books” and one who utters incantations on a
wound and says, “Every disease that I have placed among the
Egyptians etc.”
Summary: The term ףיסוה is used exclusively with tannaim of the Yavneh period.
Elsewhere in the Mishnah, both among the tannaim of Yavneh and of Usha,
alternative ways are used express the concept of “adding on”.
4. םידומ
The term " םידומ"
or " הדומ"
is frequently used in the Mishnah to indicate a
partial concurrence between two parties who disagree on a specific issue. 31 A
mishnah will sometimes record the dispute and then note that there is an agreement in
another area, and less frequently begin by noting the agreement and only subsequently
30
We find in fact that the Tosefta there (12:9) reads:
םשה תא הגוההו הרותב םינפ הלגמהו תירב רפימהו לוע קרופה
םהילע ופיסוה
. אבה םלועל קלח םהל ןיאש ויתותואב
This is a restatement end of the mishnah there where Abba Shaul introduces his
additions with the word ףא:
. ויתויתואב םשה תא הגוהה ףא רמוא לואש אבא
31
In this discussion we ignore the expression " ול ודוה אלו"
which occurs (in reference
to Mishnaic figures) eleven times because they are not conceptually similar to the
" םידומ"
phenomenon in that they do not reflect a common ground between the two
opinions, but rather simply indicate a rejection of a single tanna’s position.
258

describe the areas in which they differ. An example of the more common form is mPe
1:3:
םיתיזה ןיבש האובתה תונבלמ
תחאו תחא לכמ האפ א"
שב
לכה לע דחאמ םירמוא ללה תיב
. לכה לע דחאמ האפ ןתונ אוהש ןיברועמ תורוש ישאר ויה םאש םידומו
Rectangular patches of grain which separate between olive groves:
Beit Shammai say, “Pe)ah must be separated from each one (i.e.
grove).”
Beit Hillel say, “From one [grove] for all.”
But they (i.e. Beit Shammai) agree that if the ends of the groves mix,
that he may separate from one for all.
An example of the rarer kind is mKet 8:1:
סראתת אלש דע םיסכנ הל ולפנש השאה
םייקו תנתונו תרכומש ללה תיבו יאמש תיב םידומ
הסראתנשמ הל ולפנ
רוכמת םירמוא יאמש תיב
רוכמת אל םירמוא ללה תיבו
A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed:
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give away and
her actions are valid.
If she inherited property after she was betrothed:
Beit Shammai say, “She may sell.”
Beit Hillel say, “She may not sell.”
The term is used in seventy-four different places in the Mishnah, five of them in mEd.
Of the seventy-six, thirty-six (almost half) involve a debate between the Houses,
twenty two the sages of the Yavneh generation (mostly R. Akiva) and the remaining
eighteen (about one quarter of the total) involve rabbis of the Usha generation. mEd
stands out in two different aspects, although they may be interdependent. First, it
contains almost seven percent of the occurrences, while it comprises less than two
259

percent of the Mishnah. Second, all of the occurrences in mEd involve the Houses. In
the entire Mishnah, the four major Rabbis of Usha (R. Meir, Yose, Shimon and
Yehudah) comprise approximately forty-five percent of the attributions in the
mishnah, while those of the Houses comprise approximately seven percent. Given the
disproportionate usage of the term in the debates between the Houses, it is not
surprising that the term is more common than statistically expected in mEd, since mEd
contains approximately one quarter of the citations of the Houses found in the entire
Mishnah. The following table summarizes the pattern:
Attributions in
Mishnah 32
Occurrences with Occurrences in
Modim in Mishnah mEd
Houses 510 (citations) 30 4
Major Sages of
Yavneh (Akiva,
Yehoshua, Eliezer,
Tarfon, Yishmael,
Gamliel)
925 (citations) 20 1
Major Sages of
Usha (Meir,
Yehudah, Shimon,
Yose)
1740 (citations) 16 N/A
32 The numbers in this column of the table for the Yavneh and Usha generations are an
approximation, based upon the number of mishnayot in which each tanna’s name
appears. The estimate was not made by counting the total number of times the names
are mentioned because of the many cases in which the name of the tanna is mentioned
multiple times within the course of one debate, i.e. if there is any kind of dialogue or
editorial commentary in the Mishnah. With respect to the Houses, the number (510) is
based upon the two hundred and fifty five debates between the Houses in the Mishnah.
There are probably between twenty and thirty cases where the debates are duplications
as they are found in more than one place in the Mishnah. Offsetting some of the
duplications are six places in the Mishnah where Beit Shammai alone is mentioned
(mBer 6:5, mDem 3:1, mKil 8:5, mBes9 2:6 [=mEd 3:10] and mMiq 4:5).
260

Any number of possibilities exists for the prevalence of the term " םידומ"
with
the Houses. It may be that material had been worked over more over the course of
time and hence the area of agreement between the Houses had been better fleshed out.
Alternatively, the term may reflect the usage of formulators of a different, perhaps
earlier, period which gradually fell into disuse. What is clear, however, is that the
later editors of the Mishnah made no attempt to level the usage of this style in the
mishnah, and in the process preserved earlier layers in the mishnah in something
resembling their original form.
The usage of the term (and the verb in general) also shows some evolution in
the course of the tannaitic generations. In the generation of the Houses, it is never
stated which of the two Houses is agreeing to the other’s position, despite the fact that
the plural verb leaves ambiguity as to who is “conceding”. 33 Most of the time, it is the
second of the Houses cited that concedes and hence the lack of subject for the verb
' םידומ'
is perhaps not surprising. But this holds true even in cases where the first of the
two mentioned opinions concedes. For example, mAh 4:4:
תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב תמה ירבוק לע ליהאהו ןולחה דעב ףיקשמ היה
ויהש וא וילכב שובל היה םאש םידומו
האמוטה תא איבמ םירמוא ללה תיבו האמוטה
. האמוטה תא ןיאיבמ םהש הז יבג לע הז םינש
If he was looking out of the window and he hovered over those burying
the dead: Beit Shammai say that he does not transfer impurity [into the
house] but Beit Hillel say that he transfers impurity. They (i.e. Beit
33
In a few cases (mYev 4:3, mKet 8:1, 8:6 and mAh 18:4) we find תיבו יאמש תיב םידומ"
" ללה but this does nothing to clarify who is conceding.
261

Shammai) agree that if he was wearing clothing or if there are two
people, one on top of the other, that they transfer the impurity.
Here it is Beit Shammai, the former, that concedes to Beit Hillel, the latter. 34 In
subsequent generations, both the conceder and the one conceded-to are almost always
mentioned explicitly. This is so even though it is usually a single tradent and a group
of individuals who comprise the two parties and the number of the verb amply
clarifies who is conceding. For example:
אלבטו ... תוכתמ לש ינט יוסכ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ לאילמג ןבר םירבד העברא
( אי:
ג תוידע)
... םינשל הקלחנש אלבטב לאילמג ןברל םימכח םידומו םינשל הקלחנש
There are four things that R. Gamliel declares susceptible to ritual impurity but
the Sages declare not susceptible: A basket cover of metal of homeowners ... and a
tray which was divided in half.
The Sages admit to R. Gamliel if the tray was broken into two pieces, one large and
one small, that the large is susceptible to impurity and the small is not.
With later generations, the term םידומ appears to have been replaced with
another approach, to break up the case into two logical parts and stating the one agreed
upon followed by the one debated. For example, mZev 4:3:
םיאבה םיכסנהו םדהו הנובלהו...
ץמוקה לוגפ
םושמ םהילע ןיבייח ןיאש םירבד ולא
. המהבה םע םיאבה ףא םירמוא םימכחו ריאמ יבר ירבד ןמצע ינפב
On the following things one is not liable for piggul: 35 The handful from
the flour-offering ... the frankincense, the blood, the libations which are
brought independent of a sacrifice - according to the opinion of R.
34 This is not to say that in most cases it isn’t logically apparent who is conceding; the
point is strictly one of syntax and form.
35 The meat of a sacrifice in which the priest had improper thoughts while performing
the major rites of that sacrifice. Cf. Lev. 7:18 and 19:7; mZev chapters 2:2-3:6 and
mMen 1:3-4.
262

Meir, but the Sages say, “Even those (i.e. libations) which are brought
along side a sacrifice.”
In this case, the mishnah could have stated:
ריאמ יבר םיכסנהו םדהו
הנובלהו...
ץמוקה לוגפ םושמ םהילע ןיבייח ןיאש םירבד ולא
. ןמצע ינפב םיאבה םיסכנב הדומו םהילע ןיבייח םיכסנה רמוא
On the following things one is not liable for piggul: 36 The handful from
the flour-offering ... the frankincense, the blood, the libations. R. Meir
says, “One is liable on the libations.” [However,] he agrees regarding
libations which are brought independent of a sacrifice.
An alternative substitution may have been the use of the term יתמיא or the
expressionםירומא םירבד המב. For example, mSan 1:3:
ןמזב יתמיא םירמוא םימכחו ריאמ יבר ירבד הז לש וידע לסופ הזו הז לש וידע לסופ הז
. ןלסופל לוכי וניא םירשכ ויה םא לבא םילוספ וא םיבורק ןהש היאר םהילע איבמ אוהש
This one disqualifies the other’s witnesses and the other disqualifies
this one’s witnesses - according to the opinion of R. Meir; but the
Sages say, “When is this so? When he brings proof regarding them that
they are relatives or invalid witnesses, but if they are valid he cannot
disqualify them.”
This mishnah could have been formulated (using the term םידומ) as follows:
ןילסופ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו ריאמ יבר ירבד הז לש וידע לסופ הזו הז לש וידע לסופ הז
. םילוספ וא םיבורק ןהש היאר םהילע איבמ אוהש ןמזב םידומו
This one disqualifies the other’s witnesses and the other disqualifies
this one’s witnesses - according to the opinion of R. Meir; but the
Sages say, “They cannot disqualify [them].” But they agree when he
brings proof regarding them that they are relatives or invalid
witnesses.”
36 The meat of a sacrifice in which the priest had improper thoughts while performing
the major rites of that sacrifice. Cf. Lev. 7:18 and 19:7; mZev chapters 2:2-3:6 and
mMen 1:3-4.
263

In many of the cases where a named authority 37 uses these terms, it is unclear whether
or not there is a debate, or if the tanna is coming to qualify the first statement. 38 If we
assume that at least in some of the cases the terms " יתמיא"
and " םירומא םירבד המב"
are
used as alternatives to the םידומ formulation, a brief glance at their generational
distribution is interesting. The term " יתמיא"
is used as a qualifier forty times in the
Mishnah. 39 Of those, fifteen are cited anonymously, twenty four are introduced by the
tannaim of Usha (R. Yehudah fifteen times 40 ) and one by the Sages who disagree with
R. Akiva (mEruv 5:9). The term " םירומא םירבד המב"
appears forty-four times in the
Mishnah. Thirty-one times it is cited anonymously. Of the thirteen times that it is
cited with a tradent, twelve belong to the Usha period (R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R.
Yose each four times) and one to Yavneh (mBB3:1).
37 As opposed to the anonymous voice of the mishnah.
38 This issue was already being debated among the amoraim. The default assumption
of the Bavli appears to have been that the presence of a named tradent indicates that
there is a debate. See bEruv 82a, bSan 24b.
39 The word is also used to mean “from when” in the strictly chronological sense, such
as ןיברעב עמש תא ןירוק יתמיאמ. As a qualifier it would be translated literally as “When is
this the case?”.
40
This statistic is probably responsible for R. Yoh9anan’s statement regarding R.
Yehudah in bEruv 82a:
וניא וניתנשמב המבו יתמיא הדוהי יבר רמאש
םוקמ לכ יול ןב עשוהי יבר רמא אפוג
. קולחל המבו שרפל יתמיא רמא ןנחוי יברו . םימכח ירבד שרפל אלא
R. Yohanan’s distinction between the two terms may be a reflection of the differences
in frequency of R. Yehudah’s use of the terms – he uses יתמיא fifteen times, but המב
םירומא םירבד only twice.
264

There is one mishnah in mEd whose textual history may very well demonstrate
the confluence of these two points. mEd 4:7 states:
תיבו ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניא םירמוא יאמש תיב יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה
השרגתנב םידומו ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתנש ןמזב יתמיא ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ םירמוא ללה
. הב סג ובל ןיאש ינפמ ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניאש ןיסוריאה ןמ
If one divorces his wife and then sleeps with her at an inn: Beit
Shammai say, “She does not require from him a second bill of divorce”
but Beit Hillel say, “She requires from him a second bill of divorce.”
When is this so? When she was divorced after consummation. But they
(Beit Hillel) admit that when she was divorced after [she only had
experienced] betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of
divorce because he is not comfortable with her.
As we point out elsewhere, 41 it would appear from the citations in the Bavli that the
underlined portion was not originally in the text of the mishnah. This change itself
was supplemented by a later change in the printed editions of Eduyot which replaced
the word " םידומו"
with the word " לבא"
. 42 In over three quarters of the cases, the
phrases יתמיא and םירומא םירבד המב are followed by the word " לבא"
. With the
exception of this mishnah (and its parallel in mGit[), not a single instance of " םידומ"
is
preceded by one of these two terms. If the mishnah had originally been formulated
using the term " יתמיא"
it would have read:
41 Chapter Ten, pp. 269-270.
42 The editio princeps is the first place in mEd where this reading is found and it is
followed by subsequent printings of the Mishnah. In the parallel mishnah (mGit 8:9),
ed. Naples and subsequent printings do not contain the reading of לבא but it can be
found in the Cambridge manuscript.
265

ללה תיב םהל ורמא ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניא םירמוא יאמש תיב יקדנופב ... שרגמה
ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ ןיאושינה ןמ השרגתנב לבא ןיסוריאה ןמ השרגתנש ןמזב יתמיא
. הב סג ובלש ינפמ
If one divorces ... Beit Shammai say, “She does not require a second
bill of divorce”. Beit Hillel said to them, “When is this so? When she
was divorced after betrothal; but if she was divorced after
consummation she requires a second bill of divorce because he is
comfortable with her.
Whoever emended the printed version of mEd used correct syntactic instincts even if,
in the process, he corrupted the historical text of the mishnah.
Summary: The use of the term םידומ is found in all tannaitic generations, but there is
marked decline in the frequency of its usage when moving from one generation to the
next. There are also changes in certain aspects of its usage when one compares its
utilization in the material from the Houses to that in the material of the tannaim of
Usha.
V. יתעמש and ינא לבוקמ
The last two mishnayot in mEd use terms which imply a received tradition.
The first, " יתעמש"
, is used in sequence by R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua to record
traditions about the building of the Temple and the usage of its space after the
Destruction. In the second, R. Yehoshua introduces a statement in the name of R.
Yohanan b. Zakkai (his teacher 43 ) and begins it with " ינא לבוקמ"
. 44 The latter explicitly
43 Of the seven cases in the Mishnah, six mention from whom the tradition was
received. It would appear in all these cases that the transmission was direct; in two of
the cases it was the person’s teacher (both R. Yohanan b. Zakkai), in two cases (both
with Ben Azzai as the recipient) it was from the Sanhedrin during his time period and
266

stipulates the chain of transmission. The term " יתעמש"
is used frequently in the
mishnah to denote the physical act of hearing, but when part of a quotation of a tanna,
it conveys the sense of having “heard” or received a tradition. 45 It is in this vein that
Aqavia is cited as saying to his son (mEd 5:9):
ודמע ןהו יתעומשב
יתדמע ינא ןיבורמה יפמ ועמש ןהו ןיבורמה
יפמ יתעמש ינא
... ןיבורמה
יפמו דיחיה יפמ תעמש התא לבא ןתעומשב
I heard [my views] from a majority and they heard from a majority [and
thus] I stood behind my tradition and they stood by their tradition; you,
however, have [now] heard [both] from a minority (Aqavia) and a
majority (the Sages) ...
Furthermore, it is sometimes apparent that the tradition was one of a well-
defined linguistic nature. mPar 1:1 states:
תב הרפו םיתש תב הלגע א"
כחו םיתש תב הרפו התנש תב הלגע רמוא רזעילא יבר
אמש הל ןיניתממ ןיאש אלא הנקזה הרשכ שמח תב ףא רמוא מ"
ר עברא תב וא שלש
. לספת אלש ריחשת
יתעמש ךכ םהל רמא תישלש ןושלה המ ול ורמא תישלש אלא יתעמש אל עשוהי ר"
א
רמוא התאשכו ןינמב תורחאל תישילש התא רמוא םא שרפא ינא יאזע ןב רמא םתס
. םינש שלש תב תישלש
in two the chronology of the transmitter and recipient allow for the possibility of direct
transmission.
44
This word commonly appears in the Bavli and in printed editions of the mishnah as
ינלבוקמ which is a contraction of a type first found in Mishnaic Hebrew. In Biblical
Hebrew, the ינ ַ suffix on a verb is usually the first person objective suffix. In the later,
Mishnaic, usage it takes on a nominative role when attached to the participle. It
occurs in only a handful of forms in the Mishnah (e.g. ינלבקמ,ינרדומ, ינרזוג, ינששוח) and
is only found in the Babylonian manuscript traditions. MS Kaufmann and the
Yerushalmi record no usages of this contraction.
45
If this were not so the tanna would simply assert the law as is typical throughout the
Mishnah.
47 See mYev 8:4, mPes 9:6, mSheq 4:7.
267

R. Eliezer says, “An 'Eglah' means in its first year; a 'Parah' in its
second year”; but the Sages say, “An 'Eglah' means in its second year; a
'Parah' in its third or fourth year.” R. Meir says, “Even in its fifth
year.” The old cow is valid but they do not wait that long lest it turn
black or become disqualified.
R. Yehoshua said, “I heard only 'a third'.” They said to him, “What is
the expression 'a third'? He said to them, “That is all that I heard.”
Ben-Azzai said, “I can explain. When you say 'a third' in the context of
other things, it is [third] in order. But when you say 'a third' [alone] in
means three years old.”
ןב רמא םתס יתעמש ךכ םהל רמא יעבר ןושלה המ ול ורמא יעבר םרכ ורמא וב אצויכ
... שרפא ינא יאזע
האסל הרשע הנמשמ רומא ול ורמא בקל 'גמ
סרפ עגונמה תיבב לכואה ורמא וב אצויכ
... שרפא ינא יאזע ןב רמא םתס יתעמש ךכ םהל רמא
In each of the three cases, R. Yehoshua has a received tradition formulated in a
particular manner and Ben Azzai subsequently suggests an explanation for the odd
formulation which R. Yehoshua preserved. For example, in the second case R.
Yehoshua described the produce of the fourth year (which is treated like ma(aser
sheni) as " יע ַברְ
" and not with a more standard linguistic form " יעי
ִ ִברְ
" . When his
students asked him to explain his unusual pronunciation, he replied that that was the
way he had received the pronunciation of the term. Ben Azzai subsequently suggests
a reason why the term " יעי
ִ ִברְ
" was not used.
In several cases, a tanna transmits two contradictory laws which he has
received but is unable to reconcile and a third party resolves the contradiction. 47 In a
few cases the response given is " ונעמש/
יתעמש אל"
. And in three of the cases the tanna
268

states (perhaps for emphasis) " שוריפב יתעמש"
. 48 Finally, in a handful of cases, the one
from whom the tradition was received ( 'ינולפמ
יתעמש')
is mentioned.
There are a total of twenty-nine times that an individual makes the claim of
" יתעמש"
. 49 The occurrences are unusual enough in two cases to associate unrelated
topics together because of the unusual form of citation. 50 Twenty-six of the cases
involve tannaim from the period of Yavneh (or earlier) and only three involve those
from Usha. Of the twenty-six, twelve involve R. Yehoshua, three R. Gamliel (in
conjunction with R. Yehoshua), two R. Eliezer 51 and two Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai.
The one striking feature about the distribution within the Yavneh period is that only
four of the cases (three of R. Ila(i) belong to the last generation of Yavneh. The
absence of R. Akiva is notable.
48 mShev 6:5, ibid. 6:6 and mOrl 1:7.
49 In this I count two occurrences where the אל is used with the verb, but the tradent
has actually already stated some tradition (but can’t provide additional details). I do
not include mNeg 11:7 in which R. Eliezer seems not to have “heard” anything. This
count also assigns several cases (mKer 7:8, ibid. 7:9 and mNeg 7:4) to two
individuals.
50
The two cases are mEruv 2:6 and mPar 1:1. The former is also unusual because it
cites R. Ila‘i who appears nowhere else in the Mishnah. See also mKer 3:7-9 where a
chain of three straight cases involving R. Gamliel, Yehoshua and Akiva where אל
יתעמש / ונעמש are used. There, however, the topics are related.
51
R. Eliezer is unusual in that twice he is cited as saying " יתעמש אל"
. This can
probably be seen as one of the implied proof-texts to be associated with the selfdescription
in the Baraita (bSuk 28a) of R. Eliezer that יברמ יתעמש אלש רבד יתרמא אלו"
" םלועמ.
269

There are only seven cases of " ינא לבוקמ"
in the Mishnah but the picture they
52 53
yield is similar to that of " יתעמש"
. Six of the seven date to Yavneh and the
seventh 54 predates the Destruction. Notable again is the absence of R. Akiva who is
(by far )the most commonly mentioned tanna of Yavneh in the Mishnah. 55
52 The usage elsewhere is interesting. In the Tosefta, the term occurs three times; once
in the name of Hillel (tPes 4:14), once with R. Eliezer (tYad 2:16) and once with R.
Yehudah (tSan 6:2). In the Yerushalmi it occurs four times, only one of which does
not appear in the Mishnah. That one occurrence is with R. Elazar b. Zadok. The
Bavli’s usage is most interesting. Not counting citations from the Mishnah, there are
nineteen additional cases of the term. Two date from the Amoraic period, none from
Usha, five from the Yavneh period (one with R. Akiva speaking to R. Eliezer – bPes
69a) and four from the Second Temple period. The remaining five are found in
aggadot placed in the mouths of biblical figures. The attribution in the aggadah of this
terminology to biblical figures may stem from the fact that its usage in the corpus of
tannaitic literature was mostly confined to the earlier period, implying a degree of
antiquity which was then projected back into the biblical period.
53
The one case whose dating is not entirely clear is mGit 6:7 which involves a debate
between R. Meir and R. Yose. R. Meir cites a ‘halakhah’ which H9annania ’Ish ’Ono
brought with him from the prison. Albeck (Mavo LaMishnah, p. 231) dates him to the
first generation of Usha but offers no evidence. The mishnah here (and also see bGit[
67a) may have led him to assume that he was a contemporary of R. Meir and R. Yose.
However, tSan 2:13 states:
הרביע םאו הדוהיב
אלא הנשה תא ןירבעמ ןיאש לאילמג ןבר ינפל ונוא שיא היננח דיעה
. תרבועמ לילגב
This would suggest that he in fact belonged to the final generation of Yavneh.
54
mPe 2:6:
לבוקמ רלבלה םוחנ רמא ולאשו תיזגה תכשלל ולעו לאילמג ןבר ינפל הפצמה שיא ןועמש 'ר
ערזש השעמ
... יניסמ השמל הכלה םיאיבנה ןמ ולבקש תוגוזה ןמ לבקש אבאמ לבקש אשאימ יברמ ינא
55
In the realm of speculation, one can only wonder if this is a reflection of R. Akiva’s
emphasis on the role of human creativity in the development of the Oral Law. There
is a well known aggadah (bMen 29b) which attempts to reconcile the contradiction
between extreme creativity and tradition:
רשוקו בשויש ה"
בקהל ואצמ , םורמל השמ הלעש העשב : בר רמא הדוהי בר רמא
דיתעש שי דחא םדא
: ול רמא ? ךדי לע בכעמ ימ , ע"
שבר : וינפל רמא , תויתואל םירתכ
270

mEd 1:7 (translation above) contains one mishnah which seems to connect
these two issues. It reads:
םדאה רמאי םאש הלטבל ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד ןיריכזמ המל ןכ םא הדוהי יבר רמא
. תעמש ינולפ שיא ירבדכ ול רמאי לבוקמ ינא ךכ
Here, the tradition which one cites with " ינא לבוקמ"
is described by the listeners as
something that he “heard”.
Summary: The terms " יתעמש"
and " ינא לבוקמ"
are used to denote a received tradition.
They are found in the Mishnah almost exculsively in the context of tannaim of the
Yavneh generation or earlier.
VI. ינפל ורמא
In mEd (2:5,7 and 8) we find three mishnayot where somebody states
something in the presence of another individual or group:
... הנביב םרכב םימכח ינפל לאעמשי יבר רמא םירבד השלש
יבר ןשריפו רתיהו רוסיא אל םהב רמא אלו לאעמשי יבר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש
... איתמ ןב עשוהי
עשוהי יבר םושמ דחאו רזעילא
יבר םושמ םינש אביקע יבר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש
...
ןילית ץוקו ץוק לכ לע שורדל דיתעש , ומש ףסוי ןב אביקעו תורוד המכ ףוסב תויהל
בשיו ךלה . ךרוחאל רוזח : ול רמא , יל והארה , ע"
שבר : וינפל רמא . תוכלה לש ןילית
, דחא רבדל עיגהש ןויכ ; וחכ ששת , םירמוא ןה המ עדוי היה אלו , תורוש הנומש ףוסב
. ותעד הבשייתנ
, יניסמ השמל הכלה : ןהל רמא ? ךל ןינמ , יבר : וידימלת ול ורמא
The tension between R. Akiva’s creativity and R. Eliezer’s emphasis on the received
tradition is highlighted in mNaz (7:4):
להאב םדא אמטמ וניאש הרועשכ םצע םא המ רזעילא יבר ינפל יתנד אביקע יבר רמא
אהיש ןיד וניא להאב םדא אמטמ אוהש
םד תיעיבר ואשמ לעו ועגמ לע חלגמ ריזנה
רמוחו לקמ ןאכ ןינד ןיא אביקע הז המ יל רמא האשמ לעו העגמ לע חלגמ ריזנה
.
הכלה ורמא ןכ אלא תרמא הפי יל רמא עשוהי יבר ינפל םירבד יתיצרהו יתאבשכו
271

Rabbi Yishmael said three things in the presence of the Sages in Yavneh
... (2:4)
Three things they spoke about in the presence of R. Yishmael and he
neither permitted nor forbade them; R. Yehoshua b. Matya explained
them ...
They said three things in the presence of R. Akiva, two from R. Eliezer
and one from R. Yehoshua ...
From a conceptual standpoint, there is a degree of similarity between this usage and
the term " דיעה"
. In the Tosefta, there are six cases of " ינפל ... דיעה"
but none in the
Mishnah. tT9Y 2:9, which parallels mEd 2:4, reads:
ןוילעה רדסה לכ הציבב םוי לובט עגנו ויבג לע הנותנ הפורט הציבו המורת לש קרי
וז לש ודי דגנכש חלקה אלא רובח וניא 'וא
הדוהי 'רו
ןועמש 'רו
יסוי 'ר
ירבד רובח
'ר
רמא ודי דגנכש חלקה אלא רובח וניאש הנביב םרכב
םימכח ינפל לאעמשי 'ר
דיעה
. רוביח אוהש עבוכ ומכ יושעה לע אלא דיעה וז לע אל יסוי
Vegetables of terumah on which a scrambled egg is placed and a t[evulyom
then touches the egg, the entire upper layer is considered connected
according to the opinion of R. Yose and R. Shimon.
R. Yehudah says, “He defiles only the stalk which is opposite him (i.e.
the point of contact of his hand). About this R. Yishmael testified before
the Sages in Yavneh that only the stalk which is opposite him is
considered connected.”
R. Yose says, “He did not testify about that but rather about one which is
like a dome that it is not considered connected”.
The " הרימא"
of mEd (" לאעמשי 'ר
רמא")
is referred to as ‘testimony’.
There are twelve cases of such an activity recorded in the Mishnah. 56 Of these,
only one belongs to the period of Usha (mBQ 4:2). The remaining belong to the
56
I include in this two cases (mKet 4:6 and mNaz 7:4) which use different verbs, but
with similar effect:
... הנביב םרכב םימכח ינפל הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר שרד שרדמ וז ( 1
יבר ינפל םירבדה תא יתיצרהו יתאבשכו ... רזעילא יבר ינפל יתנד אביקע יבר רמא ( 2
(
ד:
ז ריזנ)
... עשוהי
272

Yavneh period with five of them involving R. Akiva, two Rabban Gamliel 57 and two
" הנביב םרכב םימכח ינפל"
. 58
VII. השעמ
One feature which appears in the Mishnah fairly frequently is the citation of a
story to prove a halakhic opinion. There are ninety-six occurrences of such stories
introduced with the term " השעמ"
. 59 mEd itself contains five of these stories, two to
three times the number one would have expected given its size. The larger number
(about three quarters) of such stories are found in the orders of Mo(ed, Nashim and
Neziqin even though the three make up only (approximately) forty-six percent of the
Mishnah. 60 All of the cases are introduced with the word השעמ followed by a
57 These two, both in mKet 8:4, are the only occurrences not cited anonymously. Both
are attributed to tannaim of Usha - one to R. Yehudah and one to R. H9anania b.
Aqavia.
58
mKet 4:6 and mEd 2:4. There are only two other mishnayot (mSheq 1:4 and mBekh
6:8) which seem to allude to some kind of academic-halakhic activity in Yavneh.
They are:
ןב ןנחוי ןבר ול רמא אטוח וניא לקושש ןהכ לכ הנביב ירכוב ןב דיעה הדוהי יבר רמא
... אלא יכ אל יאכז
ונעמש אל ול ורמא ףיסוה השלש דועו םימכח ול ודוהו הנביב אליא הנמ ולא ןימומ ...
... ולא תא
59 Omitted from the list are two cases where the story is not invoked as proof to a
particular position. They are the controversy over the sanctification of the new moon
(mRH 2:8-9) and that of H9oni HaMe‘aggel and his quest for rain (mTa 3:8).
60
Certain tractates have a larger concentration of these " םישעמ"
. Included in these are
mYev (8), mAZ (6), mShab (6), mEruv (6), mSuk (5) and mEd (5). In some cases
this can be attributed to the nature of the subject matter. In the case of Yevamot, all
but one of the cases are concentrated in the last chapter of the tractate which deals
273

description of what happened. These two features are standard. In addition, there are
several additional pieces of information which may be provided:
1) A tradent who transmits that there was a story: thirty-eight cases are cited
by a tanna, thirty of whom are of the Usha generations (eleven with R.
Yehudah, eight with R. Yose).
2) A location where the event occurred: forty six cases mention explicitly
where the story unfolded. 61 Jerusalem is mentioned eleven times
explicitly.
3) A person to whom the issue was brought: sixty-six cases mention to whom
the legal question was presented. Of those, only three refer to tannaim of
Usha. Twenty cases refer to the anonymous " םימכח"
, nine to R. Akiva and
eleven to Rabban Gamliel (I or II, in some cases it’s unclear which).
4) In approximately forty cases, the individual (sometimes individuals) who
asked the question is referred to. Many of these are anonymous (דחא, השא
תחא) or non-Rabbinic figures. Only six times is the inquirer a tanna. One
with a woman remarrying without two witnesses to the death of her husband. As is
clear from the last mishnah (16:7), the issue was being hotly debated in terms of
precedent. Since " םישעמ"
are cited precisely as precedent ( as opposed to as logical
proof), the frequent citation in that context is not surprising.
61
In an additional nine stories, the location was obvious; four of them in Jerusalem
and three in the Temple.
274

is from the Second Temple period, three are from Yavneh and two are
from Usha 62 .
Stylistically speaking there is a subset of fifteen stories in which the expression
of " השעמ אבו"
or " אב השעמ"
introduces the story. 63 Of these only one was brought to a
figure from Usha.
Conclusion
We have analyzed the usage of a number of terms that are used throughout the
62
One of these, R. Judah asking R. Tarfon (mNed 6:6) presumably took place in what
we would call the Yavneh period.
63
The difference between the two is that " אב השעמ"
is preceded by description of the
events (usually introduce by "... ב השעמ"
) and then the " השעמ אבו"
describes the process
of the legal inquiry. For example:
רמאו אביקע 'ר
ינפל השעמ אבו תיעיבשב ומרכ תא ערזש דחאב
השעמ יסוי יבר רמא
( ד:
ז םיאלכ)
ולש וניאש רבד שדקמ םדא ןיא
On the other hand, " אב השעמ"
is used when the event is not spelled out, but is assumed
to involve whatever issue was just discussed in the mishnah. For example, mShab
16:7 reads:
אלש ברקע לעו ןטק לש האוצ לעו הרוקב זוחאת אלש ליבשב רנה יבג לע הרעק ןיפוכ
ול ינששוח רמאו ברעב יאכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר ינפל אב השעמ הדוהי יבר רמא ךשית
: תאטחמ
It is assumed that the event encompassed one of the two scenarios described in the
first half of the mishnah, although R. Yehudah does not actually describe what
transpired.
Three of the four cases of " אב השעמ"
are cited by tannaim, whereas only three
of the eleven cases using " השעמ אבו ... השעמ"
are not cited anonymously.
By way of comparison, the Tosefta contains twenty eight such cases. Two of
the cases are " אב השעמ"
and both are cited by tannaim. Of the remaining twenty-six,
fifteen are cited anonymously and eleven are cited by a tanna.
(Two of the cases of " השעמ אבו"
, mEd 2:4 and tKet 4:9 do not have the
prefatory " ב השעמ"
because they are part of statements of tannaim [R. H9anania Segan
HaKohanim and Hillel] whose formulations, for whatever reason, did not include the
expression but the effect is the same.)
275

Mishnah to introduce tannaitic opinions. The analysis suggests that there is a pattern
of terminology being used consistently within the material ascribed to tannaim of
Yavneh and rarely or not at all with those who belonged to Usha. In one case ( " יתמיא"
and " םירומא םירבד המב"
) the pattern was reversed. The clear divisions between the two
generations make sense best if we assume that the redactional phrases and other terms
reflect a stratum of material which was incorporated by the editors of the Mishnah into
the final work without leveling it to match the style of the material which was either
newly formulated by the editors or drawn from one or more other sources. If so the
Mishnah should not be viewed as consisting entirely of a single layer 64 and as such, it
seems that J. Neusner’s model of a “single generation of formulators/redactors” is
difficult to sustain.
64
I am unaware of any systematic study of Mishnaic terminology that has been
performed against the backdrop of J. Neusner’s important challenges to the
traditionally held scholarly view. And while his methodology and conclusions may be
problematic, the questions he have raised are extremely valuable contributions to the
study of Mishnaic literature.
We should note that this study merely touches the tip of the iceberg of a larger
study which should be done on the language and terminology of the Mishnah. Our
study, apropos the current topic, uses mEd as its template and suffices to demonstrate
that there exists a distinct stratum of Yavneh material in the Mishnah which cannot be
viewed as a creation of the final editors of the Mishnah.
One thing that unfortunately is still lacking which is almost a prerequisite to a
full and proper study is a critical edition of the entire Mishnah. J.N. Epstein’s
comments in this regard ( " ויכרצו ידומלתה עדמה"
in Yedi(ot HaMakhon le-Mada(ei
HaYahadut 2 [1924/5], pp. 5-22) over three quarters of a century ago are regrettably
still relevant today .
276

277

Chapter Ten
Mishnah Eduyot in the Bavli and Yerushalmi
bBer 28b
הכלה התיה אלו הוה אמוי אוהה םויב וב ןנירמאד אכיה לכו תינשנ םויב וב תוידע אנת
. הושריפ אלש שרדמה תיבב היולת התיהש
It is taught: “Eduyot was taught on that day (and anywhere where we
say bo bayom it was on that day) and there was no law which was in
doubt in the academy which they did not fully explain.”
According to the Bavli’s account, mEd occupies a special place within the
corpus of the larger mishnah. The story is told (bBer 27b-28a) that on the day that
Rabban Gamliel (II) was deposed from the presidency of the academy, the guards
were removed from the entrance to the Academy and all who wished to join in the
discussion of Torah within the Academy were allowed to do so. Hitherto, admission
had been limited to those of the noblest character, but now all were welcome.
Accordingly, many laws which had been forgotten from the Academy (ostensibly,
because their bearers were unable to enter) were taught on that day. By asserting that
no legal matter discussed in the academy that day remained ambiguous, the Bavli
suggests that the contents of mEd possesses a special status. The Yerushalmi, on the
other hand, does not draw any connection between the events of that day and the
formation of mEd (although a number of parts of the story do overlap).
1
In this chapter, we turn our attention to the history of mEd in the amoraic
period and its usage in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. We will explore several questions,
1 For a discussion of the literary construction of the sugya, see Devorah Steinmetz,
AJS Review 1998, No. 2, “Must the Patriarch know ‘Uqtzin? The Nasi as Scholar in
Babylonian Aggada, pp. 164-82.
278

some of which are specific to mEd and some of which could be relevant to a
discussion of other tractates as well. In addition to the special authority attributed to
the tractate by the above passage in the Bavli, mEd is also unique in that despite the
fact that so much of its material relates to topics that are discussed in the two Talmuds,
it has no Bavli or Yerushalmi which accompanies it. 2 In contrast, while the tractates
of the order of Teharot (except mNid) also possess no Bavli or Yerushalmi, most of
their source material is never discussed in the two Talmuds, which would allow one to
argue that they were not the primary focus of study in Babylonia or the Land of Israel.
The absence of any discussion about most mishnayot from a given tractate in Teharot
does not demonstrate anything about the relationship of the amoraim and the editors
and redactors to that tractate and to the state of its text, whereas the possible absence
of a significant part of the material from mEd would be of significant import.
We will divide our discussion into three areas:
1) Sugyot which indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a special attitude toward mEd qua
mEd. For example, a number of sugyot conclude with the statement, ינולפכ אתכלה"
" אתריחבב היתווכ ןנתו ליאוה,
“The law is accordance with so-and-so because it is taught in
accordance with his view in Eduyot.”
2) The history of the text as can be demonstrated from sugyot in the Bavli or
Yerushalmi. What was the state of the text during that period and what changes might
2 There is a medieval version of a “Talmud” to Eduyot by R. Shlomo Sirillio which is
cited by R. Shlomo Adeni in his Melekhet Shlomo, but it is an anthology of Talmudic
and medieval discussions which relate to mishnayot in mEd.
279

have been made to the text during the amoraic period, or as a response to the
discussions of the amoraim?
3) The usage of mEd material in sugyot. How are materials cited from mEd? Which
amoraim cite mEd? What common traditions of interpretation do we find in the Bavli
and Yerushalmi?
I. General Attitude towards mEd
A. Authority of mEd
The anonymous baraita from the Bavli cited above cannot be definitively
dated, as the amoraim do not comment upon it. We can attempt, however, to test if the
idea contained within, i.e. that the tractate possesses special status (because all of its
material represents halakha that was not in doubt), can be shown to have existed in the
amoraic period.
In three places, the acceptance of a Tannaitic position is justified with the
argument of " היתווכ אתריחבב ןנתו ליאוה ינולפכ הכלה"
.
1) In bBer 27a, Rav Kahana (2 nd generation) asserts that the law follows R.
Yehudah that the latest time to recite the morning prayers is the end of the fourth hour
because it concurs with the testimony of R. Yehudah b. Abba found in mEd (6:1).
Later in the sugya, R. H9isda refers to R. Kahana’s ruling and inquires whether or not it
would apply to the debate between R. Yehudah and the Sages regarding the last
possible time for the afternoon services.
280

2) In bQid 54b, R. Nah9man b. Yis[h9ak (4 th generation) asserts that the law
follows R. Meir, who opines that ma(aser sheni is not considered the private property
of its owners but rather as mamon gavoah, God’s property (which nonetheless may be
consumed by the owners), because Beit Hillel in mEd (4:5) assume R. Meir’s view. 3
3) mBekh 3:5 records a debate among the Tannaim as to the precise contours
of a debate between Akavia b. Mahallalel and the Sages (regarding the hair of a
blemished first-born which was detached and set aside). In bBekh 25a R. Nah9man (3 rd
generation) asserts that the accepted version of the debate between Akavia b.
Mahallalel and the Sages is that of R. Yehudah because that is the version found in
mEd.
In each case, the acceptance of particular ruling because it is confirmed by
mEd is attributed to an Amora - one each from the second, third and fourth
generations. At first glance, this proves that the notion that mEd was especially
authoritative originated no later than the second generation of amoraim. Upon further
consideration, however, one could argue that the statement of the amoraim in each of
these sugyot ends with " ינולפכ הכלה"
which is in Hebrew, 4 and the Aramaic portion,
" היתווכ אתריחבב ןנתו ליאוה"
, can be attributed to the stam which fills in the reason
drawing upon its own conception of the special significance of mEd. If so, there
3 The debate is relevant to the status of a woman who was betrothed with ma(aser
sheni; if it is considered mamon gavoah the betrothal is not binding since the food
does not belong to the man.
4
The standard Aramaic formulation found at the conclusion of many sugyot is
" אתכלהו"
. For more on the use of the Hebrew/Aramaic divide to distinguish between
the amoraic material and that of the stam, see Shamma Friedman, Pereq Ha)Is]ah
Rabbah be-Bavli, p.25-6.
281

would be no evidence from these sugyot that the special status of mEd predated the
later stages of the Bavli.
This, however, is improbable for several reasons. bBes9 28a reads:
ןישדקומה ילוספ ןנתד . היתוכ תורוכבב ןנתו ליאוה עשוהי יברכ הכלה ףסוי בר רמא
. רוכבב הנמ
דגנכ הנמ ןילקושו שדקהל ןתאנה
ןויזב אכילד אלא אכה עשוהי יבר רמאק אל ןאכ דע איה אל אמלדו ייבא היל רמא
... םישדק ןויזב אכיאד םתה לבא םישדק
R. Yosef said, “The law is in accordance with R. Yehoshua since it is
taught according to his view in mBekh. For it is taught, "Disqualified
sacrifices, their profit goes to the Temple treasury, and one may be
weigh portion against portion with a first-born." ”
Abaye said to him, “Perhaps this [extrapolation] is incorrect – R.
Yehoshua only permits here because it involves no degrading of
sacrifices, but there where there is degrading of sacrifices ...”
From Abaye’s response, it is clear that R. Yosef himself, not the stam, refers to mBekh
as the basis for his ruling. 5 Thus we find in this sugya that an amora uses a mixed
5
It is possible that the actual citation mBekh within the sugya may be the work of the
stam, but the phrase " היתווכ תורוכבב ןנתו ליאוה"
with its Aramaic must belong to R.
Yosef. The reverse is not possible because if R. Yosef himself had cited the entire
mishnah ( "... ןנתד י"
רכ הכלה ףסוי בר רמא"
), the stam would have accomplished nothing
with the addition of " היתווכ תורוכבב ןנתו ליאוה"
because there is nothing, generally
speaking, significant about the tractate Bekhorot. The significance of the mishnah lies
in its anonymity, not in it’s being situated in mBekh. R. Yosef is asserting that the law
follows R. Yehoshua of the baraita because there is an anonymous mishnah which
assumes his position; his reference to mBekh was probably made so that his audience
would know where the anonymous mishnah was.
It might then be suggested, however, that in fact the statement ןנתו ליאוה"
" היתווכ אתריחבב itself indicates nothing special about mEd; the primary point is that
there is an anonymous mishnah elsewhere. This, however, is untenable because the
sugya in bQid 54b makes clear that an anonymous mishnah in the " אתריחב"
is more
authoritative than an anonymous mishnah elsewhere. We then assume that R. Yosef
mentions the tractate merely to identify its location. Nonetheless, it is puzzling why
R. Yosef should single out the tractate, something which occurs nowhere else except
with mEd.
282

Hebrew/Aramaic formulation in adducing a legal ruling, and hence the mixing of
language in our context is in itself not evidence of a composite statement.
The previous point, however, demonstrates only that there is no linguistic
evidence that " היתווכ אתריחבב ןנתו ליאוה"
must be late, but does not prove positively that
the statement is of amoraic origin. In the first of the three occurrences, R. H9isda uses
R. Kahana’s observation about the law being in accordance with R. Yehudah because
his opinion is supported by mEd. The passage reads:
ןנתו ליאוה הדוהי יברכ הכלה אנהכ בר רמא םתה קחצי ברל אדסח בר היל רמא
. ידימ אלו היל רמא אלו קיתשיא ? יאמ אכה . היתווכ אתריחבב
R. H9isda said to R. Yis[h[ak, “There R. Kahana said, "The law is in
accordance with R. Yehudah since it is taught according to his view in
Eduyot." Here, what is the ruling? He remained silent and said nothing
to him.”
He asks R. Yis[h9ak if the opinion of R. Yehudah by the afternoon prayers is accepted
as law in the same way R. Yehudah’s ruling is accepted by the morning prayers, but R.
Yitzh9ak does not have the answer. The citation of R. Kahana’s opinion with the
phrase " 'וכו
ןנתו ליאוה"
still does not prove that the phrase was actually used by R.
Kahana (or by R. H9isda) because the stam (or a leveling scribe) could have inserted
the expression in the R. H9isda’s citation just as it might have done so in its quotation
of R. Kahana’s. 6
6
R. H9isda’s question of extending the ruling according to R. Yehudah can be read
with or without the expression " ןנתו ליאוה"
. With the expression, the focus of the
question is whether or not there should be any preference in this case for R. Yehudah’s
opinion since there is no precedent in mEd to support him. Without the expression, R.
H9isda may simply be asking if R. Kahana’s was meant to apply to the entire mishnah,
or only to one dispute. Consequently, there is no evidence in either direction.
283

The sugya in bBek 25a reads:
… רוכב רעש ןנתד היתווכ אתריחבב ןנתו ליאוה הדוהי יברכ הכלה ןמחנ בר רמא
... רוכבב לדלודמה רמצ ןנתד אקיד ימנ
ןיתינתמ קחצי רב ןמחנ בר רמא
R. Nah9man said, “The law is in accordance with R. Yehudah since it is
taught according to his view in Eduyot”, as it is taught, “The hair of a
first-born ...”
R. Nah9man b. Yits[h9ak says, “It may also be inferred from our mishnah
as it is taught "The dangling wool of a first-born ...”
At first glance, the sugya would suggest that the attribution of authority to mEd was
part of R. Nah9man’s original statement. The sugya first cites R. Nah9man as ruling
according to R. Yehudah because the version of the debate (between Akavia and the
Sages) in mEd concurs with his approach. R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak uses the phrase,
ןיתינתמ"ימנ "אקיד , which implies that R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak is adducing and
additional reason to that of R. Nah9man. If we remove the expression היתווכ ןנתו ליאוה"
" אתריחבב from R. Nah9man’s statement than he is only making an assertion and not
offering a justification, and the " ימנ"
in R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak’s statement is out of
place. Further analysis, however, demonstrates that this is not at all compelling.
Despite the linguistic peculiarity, the expression of ןיתינתמ"ימנ"אקיד is used frequently
throughout the Bavli to back up an assertion where a ruling without any reason was
previously adduced. Specifically with R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak, we find two other
places (bEruv 72b, bGit[ 84a) where he seconds a statement of R. Nah9man (in the name
of Rav) who rules according to a particular tanna without any explicit reason. Hence
in this sugya, it is still conceivable that the reason " אתריחבב היתוככ ןנתו ליאוה"
could be
a later interpolation.
284

The sugya in bQid 54b, however, offers proof that (some of) the amoraim
already assumed the authoritative nature of mEd. The sugya begins with the assertion
of R. Adda b. Ahavah (2 nd generation) that we rule in accordance with R. Meir with
respect to ma(aser sheni being mamon gavoah and according to R. Yehudah that
Temple property (heqdesh) loses its sanctity when accidentally profaned
(" ללחתמ גגושב"
). In each case the reason is given, " היתווכ אנת ןל םתסו ליאוה"
, that an
anonymous mishnah assumes the given position. 7 The sugya then identifies the
relevant anonymous mishnayot and raises the problem that with regard to the issue of
ma(aser sheni, anonymous mishnayot can be found to support both positions. The
sugya then asserts that there are two anonymous mishnayot 8 which rule according to
R. Meir while there is only one according to R. Yehudah, and thus the law should
follow R. Meir’s opinion. This assertion is then challenged as irrelevant, אמתס יאו"
" אמתס ירת יל המ
9
, אמתס אדח יל המ אקווד , “If the proof is from the existence of an
7 Given the focus of the discussion, it is obvious that even R. Adda b. Ahavah’s
statement can also be broken up into two parts, with the explanation for the ruling
according to the two positions being an expansion belonging to a later layer. For the
purposes of our proof here, however, the issue is irrelevant.
8 Ironically, the “two” mishnayot are simply mEd with its parallel in mMS.
9 The assumption here is probably that the anonymous mishnah here provides proof of
a position because it demonstrates an editorial choice to present a particular position as
a given. If however, there are conflicting “givens”, then we can no longer assume that
there was a conscious editorial choice of a certain position, but rather that there are
multiple sources being incorporated into the mishnah without a conscious editorial
decision on the issue at stake, or that the editors of the Mishnah originally adopted one
position and later changed their mind. Either way, the appearance of multiple
anonymous mishnayot in no way demonstrates that the position contained within them
was the deliberate and final decision of the editors of the Mishnah.
285

anonymous mishnah, what difference does it make whether there are one or two
anonymous mishnayot [to back a given position]?” The sugya then cites R. Nah9man
b. Yitzh9ak that the ruling is according to R. Meir because the mishnah in mEd adopts
his opinion. If R. Nah9man’s original statement had not contained within it the last
portion, i.e. " אתריחבב היתווכ ןנתו ליאוה"
the sugya would have gained nothing by citing
R. Nah9man. The sugya itself should have responded to its own question of דח יל המ"
" 'וכו
אמתס with the assertion that any mishnah from mEd carries more weight. The
reason for quoting R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak was precisely because he attributes the
ruling to the anonymous mishnah’s appearance in mEd. 10
Thus, it is certain that R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak is aware of the special status of
mEd and hence the mixing of languages does not indicate two layers of composition.
If so, we have no real grounds to doubt that both R. Nah9man (of bBek 26a) and R.
Kahana (bBer 27a) are themselves citing such a tradition. While the amoraim are not
necessarily aware of the “baraita” in bBer about the origin of mEd, they certainly are
aware and accepting of its authoritative position.
10 The presentation of the sugya suggests that R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak is responding to
the question of the stam. Those who adopt the posture that the entire stam is late
might view R. Nah9man’s statement as an adaptation from some other sugya (which we
no longer possess) in which he ruled according to tanna x, because there was a
concurring mishnah in mEd. This approach, however, has no impact on the issue at
hand, which is that (somewhere) R. Nah9man b. Yitzh9ak attributes authority to mEd
and that the presence of the mixed Hebrew-Aramaic is to be attributed to the Amora
and not to a composite editing.
286

The Yerushalmi does not offer any explanation for the origin of mEd, but does
offer one explicit comment as to the nature of its authority. mYev 13:1 cites the
opinion of Beit Shammai who prohibit mi)un 11 in the case of a minor who has already
consummated her marriage ( האושנ)
. The Yerushalmi, at least initially, perceived this
view as contradicting the testimony of R. Yehudah b. Abba in mEd 6:1. The
Yerushalmi reads:
תונטקה תא
. תואושנו תוסורא
'וכ
ןינאממ ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיב
ןינאממש םירבד השמח דיעה אבא רב הדוי יבר ןנינת ןמת
? ןיקלוח תודע לעו
: ןתודע רקיע התיה ךכ ןיקלוח תודע רקיע לע
'ירמוא
ללה תיבו תוסורא אלא ןינאממ ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיב
Beit Shammai say, “We may not perform a mi)un etc.”
There we teach, “R. Yehudah b. Abba testified five things: that we
allow minors to perform mi)=un.”
Do they argue against “testimony”?
They argue about the contents of the testimony, i.e. thus was the
contents of the testimony:
Beit Shammai say, “One may perform mi)un only with betrothed
women”, but Beit Hillel says “With betrothed women and married
women (i.e. marriage with consummation)”.
The Yerushalmi (ad loc.) initially questions how Beit Shammai can argue with the
“edut” of R. Yehudah. 12 The response is that the debate between the Houses is a
11 The mishnah describes an institution by which a minor girl whose father was no
longer alive (or no longer regarded by halakha as her legal guardian, באה בייחב המותי)
could be married off by her mother or brother, but would be allowed, prior to puberty,
to dissolve the marriage without a get merely by indicating her ‘refusal’ to be married
to the man any longer. This kind of marriage is referred to as qiddushei mi)un.
12 In some ways, the query of the Yerushalmi is oddly anachronistic since the Houses
preceded R. Yehudah b. Beteira by at least one generation. R. Yehudah is a
contemporary of R. Akiva, whereas the “Houses” do not postdate the first generation
of Tannaim in Yavneh. It is conceivable that the challenge offered by the Yerushalmi
287

debate about the scope of the testimony of R. Yehudah. To the anonymous editor of
this sugya, the notion that somebody might argue against “edut” is inconceivable. It is
possible that the Yerushalmi was not necessarily relating to mEd but to any mishnah
which is presented with he(id. Nonetheless, since almost half of mEd is comprised of
such mishnayot, these two possibilities are almost one and the same.
On the other hand, there are two other examples in which the position of one of
the Houses conflicts with testimony found in mEd where the Yerushalmi does not
comment. yGit[ 5:6 cites a baraita as follows:
ללה תיבו ול וננתיו הריבה לכ עקעקי םירמוא יאמש תיב הריבב ואנבו שירמ לזג
. ןיבשה תנקת ינפמ ויוושב וימד ול ןתונ םירמוא
If one stole a beam and built it into a tower: Beit Shammai say, “He
should gut the tower and give it (i.e. return the beam) to him (i.e. the
rightful owner)”, but Beit Hillel say, “He may pay him its value in
money to facilitate the process of repentance.”
Here, Beit Shammai’s position conflicts directly with the testimony of R. Yoh9anan b.
Gudgedah in mEd 7:9, " וימד תא ןתיש הריבב ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו"
. ySheq 8:1, in the
course of a debate whether the blood of a neveilah is impure, quotes Rav Yosef who
asserts that the issue is debated by the tannaim:
אמט רמאד ןאמ ףסוי בר רמא ... רוהט אוהש תוליבנ םד לע אריתפ ןב עשוהי יבר דיעה
. הריתב ןב עשוהי יברכ רוהט רמאד ןאמו הדוהי יברכ
R. Yehoshua b. Beteirah testified regarding the blood of a neveilah 13 that
it is does not impart ritual impurity ... R. Yosef said, “The one who
declares [it] impure follows R. Yehudah, but the one who declares [it]
pure follows R. Yehoshua b. Beteirah.
is to the anonymous tanna of the mishnah (probably of Usha) who presents the debate
between the Houses in a way which conflicts with R. Yehudah b. Abba’s testimony.
13 An animal which died without a proper ritual slaughtering.
288

Rav Yosef claims that the one who declares the blood to be impure accepts the opinion
of Beit Hillel according to R. Yehudah found in mEd 5:1 whereas the one who
declares it pure follows R. Yehoshua. The Yerushalmi does not question how R.
Yehudah can argue against the edut of R. Yehoshua b. Beteirah.
In the latter example, it might be argued that since the debate of the Houses is
also found in mEd, it maintains the same status as R. Yehoshua b. Beteirah, but this
does not explain the former case. It is unclear whether there are differing opinion in
the Yerushalmi as to the authority of “edut” or if some other factor prevented the
Yerushalmi from challenging Beit Shammai’s position in the latter two cases. We can
say, however, that at least some in the Land of Israel regarded “edut” in the Mishnah,
and perhaps mEd, as special.
B. The Leniencies of Beit Shammai:
Mishnah Eduyot as an Authoritative Collection
i. Bavli
Both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi in several places assert that the collection of
debates between the Houses found in the fourth and fifth chapters of mEd, in which
Beit Shammai adopt the lenient position and Beit Hillel the stringent one, is
comprehensive, i.e. the report of any debate with such character not found in mEd
must be erroneous. In seven different sugyot in the Bavli, the rationale that any debate
between the Houses where Beit Hillel adopted the more stringent position should and
289

would have been listed in the fourth chapter of mEd is invoked. The principle is most
explicitly formulated by the sugya in bBekh 38a:
! ןנת אל ןנת אלד
-
ןנת ןנתד ןנאו ה"
ב ירמוחמו ש"
ב ילוקמ היל הוה ? אחינ ימ ריאמ יברלו
And according to R. Meir, does it work well? It would be among the
leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and those
which we have taught are taught, but those which we have not are not.
The assumption behind such a proposition is twofold: 1)The list found in mEd was
intended as a complete list and 2) no one is going to argue against what is found in
mEd, not even a tanna such as R. Meir. This particular passage is anonymous and thus
can only be assumed to be relatively late. The other six passages are not quite as stark
in the formulation. They all use the argument that the list in mEd is complete, but
none go as far as denying the possibility of a tanna disagreeing. 14
The seven sugyot in the Bavli which invoke the notion of mEd containing all
of the stringencies of Beit Hillel can be broken down into two categories. In three of
the cases (bYom 80a, bZev 38b, bH9ul 52b), amoraim invoke the principle. In all three
R. Hoshaya (3 nd generation, Bavel & Eretz Yisrael) is the one who raises the issue. In
the first and third case he challenges an interpretation of a mishnah/baraita that was
put forth by Rav Yehudah (2 nd generation, Bavel) in the name of Shmuel. In the
second case, R. Hoshaya appears to be challenging the opinion of R. Eliezer b.
14 If one assumes that the Bavli accepts R. Yoh9anan’s premise in the Yerushalmi
(yShab 7:2 and elsewhere) that the fourth chapter of mEd which is anonymous
represents the opinion of R. Meir, then one could reinterpret the question and argue
and argue that the Bavli wasn’t challenging R. Meir’s right to disagree, but rather was
asserting that a particular approach can’t be used to explain R. Meir’s position because
if it were, R. Meir would be contradicting himself by not listing a particular debate in
his section of mEd.
290

Yaakov found in the baraita (tEd 2:6, tZev 4:9). In all three, the response to his
question is that the debate between the Houses produces, for each side, a stringency in
one area and a leniency in another, and that the context in which the mishnah or
baraita was originally discussed involved a leniency for Beit Hillel and thus it was not
relevant to mEd. The answer is formulated as:
291
. לישתיא x ןינעל , לישתיא יכ
Implicit in the answer is the notion that while a particular debate may produce
leniencies and stringencies, its inclusion in mEd depends purely upon the original
context in which it was raised. 15
While this answer may seem forced, 16 the third case (bH9ul 58b) provides
support for this thesis. The Houses debate how much bone must be lacking from the
skull or spine to render it “lacking” ( רסח)
. Beit Hillel posit a smaller size than Beit
Shammai. The argument has ramifications in the laws of Oholot, where the spine will
no longer convey ritual impurity in an ohel (and hence Beit Hillel’s position is the
lenient one) and in the laws of tereifot, where the animal will be considered defective
and hence inedible (and thus Beit Shammai, with the larger size/amount, is the lenient
one). The response to R. Hoshaya of יאמש תיב והל ווהד , לישתיא האמוט ןינעל - לישתיא יכ"
15 This assumption, prima facie, does not seemed to be shared by the Yerushalmi in
the beginning of the eighth chapter of mKet (=mPe 6:2) where the assumption is made
that if the case produces both a stringency and a leniency it will not be counted at all
in mEd.
16 On the other hand Rav Yehudah (bYom 80a) argues that the issue under discussion
was raised with respect to (Og (king of Bas]an), who was, according to Deuteronomy
3:11, a giant. Thus, while in principle this kind of an answer is not necessarily forced,
the scenario here is.

" ארמוחל,
is, in fact, reflected in the mishnah itself. That is, the mishnah appears only
in mAh. Shmuel was the one who extended its application to tereifot. One might very
well argue that the answer itself was an interpretation of the fact that the debate
appears only in mAh. 17
In all three cases, an amora responds to R. Hoshaya’s challenge. The response
in the first begins with " היל רמא"
, indicating that Rav Yehudah himself responds to the
challenge. In the latter two, Rava 18 responds to the challenge. In the second, R.
Hoshaya challenges R. Eliezer b. Yaakov’s opinion which suggests that even a tanna
had no authority to challenge the list in mEd. It is unclear whether he was questioning
the right of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov to disagree, or whether he was challenging the
accuracy of the one citing the baraita. In any case, these three sugyot demonstrate that
the “canonical” status which the stam in bBekh (38b) attributes to mEd was already
assumed (by some) in the middle amoraic period. 19
17 If the latter possibility is correct, then we could suggest, in fact, that this case was
the original source for the argument that an ambiguous case’s placement in Eduyot
depended upon its original context. There is no compelling evidence, however, that
the answer given in the other two sugyot were ha(avarot created by the sugyot in the
Bavli.
18 In our texts in bH9ul, the respondent is Rav, which is quite unlikely because Rav
would not likely have been defending Shmuel’s dictum in the presence of someone
who was two generations later than himself, assuming that R. Hoshaya was born soon
enough to have even met Rav. Every one of the manuscript witnesses as well as the
Soncino printing contain Rava. The confusion of Rav, Rabbah and Rava is a common
occurrence due to scribal abbreviations.
19
Interestingly, the baraita of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov does appear in tEd where it
supplements the lists found in mEd.
292

The other four sugyot appear in the anonymous layer of the Bavli. Two (bH9ul
105a, bAra 27b) involve a debate between the Houses and an independent amoraic
statement that addresses the same issue. In both cases the sugya (re)interprets the
Houses’ debate (a) to avoid lining up the position of the amora with that of Beit
Shammai and (b) to avoid having Beit Shammai adopt the lenient position, since the
debate does not appear in mEd. To illustrate, the sugya in bH9ul 104b-105a records a
debate regarding the required action to eat meat immediately after eating cheese:
חידמ םירמוא ללה תיבו חנקמ םירמוא יאמש תיב אינת
? חידמ יאמו חנקמ יאמ
חנקמ יעב אלו חידמ םירמוא ללה תיבו חידמ יעב אלו חנקמ םירמוא יאמש תיב אמיליא
? ש"
בכ ןאמכ תפב אלא הפ חוניק ןיא אריז יבר רמאד אה אלא
חידמ ףא םירמוא ללה תיבו חידמ יעב אלו חנקמ םירמוא יאמש תיב אלא
תיב ירמוחו יאמש תיב ילוק יבג היינתלו ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ היל יוה
. ללה
חנקמל
ןידה אוהו חידמ םירמוא ה"
בו חידמל ןידה אוהו חנקמ םירמוא יאמש תיב אלא
. יגילפ אלו אדח רמא רמו אדח רמא רמ
It is taught, “Beit Shammai say, "One must wipe", but Beit Hillel say,
“One must rinse." ”
What does it mean “One must wipe” and “One must rinse”?
If we say that it means that Beit Shammai say one must wipe but need
not rinse and Beit Hillel say that one must rinse but need not wipe; if
so, that which R. Zeira taught, “Wiping can be done only with bread”,
is taught like whom? Beit Shammai?
Rather it must be, that Beit Shammai say that one must wipe but need
not rinse, whereas Beit Hillel say that one must also rinse.
If so, it is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of
Beit Hillel and let it be taught among the leniencies of Beit Shammai
and stringencies of Beit Hillel [in mEd].
Rather, it must be that Beit Shammai say that one must wipe, or rinse
[instead] and Beit Hillel say that one must rinse, or wipe [instead]; each
one has stated one [option] but there is no argument between them.
The simple reading of the baraita is that Beit Shammai require one action and Beit
Hillel a different one. To avoid aligning R. Ze(ira’s statement with the position of
293

Beit Shammai the sugya suggests that Beit Hillel require both actions. If so, however,
Beit Hillel is the more stringent view (and the debate is not enumerated in mEd).
Therefore, the sugya reinterprets the debate between the Houses as not being a debate
at all; rather, each one mentions one of the two acceptable options, and thus it has no
relevance to the collection in mEd.
A third (bBekh 38a – already mentioned) involves a challenge to R. Papa’s
interpretation of mAh 2:3 which he adopted to solve a contradiction with the opinion
of Shmuel. The final case (bBekh 30b) addresses a baraita in which the opinions of
the Houses appear and in which it seems that Beit Shammai’s opinion is the lenient
one:
? ותוא ןילבקמ המכ דע ר"
ת
שדוח רשע םינש תוסכל םוי םישלש ןיקשמל םירמוא יאמש תיב
שדוח רשע םינשל הז דחאו הז דחא םירמוא ללה תיבו
ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ היל הוה ןכ םא
. םישלשל הז דחאו הז דחא םירמוא ללה תיב אלא
It was taught by our Rabbis: At what point do we accept (trust) him
(one who wishes to become a h9aver, i.e. how long does he have to be
observing the rules before he is trusted)?
Beit Shammai say, “For [relying upon the purity of] his liquids,
thirty days. For [his] clothing, twelve months.”
Beit Hillel say, “For this and that, after twelve months.”
If so, it is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of
Beit Hillel?
Rather [read], “Beit Hillel say, "This and that, after thirty days." ”
The anonymous sugya emends the text of the baraita because the debate does not
appear in mEd. 20
20 Interestingly enough, all of the manuscripts of tDem 2:12 read in accordance with
the emendation of the Bavli’s sugya. Unfortunately, we cannot determine whether the
texts of the Tosefta were emended to match the Bavli’s version or if the intuition of
294

ii. Yerushalmi
The Yerushalmi contains six different passages which relate to mEd as an
authoritative collection of the leniencies of Beit Shammai. The passages can be
broken down into three categories.:
1) Two involve the reinterpretation of a debate between the Houses, thereby
explaining why they aren’t in mEd.
2) Three discuss disputes of the Houses which do not appear in mEd and the
reasons that they don’t; in doing so, they don’t actually reinterpret the debate between
the Houses.
3) One case relates to the authorship of one of the mishnayot in the fourth
chapter of mEd, but does not actually relate to the relevance of a debate to the
collection. In other words, the debate belongs in mEd, but the amoraim are discussing
which Tanna from the period of Usha taught this mishnah as part of the collection. 21
a) Category 1
mEruv 6:4 discusses the ability of a Jew who failed to join in the courtyard’s
eruv to renounce his rights in the courtyard and thereby enable everybody else to carry
into and out of the courtyard. The mishnah there (as we have it) reads:
. הכישחשמ םירמוא
ללה
תיבו
םוי דועבמ םירמוא יאמש תיב
תושר ןינתונ יתמיאמ
the sugya regarding the completeness of mEd’s fourth chapter was correct and the
Tosefta cites the original text.
21 Each of the mishnayot in the fifth chapter which collect debates between the Houses
are attributed to one of the major Tannaim: R. Yehudah, R. Yose, R. Shimon and R.
Elazar. In all of the mishnayot in the fourth chapter, the debates are presented
anonymously.
295

When must one give permission? Beit Shammai say, “From before the
Sabbath”, but Beit Hillel say, “After it becomes dark.”
The Yerushalmi (ibid.) comments:
ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ אתינתמ איה ןכ לד ךשחתשמ
םירמוא ללה תיב אתינתמ יניכ
. ללה תיב
The following is the text of our mishnah, “Beit Hillel say, "After it
becomes dark." ”, for if not it would be from the leniencies of Beit
Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
It appears that the Yerushalmi possessed a mishnah with the positions reversed, i.e.
that Beit Hillel require that the renunciation take place before the Shabbat and Beit
Shammai permit it even on the Shabbat. 22 The sugya concludes by reversing the
positions to explain the debate’s absence from mEd.
Similarly, mYev 6:6 records a debate between the Houses as to the number and
gender of children which meet the requirements of the Biblical commandment of
procreation (Gen. 1:28). The mishnah states:
םינב ול שי ןכ םא אלא היברו הירפמ םדא לטבי אל
םירכז ינש םירמוא יאמש תיב
. הבקנו רכז םירמוא ללה תיבו
A person should not cease procreating until he has children:
Beit Shammai say, “Two males.”
Beit Hillel say, “A male and a female.”
It follows from the mishnah that in a scenario in which a person has two sons, he is
exempt from further procreation according to Beit Shammai but not according to Beit
Hillel. We read in the Yerushalmi:
22 This reading follows that of the Qorban Ha(edah in his commentary ad loc.; see the
Pnei Moshe there who interprets differently.
296

ירמוחמו
יאמש תיב ילוקמ אתינתמ איה ןכלד הבקנו רכז וליפא הכירצ ןכל ןוב יבר רמא
. ללה תיב
R. Avin said, “It must be "Even a male and female", for if not it would
be among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit
Hillel.”
According to R. Avin 23 Beit Hillel’s position is that even a son and daughter suffice to
fulfill the precept - and certainly two sons; otherwise the debate would have appeared
in mEd. 24
b) Category 2
mShev 1:1 records a debate between the Houses as to the final time in the year
preceding the Sabbatical year when one may still plow the fields. The mishnah reads:
תיעיבש ברע ןליאה הדשב ןישרוח יתמיא דע
ירפל הפי אוהש ןמז לכ םירמוא יאמש תיב
. ולא ירבדכ תויהל ולא ירבד ןיבורקו תרצעה דע םירמוא ללה תיבו
Until when may we plow a field of trees in the year before the
Sabbatical year?
Beit Shammai say, “As long as it is good for the fruit.”
Beit Hillel say, “Until Shavuot”, and their opinions are very close to
one another.
The Yerushalmi (ibid.) comments:
23 It is unclear whether this is the first R. Avin (3 rd generation) or the second (4 th or
5 th ).
24 The approach adopted in the Yerushalmi here is at odds with the assumption made
in two of the three sugyot of the second category (yShev 1:1 and yYom 8:2) which
assume that the adoption of the stringent position by Beit Hillel only qualifies a debate
to be listed in mEd if the stringency holds true in every scenario. Applying that
reasoning to this mishnah, one would argue that since in a case where a man had
fathered one daughter and only one son Beit Hillel would rule leniently and exempt
him from further procreation, the debate does not qualify for the list in mEd. See
Rashba (mYev 61b, s.v. םלוע לש ותיירבמ יפלי ללה תיבו) where he attributes this approach
to the Bavli thus explaining why the Bavli is not troubled by R. Avin’s question.
297

ירבדכ
תרצעל
? ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ התינת אל המלו
'דוק
שורחל דיתע אוהו היוצמ החילה ןיאו ןייוצמ םימשגה ןיאש םימעפ
. תרצעה דע םירמוא ללה תיב יאמש תיב
Why was this not taught among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and
stringencies of Beit Hillel?
Because there are times when rain is scarce and there is little moisture
and he will plow [only until some time] before Shavuot according to
the opinion of Beit Shammai but Beit Hillel say that [he will be
permitted to plow] up until Shavuot.
\
According to the Yerushalmi, even though in some years, due to climatic conditions,
Beit Hillel’s position would result in a stringency, nonetheless the debate is not cited
in mEd since there are years in which it produces a leniency. The sugya assumes that
in order to qualify to be listed in mEd, Beit Hillel’s position must be the stringent one
in every scenario.
Similarly, mYom 8:2 delineates the requisite amount of food for which one
violates the Biblical prohibition for eating on the Day of Atonement. According to the
sugya in the Yerushalmi, the position of Beit Shammai is that the amount is fixed at a
revi(it. The Yerushalmi assumes Beit Hillel’s position to be a ' וימגול אלמ',
a half of a
mouthful of liquid, which (for average sized human beings) is smaller than a revi‘it. 25
We read (mYom 8:2):
תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ התנינת אל המלו אנמ יבר ימוק אעב אדא רב הייח יבר
. תיעיברמ רתוי קיזחמ היהש חיטבא ןב לש ומגול ינפמ היל
רמא ? ללה
R. H9iyya b. Ada asked in the presence of R. Mana, “Why have we not
taught it among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit
Hillel?” He said to him, “Because of the cheekful of ben-Avatiah9
which held more than a revi(t.”
25 For whatever reason, there is no source cited in the Yerushalmi for the position of
Beit Hillel. It is from the ensuing discussion that this assumption is apparent.
298

R. Mana’s responds to R. H9iyya that the size of a " וימגול אלמ"
is only smaller than a
revi(it for average-sized people – but in the case of a large person, the revi(it would be
smaller and thus Beit Hillel’s view would be the lenient one. Therefore, the debate is
not enumerated in mEd.
The resolution of this case is similar to that of the parallel in the Bavli (bYom
80b) but differs in one significant way. The Bavli assumes that a debate which
produces stringencies in some scenarios and leniencies in others is not automatically
excluded from enumeration in mEd. Rather, it depends upon the scenario for which
the mishnah was originally formulated, i.e. ' לישתיא --- ןינעל לישתיא יכ';
if the original
mishnaic context were as such that Beit Hillel were stringent, then despite the fact that
in some scenarios their position is the lenient one, the debate must be listed in mEd. 26
For the Yerushalmi, however, the “original context” of the mishnah is irrelevant – in
order to be enumerated in mEd, Beit Hillel’s being the stringent position must hold
true in every scenario.
The third case is connected with the mKet 8:1 in which the Houses debate
whether a betrothed women may sell assets she inherited after the betrothal: Beit
Shammai permit and Beit Hillel, ipso facto, prohibit. The Yerushalmi reads:
ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ התנינת אל המלו יסוי יבר ימוק אעב סחניפ יבר
ןידדצ ינשמ לקו ןידדצ ינשמ רמוח אוהש רבד אלא אתינתמ ןניתא אל היל רמא
. דחא דצמ לקו דחא דצמ אוה רמוח אכה םרב
26 As we demonstrated above, it is sometimes possible to identify the context in which
an issue was raised originally. However, in most of the cases it is not clear how the
amoraim knew the original context of the mishnah is not clear. To some extent the
answer is circular, i.e. since the mishnah is not found in mEd, it must be that the
context in which it was formulated was one where Beit Hillel was the lenient opinion.
299

R. Pinh[as asked in the presence of R. Yose, “Why have we not taught it
among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel?”
He said to him, “The mishnah only brings a case which is stringent
from both perspectives and lenient from both perspectives, but here it is
stringent from one perspective but lenient from the other.”
According to R. Yose, in an ordinary monetary case where one side’s gain is the
other’s loss, we cannot speak of a ruling being “stringent” or “lenient” – what is a
stringency for one side is a leniency for the other and visa versa. In this case, allowing
the woman to sell is a leniency for the woman, but at the same time is a stringency for
the man; not allowing the woman to sell is, in effect, a stringency for the woman but a
leniency for the man.
c) Category 3
R. Yoh9anan quotes R. Meir asserting that there are twenty-four cases among
the leniencies of Beit Shammai. 27 It is generally assumed 28 that R. Yoh9anan was
attributing the anonymous mishnayot of the fourth chapter of mEd (which contains
approximately twenty-four disputes) to R. Meir. 29 yBes9 1:1 (=yShab 7:2) quotes
27 yShab 7:2, yBes9 1:3, ySot[ 3:8 and yNaz 4:6.
28 See Epstein (Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, p. 435) who notes that there are only
twenty-two in the chapter. He attempts to locate the twenty-fourth debate in tEd.
Whether one agrees with Epstein’s speculation, it is hard to argue with the larger
point, i.e. that chapter four represents mishnat R. Meir.
29
This supposition of R. Yoh9anan is in all likelihood correct since the only major
tanna of Usha who does not have a collection enumerated and attributed to him at the
beginning of the fifth chapter is R. Meir. His supposition follows the principle of םתס"
" ריאמ יבר הנשמ.
300

amoraim who attribute mBes9 1:1 (=mEd 4:1) to R. Shimon. 30 Other amoraim
challenge the attribution because it contradicts R. Yoh9anan’s opinion that the twenty-
four debates in the fourth chapter represent R. Meir’s opinion. The discussion
concludes by suggesting that R. Meir agrees with R. Shimon on the point under
discussion and hence R. Meir is also in agreement with the presentation of the
mishnah.
The common denominator of all of these sugyot except the last is that, just as
in the Bavli, they all assume that the collection of the leniencies of Beit Shammai in
mEd is complete. The earliest period to which this view can be definitively dated is
the third generation (R. Yose in yKet 8:1=yPe 6:2). The citation of R. Yoh9anan does
not prove that he viewed the list as authoritatively comprehensive, but merely that he
viewed the fourth chapter of mEd as a list of these disputes according to R. Meir. The
possibility still exists for R. Yoh9anan (according to the Yerushalmi) that there are
leniencies of the Houses which are not mentioned in mEd.
30 According to the understanding of the mishnah in this sugya both Houses, in
principle (i.e. putting aside the issue of muqs9eh), permit digging on a festival to cover
the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal. R. Illa posits that it follows R.
Shimon’s position that הפוגל הכירצ הניאש הכאלמ (an act of work on the Sabbath or
festival which is done not for its usual purpose) is forbidden only by Rabbinic edict,
and hence digging a hole, which is a form of שרוח, is only forbidden scripturally when
one needs the hole (as opposed to just the dirt).
301

II. The Textual Evidence of the Bavli and Yerushalmi
A. Sections of mEd appearing in all of the manuscript witnesses which appear to
have been later additions based upon evidence in the Bavli or Yerushalmi 31
1) mEd 1:1-2 32
'מכחו
הברה םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןתעש ןייד ןישנה לכ 'מוא
ימש
הדיקפמו הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
: תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל
תעמ די לע תטעממו הדיקפכ וז ירה ןידיעב תשמשמה התעש הייד תסוו הל שיש השא לכ
. הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לעו תעל
Shammai says, “All woman convey ritual impurity from the time of their
period [i.e. not retroactively at all].” (Beit) Hillel says, “Retroactively
until the last examination, even if it was many days prior.”
But the Sages say, “Neither like this nor that opinion but rather that
twenty-four hours limits the period of the last examination [i.e. if it was
more than twenty-four hours prior] and an examination limits the period
of twenty-four hours [i.e. if it was done within the last twenty-four]
hours.”
Any woman who has a regular period does not convey impurity
retroactively. One who engages in intercourse using inspection-cloths is
viewed as [having performed] an examination and limits the twenty-four
hour period or the period until the previous examination.
31
See Epstein in Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 946-974 ( תופסוהו תופסות)
where he
collects post-tannaitic additions to the Mishnah which were the product either of
baraitot being incorporated into the Mishnah or comments of the amoraim influencing
the text of the Mishnah. Almost every later addition he cites there finds support in the
manuscript evidence. On the whole, the material which we explore in this first section
does not rest at all on manuscript evidence. On the contrary, we are suggesting that
there were changes in the text of the Mishnah despite the lack of any manuscript
evidence.
32 In MS Kaufmann in mEd the addendum is the second mishnah, but in most of the
manuscripts, including the parallel in MS Kaufmann in mNid, they are one mishnah.
302

The mishnah is the first of three debates between Shammai and Hillel where the
Sages who follow them in the mishnah disagree with both אלו הז ירבדכ אל םירמוא םימכחו")
("... הז ירבדכ.
It appears that the first mishnah originated in mNid and was transferred into
mEd no earlier than the second generation of Babylonian amoraim. Several pieces of
evidence, when taken together, point in this direction:
i) The first mishnah appears verbatim elsewhere in the Mishnah (mNid 1:1),
whereas the second and third do not appear at all. 33
ii) The first mishnah is followed by a related issue within the laws of niddah
which is irrelevant to the theme of the current section in mEd (i.e. the disputes of
Shammai, Hillel and the Sages). That section appears in mNid as the continuation of the
first mishnah. The inclusion of the addendum makes sense only if we assume that the
two pieces existed in mNid as one unit and were copied into mEd intact. 34
iii) The first mishnah is not alluded to or expanded upon in the tEd, but is
elaborated upon in tNid, 35 whereas the latter two are cited and expanded upon in tEd.
33 The conclusions of the Sages are, however, assumed elsewhere. One-and-a-quarter
qab is the amount of dough which mH9al in several places assumes to be required for
there to be an obligation to separate h9allah and three lugin of drawn water is assumed
throughout mMiq to be the amount which invalidates a ritual-bath.
34
In bShab 15a, the citation of the mishnah ends without citing what is the second
mishnah in our text, again suggesting that the second part is not relevant to the first part.
Of course, it is equally possible that the lack of the second part is a function of scribes
who abbreviated (although every one of the extant manuscripts omit the second
mishnah), or perhaps of the sugya only citing the part of the mishnah which was relevant.
With regard to this last possibility, however, we should note that the second dispute
regarding the measurement of flour liable for h9allah, is cited in complete form in the
sugya; it includes the part of the mishnah from " תודמה ולידגהשמ"
until the end which could
just as easily have been left out.
35
tNid 1:1:
? הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ דציכ
הקדב אלו ישילש םויו יהנש םוי הל הבשיו הרוהט תאצמו תבשב דחאב המצע הקדב
.
הדיקפל הדיקפמ אלא תעל תעמ האמטמ הניא וז ירה האמט תאצמו הקדב יעיברבו
303

iv) In bShab 15a, R. Huna asserts that Shammai and Hillel themselves (as
opposed to their schools of disciples) dispute only three issues. Either R. Huna or the
(later) editor of the sugya proceeds to cite the three mishnayot which form our unit (mEd
1:1-4), but cites the second and third mishnayot followed by the first. Had the collection
of mEd, as it existed at the time, included the first mishnah, the order should have
matched ours. If, however, we assume that the mishnah did not, in R. Huna’s or the
editor’s era, appear in mEd then the order can be explained easily: the two mishnayot
from mEd were cited first followed by the mishnah from mNid.
The only alternate explanation would be that the mishnayot appeared in a
different order and that what is currently first mishnah was once the last. The mishnah
which follows in mEd (1:5), however, makes this difficult. The mishnah reads:
לע דמוע םדא אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל ןלטבל ללהו ימש ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו
. ןהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא ירהש ורבד
Why do we mention the opinions of Shammai and Hillel to nullify them
(i.e. if they are for naught)? To teach future generations not to
stubbornly adhere to one’s opinion since the Fathers of the World did not
stubbornly adhere to their opinions.
At first glance, this mishnah could be construed as a comment on the entire unit, in
which case it would indicate nothing about the internal ordering of first unit. However,
the language employed here of " ןלטבל ... ירבד"
(in contrast to "כ אלא הכלה ןיאו ליאוה" of
? תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל הדיקפמ דציכו
הקדב יעיברלו הקדב אלו שלשו תועש יתש הבשיו הרוהט תאצמ תירחש המצע הקדב
תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל הדיקפמו . הדיקפל הדיקפמ
האמטמ הניא וז ירה האמט האצמו
. תעל
The description of the הדיקפ here is clearly not that of the " םידעב
תשמשמה"
described in
the addendum to the mishnah, and hence the tosefta is expanding on the first part of the
mishnah which deals with Shammai, Hillel and the Sages, and not on the addendum.
Were the latter possible, one could argue that the first part of the mishnah did not have to
have been originally in mNid when this tosefta was compiled.
304

mEd 1:6) suggests that the mishnah is a response to "םהירבד תא ומייקו" of mEd 1:4.
Indeed, tEd (1:2) understands the mishnah as relating specifically to the last of the three
disputes between Shammai and Hillel:
דורי םוקמ ךל ןיאו ידרג אלא הדורי תונמוא ןיא אלהו םתונמוא םשו םמוקמ םש המלו
המכ תחא לע העומש םוקמב ןהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא המ אלא תופשאה רעשמ
. העומש םוקמב וירבד לע דמוע םדא אלש המכו
Why were their names and occupations mentioned? Because there is no
more menial profession than a weaver and no more abject a place than
the Dung Gate and nonetheless, just as the Fathers of the World did not
stubbornly adhere to their views in the face of a [contrary] tradition, it is
a fortiori that a[n ordinary] person should not stubbornly adhere to his
views in the face of a [contrary] tradition.
The Tosefta here takes the answer given by the mishnah and uses it to answer a different
question (which clearly relates only to the third mishnah), but in doing so reveals its
understanding of the intent of the mishnah's answer, i.e. "העומש םוקמב". The only one of
the three disputes which involved a " העומש"
was the last. 36
v) The removal of the first mishnah allows some sense to be made of the order
of citation of the opinions of Shammai and Hillel in the opening section. In the first and
second mishnayot Shammai’s opinion is cited first, while in the second Hillel’s is. In
the first and third mishnayot Hillel is the more stringent opinion. There appears to be no
36 One might argue that the Tosefta does not reflect the original intent of the Mishnah,
but such an approach is unlikely in light of the fact that this expansion does not seem to
be a conscious attempt at interpretation, but simply an addition-in-passing of the obvious.
Combined with the syntactic observation regarding the verbs used in the mishnayot 1:4
and 1:5, this scenario is unlikely.
Although I would acknowledge the circularity in the approach, if we are correct
regarding R. H9una's collection being the catalyst for the first mishnah's inclusion in mEd
(see the continuation of the text above), then whoever incorporated the mishnah into mEd
also probably felt that 1:4 and 1:5 were connected in a manner which prevented the
insertion at the end of the pre-existing unit of mishnayot 1:3 and 1:4.
305

consistent rule as to why Shammai and Hillel are presented in the order which they
are. 37 When one removes the first from the collection, the principle of ordering
Shammai and Hillel becomes more stringent to less stringent. 38
Thus it is likely that by the time of R. H9una the first mishnah was not yet in
mEd. It is likely that R. H9una's collecting of the material served as the catalyst for its
(conscious or unconscious) incorporation into mEd. When it was incorporated into mEd
is unknown. One can only be certain that by the time of R. H9ananel 39 (or the writing of
MS Kaufmann if it is dated to the tenth century) it exists in the corpus of mEd.
37
As a general rule, Beit Shammai usually is presented before Beit Hillel. This almost
ubiquitous literary aspect, is probably reflected in Shmuel’s comments cited in bEruv
13b:
םירמוא וללה , ללה תיבו יאמש תיב וקלחנ םינש שלש : לאומש רמא אבא יבר רמא
םיהלא ירבד ולאו ולא : הרמאו לוק תב האצי . ונתומכ הכלה םירמוא וללהו ונתומכ הכלה
תיב וכז המ ינפמ םייח םיהלא ירבד ולאו ולאש רחאמ יכו . ללה תיבכ הכלהו , ןה םייח
. יאמש תיב ירבדו ןהירבד ןינושו , ויה ןיבולעו ןיחונש ינפמ - ןתומכ הכלה עובקל ללה
ושאר היהש ימ : ונינשש התואכ . ןהירבדל יאמש תיב ירבד ןימידקמש אלא דוע אלו
ללה תיב ורמא . ןירישכמ ללה תיבו ןילסופ יאמש תיב , תיבה ךותב ונחלשו הכוסב ובורו
... ללה תיב ינקזו יאמש תיב ינקז וכלהש השעמ היה ךכ אל : יאמש תיבל
While Shmuel’s comments relate directly to the underlined portion which was a direct
quotation of Beit Hillel, it is highly likely that is also reflecting the common order in
which the Houses’ opinions are cited. See the comments of Ritva, s.v. א לא דוע אלו.
Epstein (Mevo)ot leSifrut HaTannaim, p. 430) asserts, based upon the order of
presentation, that the mishnayot stem from different sources. Once the first mishnah
from mEd is recognized as a late addition, his explanation is no longer needed.
38 It should be noted, however, that this argument alone could be employed to argue that
the third dispute was a later addition on to the first two. In such a case, as expected,
Shammai precedes Hillel. One can not, however, use this argument to support the
second mishnah being a later addition to the unit.
39
In his commentary to bShab 15a he writes:
ןלוכו 'וכ
הלח בקמ רמוא ימש ללהו ימש וקלחנ תומוקמ 'גב
לאומש רמא הדוהי בר רמא
.
אתריחב תכסמ איהו תוידע תלחתב ונתנשמב םישרופמ
306

2) mEd 2:4
ינב לכל הולמ היהו דחא ןקז וב היהו םלשורי דצב היהש ןטק רפכ לע דיעה אוה ףא
הטיג תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל התא ךכרד יפל ןימתוח ןירחאו ודי בתכב בתוכו רפכה
וימתוחב אלא טגה םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא בתוכ שיאהו
He also testified about a small village near Jerusalem in which there was
an elder who would lend to all of the citizens writing [the loan document]
in his own hand while others would sign [as witnesses] and when matter
was brought before the Sages they approved the practice. Incidentally,
one learns that a woman may write her own bill of divorce and a man
may write his own receipt [for the ketubah] because the validity of a
document derives from its signatories.
This mishnah, the third testimony of R. H9ananiah, does not appear elsewhere in
the Mishnah, with the exception of the clause beginning with " ךכרד יפל"
. The clause as
presented appears to be a gloss and the sugya in the bGit[ 20b-21a demonstrates that it
was not in the Mishnah possessed by Abaye, Rava or R. Ashi.
The sugya in bGit[ cites Rami b. ama who raises the question of whether or not
a writ of divorce written on something originally belonging to the wife is valid. The
Halakah requires that the husband own the piece of paper and then transfer it to his wife
in the process of divorcing her. The underlying issue of the question, as understood by
the subsequent amoraim, is whether or not the woman will understand that in order for
the get to be valid she must transfer to her husband the ownership of the physical material
on which the get is written. The sugya reads: 40
úçúî äàöåé àéä éøäå äéìò áåúë èâå äìù àéäù àìáèá ïé÷æçåî åéä אמח רב ימר יעב
? ייונקאל העדי אל ( השא)
אמלד וא היל אתינקא ייונקא ןנירמא ימ ? åäî åãé
40 The portions of the sugya which must be regarded as amoraic, as opposed to the
work of the stam, have been highlighted in bold (and use a different font). In this case
the stam’s formulation of the two sides of Rami b. H9ama’s query and of the intent of
Abaye’s response stems directly from Rava and R. Ashi’s statements. We assume that
at least Rava understood what Rami and Abaye’s intent was since he was their
contemporary. Even if, however, Rava had misunderstood Abaye’s intent, the point
we make about the text in mEd is still salient with respect to Rava and R. Ashi.
307

R. b. H9ama asked, “If they assumed a tablet to be belong to her and a bill of
divorce is written upon it and it is in her possession, what is the law (i.e. is she
divorced)? Do we say that she transferred possession of it to him (so that he
would legally be giving her a bill of divorce which belongs to him) or perhaps
she does not know that she must transfer it (possession of the writing surface) to
him?”
äéäå ãçà ï÷æ åá äéäå íéìùåøé ãöá äéäù ïè÷ øôë ìò ãéòä àåä óà ù"
ú ייבא רמא ( 1
íéîëç éðôì äùòî àáå íéîúåç íéøçàå åãé áúëá áúåëå øôëä éðá ìëì äåìî
ןנירמאד םושמ ואל אלא ! אכילו הנקמ רפס אניעב אה ? יאמאו ; ( ד:
ב תוידע הנשמ)
åäåøéùëäå
. והל הנקמ ייונקא
! ééåð÷àì òãéã éðàù ï÷æ àîìéã ? àéùå÷
éàîå אבר רמא
Abaye said: “Come and listen: "He also testified about a small village near
Jerusalem in which there was an elder who would lend to all of the citizens
writing [the loan document] in his own hand while others would sign [as
witnesses] and when matter was brought before the Sages they approved the
practice." But why? We require a sefer miqneh (i.e. that the document belong to
the borrower and then given to the lender)! Rather, it must be that we assume
that he (the elder) certainly transferred possession of it (the document) to him (the
borrower).
Rava said to him, “And what is the question? Perhaps an elder is different in that
he knows (i.e. is aware of the requirement) to transfer possession of it.”
הנשמ)
. ïéøåç éðá íéñëðî äáåâ úåøèù íåúéç øçàì àöåéä áøò àëäî
! ééåð÷àì òãéã éðàù àøáâ àîìã ? àéùå÷ éàî
308
אבר רמא אלא ( 2
( ח:
י ב"
ב
ישא בר רמא
Instead, Rava said, “ From here: "[From] a guarantor who appears after the
signing of the [loan] document, one can collect only from the properties currently
in his possession (i.e. there is no lien on any properties that the guarantor sold
subsequent to providing the guarantee.)" ”
Rav Ashi said, “And what is the question? Perhaps a man (as opposed to a
woman) is different in that he knows (i.e. is aware of the requirement) to transfer
possession of it.”
íåé÷ ïéàù åøáåù úà áúåë ùéàäå äèéâ úà úáúåë äùà àëäî ישא בר רמא אלא ( 3
( ה:
ב ןיטיג הנשמ)
. åéîúåçá àìà èâä
Instead, Rav Ashi said, “From here: "A woman may write her own bill of divorce
and a man may write his own receipt [for the ketubah] because the validity of a
document derives from its signatories." ”

Abaye attempts to demonstrate that the process is valid by citing our mishnah from mEd
which asserts that a lender may pay for the loan document (even though the borrower
must own it) and then transfer it to the lender in order for it to be valid. Rava rejects his
proof because it is conceivable that the zaqen of the mishnah was knowledgeable and
hence is aware that he must transfer ownership of the document to the lender, but an
ordinary individual (man or woman) might be ignorant of the requirement. Rava then
cites mBB 10:8 in which a guarantor, who must own the loan document and then transfer
it to the lender, becomes obligated to pay even though the document he used to obligate
himself was owned by the lender. 41 To this R. Ashi objects that Rava has only
demonstrated that men are sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of the requirement of
ownership of the document, but perhaps women would be ignorant of the fact. Rav Ashi
then cites mGit[ 2:6 which is the (gloss-like) additional clause in the mishnah in mEd.
Clearly, Rava did not have the clause " דמל התא ךכרד יפל"
in his mishnah; otherwise he
would not have objected to Abaye's proof since Abaye’s extrapolation is explicit in the
mishnah itself. Furthermore, when R. Ashi cites mGit[, he does not appear to be citing
the end of the mishnah which has already been cited. 42 mEd as we currently have it
41
" תורטש םותיח רחאל"
implies that the document had been signed and handed over to the
lender already. (Rashi, bGit[ 22a)
42
First, the expression " ש דמל התא ךכרד יפל"
is absent from the citation. Second, if he was
quoting the second half of Abaye's mishnah, one would have expected to find the
mishnah introduced as the אפיס of Abaye’s citation. (One could argue that R. Ashi was
unaware of Abaye's comment and that the sequence in the sugya is a product of the
redactor, but then one would have expected the redactor to somehow introduce this point
into R. Ashi’s statement and to make the point that Abaye was in fact correct since the
mishnah explicitly makes the link. Alternatively, the sugya could easily have stated
something along the lines of " אפיס ינתקד ימנ אקיד"
.)
309

eflects the conclusion of the sugya according to R. Ashi which worked its way into mEd
after his time, perhaps as a direct consequence of his conclusion. 43
3) mEd 3:1
םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש להאב ןיאמטמה לכ
ןיאמטמ
תמבו ןאשונ וא הליבנה ןמ םיתיז יאצח ינשכב עגונה דציכ
תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז יצחכב עגונה
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכב
עגונ וא
םיתיז יאצח ינשכ לע ליהאמו
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ
. ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר
All things that impart ritual impurity via )ohel 44 that were split up and
brought into a house: R. Dosa declares that they do not defile but the
Sages that they do.
How so? (One who touches two half-olives [of flesh] of
a neveilah 45 or carries them. And with a corpse,) one who touches a
half-olive [flesh] and who hovers over a half-olive
or one who touches a half-olive and a half-olive hovers
over him
or one who hovers over two [separate] half-olives
or one who hovers over a half-olive and a half-olive
hovers over him
R. Dosa declares that they do not defile but the Sages
that they do.
43 One of my students observed astutely that the mishnah is not discussed in either the
Bavli or the Yerushalmi (nor elaborated upon in the Tosefta) and is not introduced
with the formula of ןנתד. All of this raises the possibility that even in mGit[ it is a later
addition. However, it is clear from the sugya that the mishnah was in some Tannaitic
source by the time of R. Ashi as he must draw from an authoritative source to answer
Rami b. H9ama’s query.
44 A corpse (or even certain parts of a corpse) which is located under a roof (ohel)
defiles anything which is found under that same roof.
45
An animal which dies without being ritually-slaughtered (properly) conveys ritual
impurity. Cf. Lev. 11:39.
310

From the sugya in bH9ul 124b, it appears likely that the highlighted section of the
mishnah was a late interpolation. The mishnah (ibid. 124a) reads:
ירבד עגמב אלו אשמב אמטמ םיתיז יאצח ינשכ וילע ויה … רשב תיזכ וילע שיש רוע
... אשמב אלו עגמב אל רמוא אביקע יבר לאעמשי יבר
A hide on which there was an olive sized piece of flesh ... If there were
two half-olives of flesh on it, it imparts ritual impurity through carrying
[it] but not through touching according to the opinion of R. Yishmael.
R. Akiva says, “Neither through carrying nor through touching.”
The sugya there comments on the mishnah:
. וילע ויה
òâåðå øæåçå òâåð ùé åéðôìî ìáà åéøçàî àìà åðù àì אדפ רב רמא
. òâåðå øæåçå òâåð ïéà רמא ןנחוי יברו
ñðéëøä ïá àñåã éáøå ìàòîùé éáø : ןנחוי יבר רמאד הימעטל ןנחוי יבר אדזאו
ãçà øáã åøîà
ןרמאד אה לאעמשי יבר
ןב אסוד יבר תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש
להאב ןיאמטמה לכ ןנתד סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר
םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה
רזוחו עגונ ןיא ימנ אכה ליהאמו רזוחו ליהאמ ןיא םתה סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר רמא ואל
. עגונו
“If there were on it.”
Bar-Pada said, “They taught this only [if he touches it] from behind but
if [he touches them] from the front, there is [a principle] of "touching
an touching again". ”
But R. Yoh9anan said, “There is no "touching and touching again". ”
R.Yoh9anan is consistent with his position for R. Yoh9anan said, “R.
Yishmael and R. Dosa said the same thing.”
“R. Yishmael”: that which we just said.
“R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus”: as it is taught, “All things that impart ritual
impurity via )ohel that were split up and brought into a house: R. Dosa
declares that they do not defile but the Sages that they do.”
Does not R. Dosa say there that there is no “hovering and hovering
again”? So too here there is no “touching and touching again”.
The mishnah states that if the hide of a neveilah has two half-olive sized pieces of
flesh still attached to it, it does not transmit ritual impurity to one who touches it,
311

according to R. Yishmael. 46 Bar Pada asserts that R. Yishmael’s ruling applies only to
one who touches the hide on the side opposite the flesh, but if one actually touched the
two pieces of flesh (simultaneously) he would be defiled. R. Yoh9anan disagrees and
the anonymous voice of the sugya notes that R. Yoh9anan’s view here is consistent
with his position of equating, conceptually speaking, R. Yishmael’s opinion with that
of R. Dosa. In the course of citing R. Yoh9anan’s equating of the two views, the sugya
extrapolates from one who is defiled by a dead person by means of hovering over the
corpse ( " ליהאמו רזוחו ליהאמ ןיא ... רמא ואל"
) to one who defiles himself by touching the
impure object ( " עגונו רזוחו
עגונ ןיא ימנ אכה"
). If the mishnah text (of mEd or its exact
parallel in mAh) in front of the redactors of the sugya had contained the clause in
question, they would not have needed to extrapolate since the clause speaks explicitly
about defilement through touching (עגונ). 47 This conclusion is reinforced by the
internal logic of the mishnah itself. The mishnah opens with a general statement that
46 Generally speaking, the flesh of a neveilah the size of an olive or larger is regarded
as an av hatum)ah and defiles a person who touches it (Leviticus 11:39, mKel 1:2).
The minimum amount of an olive is assumed throughout the Mishnah (mShab 10:5,
mAh 13:5-6, mToh 3:4, 5:1).
47
This observation was first made by a number of the Ba(alei HaTosafot. R.
Shimshon of Sens, in his commentary both on mEd and mAh 3:1, suggests that this
line was not in the mishnah. R. Shimshon In his commentary on mAh and Tosafot
HaRosh (bH9ul 124b) both cite the fact that the clause under discussion was not in mEd
(but was in their mAh), although none of the manuscripts we possess reflect such a
lacuna.
There is one other question raised by a number of the medieval commentators
(Tosafot HaRosh, bH9ul 124b s.v. אסוד 'ר
רמא ואל , Ra’avad cited by Ramban, Rashba
and Rit[va (ibid.) raise about a contradiction between R. Dosa’s position in the mishnah
and R. Yishmael’s position which disappears once the clause is not in the Mishnah.
See the commentators there for an alternative (albeit forced) way of leaving the text of
the mishnah intact.
312

there is a dispute between R. Dosa and the Sages regarding all things (i.e. various parts
of a corpse) which defile a person through ohel that are split and brought into an ohel.
The mishnah then presents specific examples of the debate and immediately gives an
example of a neveilah, something which never imparts ritual impurity through ohel.
Only subsequently, does the mishnah add, " תמבו"
(the last word in the clause in
question) and give examples that actually relate to the opening debate between R.
Dosa and the Sages.
If this historical construction of the text is correct, we must assume that the
clause was added into the mishnah sometime after this sugya was composed.
Depending on how we date the sugya, we may have an extremely late addition to the
Mishnah. This in itself is not novel. What is striking about this case, however, is that
its addition to both locations in the Mishnah (i.e. mEd and mAh) points to a conscious
revision of the mishnah and not simply a marginal note which was accidentally
incorporated into the mishnah by a copyist who mistook it for a textual emendation in
the earlier text. 48
4) mEd 4:7
48 One other aspect of this which furthers this impression is that the language of this
later (hypothetical) interpolation is not found at all in the Mishnah elsewhere or in the
Bavli. In all of the other cases which we encounter later interpolations, the material is
found already in the mishnah or baraita, or in the Bavli, and it is not difficult to
envision a process by which a (learned) scribe or somebody else made a note in the
margin referring (the reader) to another Tannaitic source of a sugya and a later copyist
merged it into his own copy not realizing that it was commentary and not an
emendation.
313

יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה
ינש טג ונממ הכירצ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניא 'וא
ימש תיב
ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתינש ןמזב יתמא
. הב סג ובילש ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניאש םיסוראה ןמ השרגתינב ןידומו
If one divorces his wife and then sleeps with her at an inn:
Beit Shammai say, “She does not require from him a second bill of
divorce” but Beit Hillel say, “She requires from him a second bill of
divorce.”
When is this so? When she was divorced after consummation.
But they (Beit Hillel) admit that when she was divorced after [she only
had experienced] betrothal she does not require from him a second bill
of divorce because he is not comfortable with her.
It would appear that the highlighted section of the mishnah was a late addition to the
mishnah and was not in the text possessed by the sugyot in bGit[ 81a-b and bQid 65a.
The addition (or removal) of this clause does not in any way change the interpretation
of the mishnah.
We have noted elsewhere the awkwardness in the usage of the terminology
" יתמיא"
coupled with " םידומו"
. 49 bGit[ cites R. Yoh9anan who qualifies the mishnah:
הלעבנש הוארשב תקולחמ ןנחוי ר"
א הנח רב רב הבר רמא
תליעב ותליעב השוע םדא ןיא ירבס ה"
בו תונז תליעב ותליעב השוע םדא ירבס ש"
בד
. ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניא לכה ירבד הלעבנש הואר אל לבא תונז
יאו ; הב סג ובל ןיאש ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניאש ןיסוריאה ןמ השרגתנב םידומו ןנת
! ןיאושנה ןמ יל המו ןיסוריאה ןמ יל המ הלעבנש הוארשב
Rabbah b. H9annah said in the name of R. Yoh9anan, “The argument is
when they saw her having intercourse, as Beit Shammai believe that a
person may intend for his act of intercourse to be one of prostitution
whereas Beit Hillel believe that a person will not intend for his act of
intercourse to be one of prostitution; but if they did not see her have
intercourse, all agree that she does not require a second bill of divorce.”
It is taught: “But they (Beit Hillel) admit that when she was divorced
after [she only had experienced] betrothal she does not require a second
bill of divorce because he is not comfortable with her.” Now if they
49 Chapter Nine, pg. 227-8.
314

saw her engaging in intercourse, what difference does it make whether
[she was divorced] after betrothal or after consummation!”
R. Yoh9anan asserts that the debate between the Houses is only when the eyewitnesses
(to the seclusion in the inn) witness an act of intercourse (and not merely seclusion).
The sugya challenges R. Yoh9anan by citing the mishnah which distinguishes between
when their prior marriage had only reached the stage of betrothal (ןיסוריא) and when it
had already reached the stage of potential consummation (ןיאושינ). The clause in
question is not cited by the sugya at all. This is odd for two reasons: (1) This clause is
the beginning of the sentence (in our mishnah text) which is the sugya’s proof against
R. Yoh9anan, i.e. the sugya begins citing in the middle of the sentence and (2) Since the
sugya is trying to distinguish between ןיסוריא and ןיאושינ (in its words, ןיסוריאה ןמ יל המ"
" ןיאושנה ןמ יל המו),
why does not it not cite the explicit contrast in the mishnah and
instead rely upon the (obvious) inference from the clause mentioning ןיסוריא.
bQid reads:
םהינש 'יפאו
וישודיקל ןיששוח ןיא דחא דעב שדקמה לאומש רמא ןמחנ בר רמא רמתיא
. םידומ
... ןניקסע יאמב אכה ... ןמחנ ברל אבר היביתיא
ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ הניא
םירמוא ש"
ב יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה היביתיא
ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ םירמוא ה"
בו
תיבד והיימעט יאמ םידע אכילד יאו ? ש"
בד והיימעט יאמ םידע אכיאד יא ? ימד יכיה
! דחא דעב ואל אלא ? ללה
ינפמ ינש טג ונמיה הכירצ ןיאש ןיסוריאה ןמ השרגתנב םידומו אפיס אמיא ךימעטילו
הב סג ובל ןיאש
! ןיאושנה ןמ יל המ ןיסוריאה ןמ יל המ ןמיהמ דחא דע
ךתעד אקלס יאו
It was said: R. Nah9man said in the name of Shmuel, “One who betroths
in the presence of one witness, we need not be concerned about a
binding marriage even if both agree [that a betrothal was performed].”
Rava asked R. Nah9man ... What is the situation here? ...
315

It was asked, “If one divorces his wife and then sleeps with her at an
inn: Beit Shammai say, "She does not require from him a second bill of
divorce" but Beit Hillel say, "She requires from him a second bill of
divorce."
What is the case? If there are witnesses what is the reason of Beit
Shammai? If there are no witnesses, what is the reason of Beit Hillel?”
Rather, it must be a case with one witness.
And according to your logic, how does one explain the second half:
“But they (Beit Hillel) admit that when she was divorced after [she
only had experienced] betrothal she does not require from him a second
bill of divorce because he is not comfortable with her.”
Now if you assume that one witness is trusted, what difference does it
make whether [she was divorced] after betrothal or after
consummation!
The issue of how the mishnah is cited here is much the same as in bGit[. Here, the
entire mishnah is cited in two segments. Why is the clause which begins the second
half of the mishnah and which highlights the distinction between ןיסוריא and ןיאושינ
explicitly absent from the sugya’s citation? The absence in both sugyas combined
with the linguistic evidence suggests that this clause was the work of a later hand that
was, perhaps, not as sensitive to the finer nuances of Mishnaic usage.
5) mEd 7:6
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלוו לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ברקי 'מוא
'מכחו
'מלש
ברקי אל םימלש דלוו 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
הדלוו ונלכאו חספב אהונלכאו
םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סיפפ 'ר
'מא
. גחב םימלש
R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified about the offspring of a peaceoffering
that it (too) may be brought as a peace-offering
in contrast to R. Eliezer who says, “The offspring of a peace-offering may
not be brought as peace-offering”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”
R. Papias said, “I attest that we had a cow which was a peace-offering and
we ate it on Passover and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on
Sukkot.”
316

The mishnah consists of three parts: the testimony of the two Rabbis, the presentation
of the debate between R. Eliezer and the anonymous Sages and the quotation of the
actual testimony of R. Papias. We have observed elsewhere 50 that the doubly
underlined phrase certainly is secondary within the mishnah and that even the singly
underlined portion is as well. The chronology of their insertion into the mishnah,
however, is unclear from the mishnah itself. From a sugya in bTem 18b, however, it
would appear that these two transfers in the mishnah took place very late, probably in
late amoraic period, or perhaps even later.
mTem 3:1 reads:
ןדלו דלוו ןדלוו ןתרומתו םימלש דלו ןהב אצויכ ןהיתורומתו ןהיתודלוש םישדק ולא]
[ קושו הזחו הפונתו םיכסנו הכימס םינועטו םימלשכ ולא ירה םלועה ףוס דע
ברקי םירמוא םימכחו םימלש ברקי אל םימלש דלו רמוא רזעילא יבר ( 2)
המ לעו ברקי אלש הרומת דלו דלו לעו םימלש דלו דלו לע וקלחנ אל ןועמש יבר רמא]
[ ברקי םירמוא םימכחו ברקי אל רמוא רזעילא יברש דלוה לע וקלחנ
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלו לע סייפפ יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה ( 1)
הדלו ונלכאו חספב הונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סייפפ יבר רמא ( 3)
. גחב םימלש
[The following are sacrifices the offspring of which has the same status.
The offspring of peace-offerings and their substitute(s): their offspring
and their offspring’s offspring ad infinitum have the status of a peaceoffering
and require (when sacrificed) ceremonial-leaning, libations and
ceremonial-waving of the chest and leg.]
(2) R. Eliezer says, “The offspring of a peace-offering may not be brought
as a peace-offering”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”
[R. Shimon said, “They never disagreed about the offspring of the
offspring of a peace-offering or the offspring of the offspring of a
substitute that it may not be brought. About what did they
disagree? About the offspring, as R. Eliezer says, “It may not be
brought”, but the Sages say, “It may be brought.”]
50 Chapter Seven, pg. 185.
317

(1) R. Yehoshua and R. Papias testified about the offspring of a peaceoffering
that it (too) may be brought as a peace-offering
(3) R. Papias said, “I attest that we had a cow which was a peace-offering
and we ate it on Passover and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on
Sukkot.”
All of the numbered clauses from mEd are in mTem but the order of presentation is
different. The clauses are numbered to reflect the order in which they appear in mEd.
The sugya (which, with the exception of the last two crucial lines, appears in parallel
in bRH 6a 51 ) reads:
. 'וכ
סייפפ 'רו
ש"
ר דיעה
, רחאת לבב םהילע רבוע םויו םוי לכ דחא לגר םהילע רבעש ןויכ םישדק רמאד אברלו
! הילכימ יעב תרצעמ
úøöòá äìåç äéäù ïåâë : אברד הימשמ דיבז בר רמא
. úåòåáù âç éðú÷ã éîð âç éàî רמא ישא בר
. תרצע ינת חספ ינתקד יכיה לכ ךדיאו
? היתודהסא
יאמ , יכה יא
. ברקד אוה דיהסמק , םימלש ברקי אל םימלש דלו רמאד , א"
רדמ יקופאל
R. Shimon and R. Papias testified etc.
51
A brief analysis of the two sugyot makes it quite clear that bTem is a derivative of
bRH. Instead of quoting Rava directly, and then presenting the question from the
mishnah, the sugya refers to Rava’s opinion almost in passing. In addition, Rava’s
opinion is different than what is cited in bRH. There, Rava is quoted as saying that
one violates a positive commandment, probably המש םתאבהו (Deut. 12:6), which is the
natural inverse of רחאת לב. It is clear from the larger sugya in bRH that none of the
Tannaitic sources believe that the prohibition of רחאת לב can be violated merely by
skipping over any one festival. Hence it is far more likely that the reference within
Rava’s opinion cited in the bTem is a shorthand for the positive inverse of רחאת לב.
(However, in MS Vatican 120, the text reads " השעב רבוע"
; it is unclear whether this is
original or if the scribe was correcting towards bRH. All of the other manuscripts
[four total] read like the Vilna printing.) We can therefore conclude, given the fact that
R. Ashi is cited in bRH, that the sugya there cannot precede R. Ashi and hence bTem
must postdate R. Ashi.
52
This obvious error of the pisqa is not found anywhere except in the Vilna printing.
All of the other manuscripts and editions (including the mishnah text in the Vilna
edition) read correctly, " עשוהי 'ר"
.
318
52

According to Rava who says about sacrificial vows upon which one
festival has passed [without their being fulfilled] that one violates the
prohibition of delaying every single day, they should have eaten it on
Shavuot!
R. Zevid said in the name of Rava, “If it was sick on Shavuot.”
R. Ashi said, “What is "H9ag" that is taught? The festival of Shavuot.”
And the other one (i.e. R. Zevid)? Whenever it uses the term Pesah9, it
uses the term As9eret [for Shavuot].
If this is so, what was [the novelty of ] his testimony?
To negate the opinion of R. Eliezer who says that the offspring of a
peace-offering may not be sacrificed as a peace-offering; they were
testifying that it may be sacrificed.
The sugya firsts cites Rava that one violates the prohibition of delaying a vow by
failing to bring a sacrifice before one Festival has passed from the date of the vow.
The sugya challenges his opinion from R. Papias’ testimony that they brought the
offspring of the peace-offering on the second festival on which it was possible. R.
Zevid (5 th generation) and R. Ashi (6 th ) present different solutions. The sugya then
asks, “If not to teach us about delaying a festival, what was R. Papias adding?”. It
answers that he was coming to contradict R. Eliezer’s opinion regarding the offspring
of a peace-offering. It is inconceivable that the author of the sugya should have asked
the question about R. Papias’ testimony if the text of any mishnah had read:
... דיעמ ינא סייפפ 'ר
רמא ברקי אל א"
כחו םימלש ברקי 'מוא
רזעילא 'רש
The juxtaposition in the text of mEd as we have it makes it quite clear the thrust of R.
Papias’ testimony. The same holds for mTem, even with its different ordering, i.e.
that the mere presence of R. Papias’ testimony in the mishnah would have made the
thrust of his testimony clear. After all, if the testimony follows the debate between R.
Eliezer and the Sages, is it not clear what the point of his testimony is! The most
plausible scenario, it seems, is to assume that mEd contained no mention of R.
319

Eliezer’s opinion, and mTem made no mention of R. Papias’ (and R. Yehoshua’s)
testimony. The author of the sugya was then linking the debate in mTem with the
testimony found in mEd. 53
6) mEd 8:3
הנוהכל הרישכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע הריתב ןב עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרישכ הסיעה
תיב בישוהל אלש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזגו השענ המ לבא ןכתודע ונלבוק 'אילמג
ןבר 'מא
ךכ לע ןיד
. ברקל אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה
R. Yehoshua and R. Yehoshua b. Beteira testified regarding a widow of
mixed-up lineage that she is permitted to marry into the priesthood. A
mixed-up group is accepted to declare [it] genealogically fit or unfit, to
ostracize or embrace (i.e., a court may attempt verify the facts.)
R. Gamliel said, “We accept your testimony but what can we do since R.
Yoh9anan b. Zakkai has already decreed not to establish a court for such a
purpose!
[Besides which,] the priests will listen to you to ostracize but not to
embrace.”
The underlined clause in the Mishnah is ascribed by tEd to " םהירחא לש ןיד תיב"
(3:2),
i.e. that the underlined clause was not part of the testimony of the two tannaim. If the
53
There is still one problem with the analysis which might lead us to conclude that
changing the text doesn’t solve the problem. That is, even if we remove R. Yehoshua
and R. Papias from mTem and R. Eliezer from mEd we still have to wonder why the
author of the sugya didn’t understand R. Papias’ intent. mEd with the changes would
read:
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלוו לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
הדלוו ונלכאו חספב אהונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סיפפ 'ר
'מא
. גחב םימלש
This version, which corresponds perfectly to the last part of mTem and to the citation
in bRH still makes the aim of R. Papias’ testimony clear. Whereas the direct quotation
(" דיעמ ינא")
R. Papias provides other information and hence the primary intent may be
ambiguous, the first sentence (" עשוהי 'ר
דיעה")
is quite direct.
320

formulation of the mishnah can be ascribed to the period in which the testimony took
place then the line in question would be regarded as a gloss to the mishnah. The
dating on the gloss is, however, unclear. The mishnah’s citation of in bKet 14a
suggests, although far from definitively, that the addition may have been during or
after the amoraic period. The sugya reads:
? תנמאנ הניא עשוהי יבר רמא ימו אברל ייבא היל ימר
! הנוהכל הרשכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע אריתב ןב הדוהי יברו עשוהי 'ר
דיעה והנימרו
? הנזמו תקדוב הנזמ השא אכה תאשינו תקדוב תאשינ השא םתה אתשה יכה ל"
א
אהו?
אישק
אל לאילמג ןברדא לאילמג ןברד אישק עשוהי יברדא עשוהי יברד אבר רמא
אפיס ינתק
אלש יאכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזג ירהש השענ המ לבא םכתודע ונלבק לאילמג ןבר ןהל רמא
! ברקל אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכהש ךכ לע ןיד תיב בישוהל
Abaye presented a contradiction to Rava: “Did R. Yehoshua really say
that she is not believed?” But is it not taught contradictorily, "R.
Yehoshua and R. Yehoshua b. Beteira testified regarding a widow of
mixed-up lineage that she is permitted to marry into the priesthood." ”
He said to him, “This now! There a woman investigates carefully before
marrying. Here, does a woman investigate carefully before fornicating?”
Rava said, “R. Yehoshua contradicts himself, but R. Gamliel does not? Is
it not taught in the latter section [of that mishnah], “R. Gamliel said, "We
accept your testimony but what can we do since R. Yoh9anan b. Zakkai
has already decreed not to establish a court for such a purpose! [Besides
which,] the priests will listen to you to ostracize but not to embrace." ”
In the sugya, Abaye notes an apparent contradiction between the position of R.
Yehoshua (b. Hanania) as expressed in the mishnayot in mKet 1:8-9 and our mishnah.
There R. Yehoshua rules stringently on the matter of a women whom is suspected of
having intercourse with a man of unknown identity because the man might have been
one whose status of lineage disqualifies her from marrying a priest. In mEd, however,
he permits the " הסיע תנמלא"
, a woman who was married to a priest of questionable
lineage, to remarry within the priesthood. Rava responds to Abaye first by resolving
the contradiction and then by challenging Abaye as to why, once he was comparing
321

mKet to mEd, he did not also pose the question of the contradiction between the two
opinions attributed to R. Gamliel. In the course of the sugya, Abaye and Rava cite the
text of the entire mishnah except the line in question. This could be for one of several
reasons: 1) The expression “ ' וכו”
was understood and the editor of the sugya or
manuscripts did not bother to fill out the rest of the citation 2) Abaye did not cite it
(despite the fact that it was the conclusion of the statement which he was drawing
from to make his point) because the first line was enough 54 or 3) because it wasn’t in
the mishnah text of Abaye. If the last possibility is indeed correct, the mishnah text
would have been emended using the Tosefta sometime after Abaye.
7) mEd 4:3-4
םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה וניא 'וא
ללה תיבו רקבה םיינעל רקבה 'מוא
ימש תיב
וניא 'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו םיבק תעברא-לש
תחא בק בק-לש
הדשה ירמוע לכ הטימשכ
. החכש 'וא
ללה תיבו החכש
תיבו החכש וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו
םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה
. החכש 'מוא
ללה
Beit Shammai say, “Something declared ownerless only for the poor is
legally ownerless” but Beit Hillel say, “It is not ownerless until he
declares it ownerless even for the rich as in the Sabbatical year.” If
each of the bundles in the field are a qab and one is four qabin and he
forgets it: Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” (i.e. does not belong to
the poor) but Beit Hillel say, “It is shikhh9a.”
A bundle which was left next to a wall, a heap, cattle or equipment and
he forgets it: Beit Shammai say, “It is not shikhh9a” but Beit Hillel say
“It is shikhh9a.”
54 We should also consider the possibility that Abaye did not cite the line because
(based upon the tEd3:2) he recognized it as a Tannaitic gloss which did not necessarily
reflect the view of R. Yehoshua.
322

The two mishnayot appears in all of the manuscripts of mEd as well as in all of
the witnesses in the parallel occurrence, mPe 6:1-2. yPe 6:2 (=Ketubot 8:1) raises a
question about the mKet (8:1) in which Beit Hillel forbid a betrothed woman to sell
her properties and Beit Shammai permit. The sugya reads:
? ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ התינת אל המלו יסוי יבר ימוק אעב סחניפ יבר
רמוח אכה םרב ןידדצ ינשמ לקו ןידדצ ינשמ רומח רבד אלא ינתימ ןניתא אל היל רמא
. דחא דצמ לקו דחא דצמ אוה
תיבה לעבל אוה רמוחו םיינעל לק אוה ירה םיינעל רקבה םירמוא יאמש תיב ןנינת אהו
? התינתו
. וריקבה ותעדמש תיבה לעבל רמוח וניאו םיינעל אוה לק ל"
א
לק אוה ירה וחכשו םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו הפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה ןנינת אהו היל רמא
? םיינעל אוה רמוחו תיבה לעבל
ןהב וכז אל ןיידאש םיינעל רמוח וניאו 'יבה
לעבל אוה לק היל רמא
הב הכז אל ןיידאש תיבה לעבל רמוח
וניאו השאל אוה לק אכה ףוא רומאו
. ולפנ ותוכזלו התוכזל השדיקש ןויכמ היל רמא
R. Pinh9as asked in the presence of R. Yose, “Why is it not taught
among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel?”
He said to him, “The mishnah only brings a case which is stringent
from both perspectives and lenient from both perspectives, but here it is
stringent from one perspective but lenient from the other.”
“Do we not teach, "Beit Shammai say, “Something declared ownerless
only for the poor is legally ownerless” but Beit Hillel say, “It is not
ownerless until he declares it ownerless even for the rich as in the
Sabbatical year." ”
He said to him, “It is a leniency for the poor but not a stringency for the
landowner because he declares it ownerless willingly.”
He said to him, “Do we not teach, "A bundle which was left next to a
wall, a heap, cattle or equipment and he forgets it: Beit Shammai say,
“It is not shikhh9a” but Beit Hillel say “It is shikhh9a.” " ”
He said to him, “It is a leniency for the landowner and not a stringency
for the poor because he has not yet taken possession of it.”
Say here also, “It is a leniency for the wife and not a stringency for the
husband because he has not yet taken possession of it (i.e. by the wife’s
inheritance).”
He said to him, “Once he has betrothed her, it is bequeathed to both her
possession and his possession.”
323

The sugya cites a query posed to R. Yose as to why this mishnah was not
included in mEd among the leniencies of Beit Shammai. He responds that it is a
leniency from the perspective of the wife but a stringency from the perspective of the
husband, and hence is effectively neither a stringency or leniency. The premise of R.
Yose’s response is, essentially, that debates over monetary issues can, by definition,
not be framed as either leniencies or stringencies because one party’s gain is the
other’s loss. This premise is then challenged from the first and third of the three cases
in our mishnayot. The challenge from the first case and the response are
fundamentally different from those pertaining to the third: the premise of the first case
is that when there is no conflict between the parties, i.e. the ba(al habayit wishes to
declare the produce ownerless, this is not fundamentally a monetary issue for which
there is always a winner and a loser; the challenge from the third forces the
Yerushalmi to reformulate its response and to assert that whenever one party already
has possession, it is treated as a leniency to remove it from that party’s possession,
whereas when both parties can claim title, giving the money to either side creates a
winner and loser and thus is not regarded as either a stringency or leniency, and hence
mKet 8:1 was not relevant in the context of mEd. Why did the sugya not cite the
second instead of the third since the question posed by the third could have raised just
as well by the second? 55 Furthermore, the mishnah text in MS Leiden of mPe reverses
the opinions of the houses, i.e. Beit Shammai claims that the produce has the status of
55
R. Akiva Eiger, Gilyon HaShas, mPeah 6:2 and later Epstein, Mavo leNusah9
HaMishnah, p 964.
324

the forgotten sheaf Beit Hillel claims that it does. The same reading is found in MS
Parma 138 of mPe. In both cases, the text of the mishnah was emended to reverse the
opinions and make it conform to the version in mEd and to the mishnayot which
surround it, i.e. that the owner has the upper hand financially. Epstein asserts on the
basis of this that the mishnah text in front of the amoraim of the Yerushalmi had the
mishnah with the opinions of the Houses reversed, and thus it could not have been in
their mishnah in mEd. As a result, they had to skip to the third case to pose the
question. 56
Epstein’s proposal is debatable for several reasons:
i) The sugya in the Yerushalmi actually on the mishnah in question (mPe 6:1)
assumes that Beit Shammai hold the opinion that the bundles are not shikhh9a. The
sugya there reads:
ןימייק ןנ המ
םינש ויד םייוסמ רבד םושמ םא
השלש וייד הרוש םושמ םא
שיקל ןב ןועמש יבר ימוק ןנחוי יברד אדח רמא יבר אב דח
יאמש תיבכ הרוש ותושעלו וקלוחל לוכי אוהש לכ
What are we dealing with?
If because of a “distinct item”, two should be sufficient.
If because of a “row”, three should be sufficient.
One student said one [teaching] of R. Yoh9anan in the presence of Reish
Laqish:
“Anything which he could divide up and make into a “row”
according to the opinion of Beit Shammai.”
The details in the Yerushalmi are not clear, but the outline is. The question driving the
discussion is why is an (omer which is of above average size lose its status of shikhh9a.
56 ibid p. 964.
325

The Yerushalmi presents two reasons which it rejects because neither would require
the pile to be as large as four times the average size. The Yerushalmi quotes an
answer that links the position in the mishnah that a pile of four qabin is not shikhh9a to
the position of Beit Shammai in another detail of the laws of shikhh9a. Clearly, then,
this sugya in the Yerushalmi assumes that the position which rules that the oversized
bundle is not shikhh9a is that of Beit Shammai, conforming to the text we have in all of
the witnesses of mEd and most of the witnesses of mPe. Unless we are to posit that
the two adjacent sugyot in the Yerushalmi possessed different mishnah texts, another
explanation for the silence of the sugya in yPe 6:2 (i.e. its skipping over mPe 6:1b)
must be sought.
ii) Methodologically speaking, the argument from silence which Epstein makes
in this case is weak because once the sugya cites the third case (mPe 6:2 [=mEd 4:4])
the question that could be raised from the second has also been answered, i.e. the
premises of the question and answer from both the second and third cases are
identical. Thus, there is no reason to subsequently raise the question from the second
case. If the sugya had not raised a question from either of the two mishnayot (i.e. 6:1b
or 6:2), one would be in a stronger position to argue that the sugya did not possess
either of the two mishnayot as we have them. Since, however, the sugya deals with
the substance of the issue which pertains to both, the argument from silence is weak.
326

Granted that the choice to cite the third and not the second is a bit odd, but falls far
short of a acceptable proof from silence. 57
iii) The argument from manuscript evidence should disregard the reading in
MS Leiden since its mishnah text has been shown to likely be dependent on MS
Parma, 58 which leaves us with only one witness to such a reading. Granted, that MS
Parma is a very early and important witness, but scribal errors do occur.
B. Places where the precise text of the mishnah is made clear from the sugyot in
1) bNid 5a
the Bavli or Yerushalmi
טעממ וניא שימשת ינפלש דע לאומש רמא הדוהי בר רמא . 'וכ
םידעב תשמשמהו
... . התיבל המוהמש ךותמ אניטק בר רמא ? ט"
מ . הדיקפכ
? שימשת רחאל דחו שימשת ינפל דח ואל יאמ הדיקפכ וז ירה םידעב תשמשמה ןנת
...
ינתק יכו שימשת רחאל דחו שימשת
ינפל דח ןנבר הוכרצא תוקידב יתש אמיא תיעביאו
. שימשת רחאלא 'דיקפכ
וז ירה
. תשמשמו ינת ! ינתק תשמשמה אהו
“And one who engages in intercourse using examination cloths etc.” R.
Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, “The pre-coital examination cloth
does not reduce as an examination [does].” Why? R. Qat[ina said,
“Because she is in a hurry for her husband.”
57 There are several alternative explanations possible: 1) It is possible that the
questioner’s mishnah contained all of the mishnayot but with a different order, i.e.
mPe 6:2 before the second half of mPe 6:1. Alternatively, the Amora may have been
citing from memory and confused the order or skipped over that mishnah. Finally, but
least likely, is that the citation of the mishnah originally contained both mishnayot
(perhaps abridged) and that our version reflects an erroneous abridgment by an early
scribe.
58
I.Z. Feintuch, " ןדייל די-בתכ
ימלשוריה ינפלש הנשמה לע"
, Tarbis9 45 (1975-6), pp. 178-
212.
327

It is taught, “And one who engages in intercourse using examination
cloths is like [one who performed] an examination.” Is it not the case
that one [of these cloths] is before intercourse and one after
intercourse?
...
Alternatively one may say that the Rabbis required two examinations –
one before intercourse and one after intercourse, and when it says “It is
like [one who performed] an examination”, it is referring to the one
after intercourse.
But does it not say, “One who engages in intercourse [using
examination-cloths] (implying that it is optional)”? Say, “And one
engages in intercourse [using examination-cloths]”.
The sugya discusses the second half of mNid 1:1 (=mEd 1:2) which asserts
that the cloth which a woman uses to examine her menstrual status around the time of
intercourse is valid for reducing the length of time that a woman who first discovers
her period defiles purities retroactively. R. Yehudah asserts that the inspection before
intercourse does not reduce the retroactive time period because the woman may rush it
in her haste to satisfy her desires. The sugya challenges R. Yehudah’s view from the
mishnah which refers to two examination cloths ( םידע)
, presumably one before
intercourse and one after, and then presents two answers to defend R. Yehudah’s
position. The second answer asserts that the mishnah’s rule that the examination is
valid applies only to the one after intercourse and that the mishnah mentions the
examination before only to inform us that the Rabbis mandated that a woman examine
herself before and after intercourse. The sugya challenges this from the fact that the
59
mishnah uses the word " תשמשמה"
which means “and one who [happens] to cohabit
59
There are a number of witnesses, especially in mNid, which read " תשמשמהו"
with a
vav, but this still reflects the original text of the mishnah. The key difference between
the original and emended texts in the Bavli is the definite article whose absence
converts the participle from being the subject of the verbal expression " וז ירה"
into a
328

using examination cloths” which suggests that it is optional, i.e. if one happened to do
it. The sugya responds by emending the text to read ' תשמשמו'
without the definite
article which would be translated as “and she shall cohabit with inspection cloths”.
The vocalizer of MS Kaufmann in mEd (but not in the parallel in mNid) marked the ' ה'
for erasure, most likely under the influence of the Bavli’s interpretation. 60 It is clear
(as is the case in all of the other witnesses) that the definite article was in the original
mishnah text. 61
2) mEd 4:2
םידומ לכה הציבה ןמ אציש חורפאו תרתומ איהש םידומ לכה בוט םויב הדלונש המהב
... בוט םויב ףועו היח טחושה רוסא אוהש
[Regarding] an animal that was born on a festival day all agree that is
permitted, and regarding a chick which hatched from an egg all agree
that it is forbidden. If one slaughters a wild animal or bird on a festival
day ...
Three of the mishnah witnesses in mEd (MS Paris 328-9, MS Oxford 1272 and the
editio princeps) as well as one in mBes9 (MS Cambridge) contain the underlined text. 62
subject plus verb (participle) of its own sentence. The Bavli could just as well read
" ינתק תשמשמהו
אהו"
without changing the sugya.
60 It is odd, though, that he did not insert a vav into the text – without either a heh or a
vav the emended text of MS Kaufmann reads awkwardly.
61
Interestingly, the same reading/emendation is found in yNid 1:7 on a mishnah later
in the chapter which reads " תשמשמהו"
(in MSS Kaufmann and Leiden) and the
Yerushalmi comments " םידעב שמשתש הכירצ אתינתמ יניכ"
. The emendation there is
almost compelling and brings the text in consonance with the reading found in the
Bavli there. See Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 484-5.
62 In MSS Paris and Oxford the addition is placed at the end of the first mishnah and in
Cambridge it is a mishnah by itself. The modern printing follows ed. Naples which
329

It is readily apparent from the sugya in bBes9 6a-b that neither Rav or Shmuel, nor the
editors of the sugya possessed this in their mishnah. The sugya there records the
following debate:
בוט םויב דלונש חורפא רמתא
. רתומ רמא ןנחוי יבר אמיתיאו לאומשו רוסא רמא בר
. אוה הצקומ רוסא רמא בר
. הטיחשב ומצע ריתמו ליאוה רתומ רמא ןנחוי יבר אמיתיאו לאומשו
It was said, “A chick that is hatched on a festival day:
Rav says, “It is forbidden”; but Shmuel (and some substitute R.
Yoh9anan) says, “It is permitted”.
Rav says, “It is forbidden”: [because] it is muqs9eh.
Shmuel (and some substitute R. Yoh9anan) says, “It is permitted”: since
it permits itself via slaughtering.
The sugya concludes by citing two braitot, one supporting the position of Rav
and one that of Shmuel:
. ןנחוי יבר אמיתיאו לאומשד היתוכ אינת ברד היתוכ אינת
. רוסא בוט םויב דלונש חורפא רתומ בוט םויב דלונש לגע ברד היתוכ אינת
[ ומא בגא ןכומ וניא הזו הטיחשב ומא בגא ןכומ הז ? הזל הז ןיב שרפה המו]
םויב דלונש חורפאו רתומ בוט םויב דלונש לגע ןנחוי יבר אמיתיאו
לאומשד היתוכ אינת
. רתומ בוט
[. הטיחשב ומצע ריתמ הזו ומא בגא ןכומ הז אמעט יאמ]
It is taught (i.e. in a baraita) in accordance with Rav, and it is taught
according to Shmuel (and some substitute R. Yoh9anan).
It is taught according to Rav: “A calf which is born on a festival day is
permitted. A chick which is hatched on a festival day is forbidden.”
[What is the difference between this and that? This one is ‘prepared’
(for the festival) as part of its mother, but that one is not ‘prepared’ as
part of its mother.”]
It is taught according to Shmuel (and some substitute R. Yoh9anan): “A
calf which is born on a festival day is permitted, and a chick which is
hatched on a festival day is permitted.”
prefaced it to the second mishnah in the chapter. Placing it at the end of the first
mishnah makes more sense since it is connected to the issue of the egg which was laid
on the festival day.
330

[What is the reason? This one is ‘prepared’ (for the festival) as part of
its mother, and that one because it permits itself via slaughtering.]
If the amoraim (or the sugya) had possessed such a mishnah text it is inconceivable
that they would have failed to cite it to buttress the position of Rav. 63
3) mEd 4:2
טוחשי
אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח טחושה
ןכומ הריכה רפאש הסכיו לקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ ןכומ רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא
One who slaughters a wild-animal or bird on the festival-day: Beit
Shammai say, “He may dig with a pitchfork and cover [the blood]” (in
accordance with Lev. 17:13) but Beit Hillel say, “He may not slaughter
unless he has prepared-dirt.”
They (i.e. Beit Hillel) admit that if he has slaughtered [already] that he
should dig with the pitchfork and cover [the blood] because the ashes
of a stove are ‘prepared’ (for usage on a festival).
The last line in this mishnah, “because the ashes of a stove are considered
mukhan”, is puzzling because it is unclear how it provides a reason for what precedes
it in the mishnah. The mishnah has just stated that Beit Hillel concede to Beit
Shammai that if one has a digging implement thrust into the ground and has already
slaughtered the animal or bird, he may use the dirt from the ground to cover the blood.
What does this have to do with ashes from an oven? bBes9 8a comments:
. אוה ןכומ הריכ רפאו רמאק יכה הבר רמא
331
. אוה ןכומ הריכ רפאש
? הימש רכד ןאמ הריכ רפא
63
The assumption in my argument here is that amoraim were familiar with all of the
mishnayot but not necessarily with every baraita. There are certainly many braitot
which were unknown to amoraim and sugyot; indeed there are a number of places in
the Bavli where the response to the question of why the Amora didn’t cite the baraita
to prove his point is ' היל עימש אל אתיירב/
אתניתמ'
(bShab 19a, bEruv 9b, 19a, 37b, bPes
101b, bNid 6a, 42a). The Bavli never entertains such a suggestion in reference to a
mishnah.

“Because the ashes of a stove are ‘prepared’. ”
Who mentioned [until now] “ashes of the stove”?
Rabbah said, “It means to say the following: "And [in addition,] the
ashes of a stove are treated as ‘prepared’ (for the purposes or covering
the blood of slaughtering)." ”
Rabbah emends the mishnah by changing the shin into a vav and thus makes the last
clause into a new sentence which tells us that the ashes which were created on the
festival day by means of a fire are not treated as nolad, something created anew and
prohibited in the manner of muqs9eh. 64 It is clear then from the Bavli that originally
there was no vav in the mishnah. There are several witnesses of the mishnah which
read either " רפאו"
or " רפאשו"
under the influence of Rabbah’s emendation. 65
4) mEd 7:9
... וימד תא ןתיש הריבב
ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו
64 See Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp.652-653, who suggests that the shin in
this mishnah is not an error but simply a usage of shin in place of the conjunctive vav,
a usage found in a number of places in the mishnah (especially in the early mss.)
65
The marginal supplementation in MS Parma 984 reads " רפאו"
in accordance with all
of six of the Bavli witnesses to Rabbah’s comments. Without the shin the statement
should be regarded as a gloss to the mishnah, having nothing to do with the Houses.
This approach may reflect the issue raised by Tosafot (ad loc., s.v. רפאש and bMen 88b
s.v. וניצמ) who point out that Beit Shammai do not consider ashes suitable for the
commandment of covering the blood. The other reading, " רפאשו"
, is found in MSS
Sassoon and JTS Rab. 220-1 in mEd, in MS Sassoon in mBes9 and in the mishnah text
in the Talmudic manuscript of Oxford 366 (although the pisqa in MS Oxford reads
" רפאו"
). The shin in this reading indicates that this is an additional point on which Beit
Shammai and Beit Hillel agree, i.e. they agree (a) that once he slaughters the creature
he may, post facto, use the לקד to cover the blood and (b) that ashes created on the
festival day are mukhan.
332
...

And regarding a stolen beam which [the thief] built into a tower that he
[only] needs to return its value (and not the beam itself).
In the parallel mishnah in mGit[ 5:5 in MS Munich 95, the reason " םיבשה תנקת ינפמ"
appears at the end of this clause. The mishnah itself is cited twice in the Bavli (BQ
66b, 95a) and in every manuscript this addition appears. In light of the absence of the
line in mEd in MS Munich and in all of the other witnesses to this mishnah it appears
that the line is an addition under the influence of a baraita cited in the bGit[ 55a:
5) mEd 1:13
שירמ ריזחמו הלוכ הריבה לכ עקעקמ םירמוא ש"
ב הריבב ואנבו שירמ לזג ןנבר ונת
66
. ןיבשה תנקת םושמ דבלב שירמ ימד אלא ול ןיא םירמוא ה"
בו וילעבל
Our Rabbis taught: “If one stole a beam and built it into a tower: Beit
Shammai say, "He must dismantle the entire tower and return the beam
to its owner”, but Beit Hillel say, “He (i.e. the original owner) is only
entitled to the value of the beam for the benefit of penitents (i.e. to
remove impediments from the process of repentance).”
דבלב ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל 'וא
ללה תיבו
Beit Hillel say, “We have received such a tradition only with respect to
a woman who comes from the harvest.”
In the printed editions of the Bavli (Pisaro, Vilna), the mishnah text of the parallel
mishnah in mYev 15:2 (=bYev 116b) appears:
. היהש השעמכו הנידמ התואבו ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל םירמוא ללה תיב
66
One other variant of interest, found in the mishnah text in MSS Oxford 368 and
Vatican 140 to mGit[ 5:5, is " לודגה"
instead of " לוזגה"
. This too may have been
influenced by the above baraita; the suggestion of having to dismantle an entire palace
to extract the beam may have made it easier for a scribe to assume that the case
involved a “large beam”.
333

Beit Hillel say, “We have received such a tradition only with respect to
a woman who comes from the harvest and in the same city and like the
incident that occurred.”
This reading was influenced by the text of a baraita which follows immediately in the
Bavli:
1) mEd 3:6
םירועש ריצק םיטח ריצק אלא יל ןיא םכירבדל ללה תיבל יאמש תיב םהל ורמא אינת
67
אוהו ריצקב היהש השעמ אלא ? ןינמ רדוע רדוג קסומ רצוב רצוק אלא יל ןיאו ? ןינמ
68
. והלוכל ןידה אוהו הנידמ התואב היהש השעמ ימנ
אכה והלוכל ןידה
It is taught: “Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel, "According to your
opinion, the ruling should only be true for the wheat harvest? How does
one know for the barley harvest? And the ruling should only be true for
the harvesting [of grain]? How does one know for the harvesting of
grapes, the harvesting of olives, the harvesting of dates or during
hoeing?” Rather [what do you say?] The incident that occurred was
during the harvest, but the ruling would be the same for the others; so
too the incident occurred within the same city, but the ruling would be
the same for all other [locations]." ”
C. Textual Difficulties Made Clear
. סרדמ 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד תמ אמט תואמט תולצוחה
All mats are susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a corpse
according to the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “[Even] through
midras (i.e. bearing the weight of a zav, zavah, menstruating or postparturient
woman).”
67
The mentioning of “hoeing” in this context is odd; another term of harvest is
expected. MS Oxford 367 is lacking the word, MS Munich lacks both " רדוע"
and
" קסומ"
and MS Munich 141 reads " םינאתב רדוע"
. One might speculate that the word
should have been " הרוא"
, as we find in baraita in bShab 73b:
. תחא הכאלמ ןלוכ הרואהו קיסמהו רדוגהו רצובה רצוקה : אנת
68 The baraita is found only in the Bavli and there are clear interpolations (as the
Aramaic shows). The same general idea is found in tEd 1:6 (also cited in yYev 15:2).
334
לכ

In response to a question from mNid 6:3 which asserts that anything which contracts
impurity through midras also contracts it from a dead person, bSuk 20a emends or
clarifies the text: " סרדמ ףא אמיא"
. None of the witnesses to mEd contain the word ' ףא'.
However, the text of tKel BB 4:14 (mEd’s closest parallel) in its citation in bSuk 20b
in MS Munich 95 and the printed editions was emended based upon this suggestion. 69
It reads:
2) mEd 3:12
. אסוד יבר ירבד תמ אמט אמטמ אריפס לשו קש לשו ימג לשו םעש לש תולצוח יביתימ
. סרדמ ףא םירמוא םימכחו
We ask: Mats of reeds, 70 grass, sackcloth and horse-shearings 71 are
susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a corpse according
to the opinion of R. Dosa but the Sages say, “Even through midras.”
ןיפוא תויהל 'ארשי
לכ לע םילקמו ןמצע לע ןירימחמ ויהש ךיבא תיבל םהל השענ המ
. ירחו ןיצירג ןתיפ
“What shall we do for your father’s house as they were stringent for
themselves but were lenient for the Jewish community to bake thick
and thin loaves.”
MS Munich in mEd and all of the Bavli witnesses to mBes9 read " ןיררחו"
(or " ןירירחו"
)
instead of " ירוחו"
found in all of the other manuscript. The amoraim in the Yerushalmi
69 Both witnesses to the Tosefta (MS Vienna and the editio princeps) as well as MSS
JTS Rab. 218, 1608, Brit.Lib. Harl. 5508 and Munich 140 do not contain the
emendation.
70 Rashi, ad. loc., s.v. םעש.
71 Rashi, ad. loc., s.v. אריפס.
335

cite verses with respect to this word which indicate that their text read " ירוחו"
. yBes9
2:6 reads:
3) mEd 4:7
הזה לודגה ףאה ירח המו אדה ןמ הל עמש אחא יבר
ישאר לע ירוח ילס השלש הנהו אדה ןמ הל ןיעמש ןנברו
. הל ובתכש רחאמ המיע דחיתינש לכ ? ןשי טג אוה
336
הז יאו
What is an “old bill of divorce”? Any one where he secluded with her
after its writing.
The Yerushalmi indicates that our text reads as above but there are those who read
differently. It states:
4) mEd 5:7
. הל ונתנש רחאמ ינת יינת תיא הל ובתכש רחאמ ןנינת ןנא
There are those who teach, “After he wrote it for her”. There are those
who teach, “After he gave it to her”.
... 'ארשימ
ןדא לכ לע תלענינ הרזעה ןיאש
“For the Temple courtyard was never closed on a person among the
Jews ...”
bPes 64b records a debate between Abaye and Rava as to whether the wording in
mPes 5:5 is " הרזעה תותלד ולענ"
or " הרזעה תותלד ולעננ"
, i.e. active or passive. The sugya
attempts to prove that the latter is correct based upon the reading of our mishnah
which contains תלעננ (the passive). 72
72
The sugya itself is somewhat odd. It appears that the question is directed towards
both Abaye and Rava because the sugya responds to the challenge by stating ייבא"
" הימעטל ץרתמ אברו הימעטל ץרתמ.
If the mishnah was brought to buttress Abaye (and

1) mEd 7:9
D. Emendations
. חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ תרפכמ איהש
337
םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה תאטחה לעו
A stolen sin-offering that was not known publicly (as being stolen) that it
achieves atonement because of the benefit of the altar.
bGit[ 55a cites a debate between Ulla and R. Yehudah as to whether or not the
loss of hope by a stolen object’s owner suffices to transfer full possession to the thief
( ינק ידכ שואי)
. One of the resulting ramifications is whether or not a stolen animal
consecrated by a thief after the owner gave up hope of retrieving it is fit to be
sacrificed. The sugya then challenges R. Yehudah’s position (that in principle the
sacrifice is valid) from the mishnah which asserts that a sin-offering (whose stolen
status was not publicly known) is valid only because of " חבזמה ןוקית"
. On a purely
theoretical level, however, the sacrifice would be invalid which would lead one to
conclude that the thief has not acquired full possession of the stolen animal. Rav
Yehudah responds:
. חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ
תרפכמ הניא העדונ תרפכמ העדונ אל רמאק ימנ יכה
Indeed, it is saying thus: “If it wasn’t known it achieves atonement; if it
was known, it does not achieve atonement for the benefit of the altar.”
reject Rava) the answer of the sugya should have been only " הימעטל ץרתמ אבר"
.
Nonetheless, the “interpretation” of the mishnah offered for Abaye does not differ in
substance from the version found in all witnesses of the mishnah.

The term " רמאק יכה"
usually connotes interpretation, not emendation. In this case the
intent of the sugya is not clear. 73
2) mEd 5:2
. ןימרות ןיא 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ ןייה לע םיבנעו ןמשה לע ןיתיז ןימרות
One may separate terumah from olives to exempt oil and from grapes
to exempt wine according to the view of Beit Shammai but Beit Hillel
say, “One may not separate terumah [in such a fashion].”
When mTer cites this debate between the houses, it does so differently than R. Yose in
our mishnah. mTer asserts that the debate between the Houses is limited to post facto
situations, but both agree that ipso facto one is not permitted to separate the tithes
from olives on olive oil or grapes on wine. yTer 1:5 cites R. Mana who emends the
mishnah in mEd to avoid conflicting with the version found in mTer 1:4.
III. The Usage of the Material
A. An Awareness of Material Originating in mEd
There are a number of mishnayot which are referred to in the Bavli or
Yerushalmi a manner indicating that they are “edut”, testimony. Some, not
surprisingly, are mishnayot which are introduced with the term he(id; of greater note,
however, are some which are found in mEd but are not presented as testimony.
73 For more on the term, see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp.655-657. He
discusses this sugya but does not draw any conclusion regarding the question of
interpretation vs. emendation.
338

In several places, as discussed above, the Bavli rules in accordance with
positions because they are found in mEd. In all except one, the mishnah is found only
in mEd and not elsewhere in the Mishnah. The exception is bQid citing R. Nah9man
b. Yis[h9ak who argues in favor of a specific position because it follows the position
found in mEd 4:5. This is the only case in which a mishnah which appears identically
in another place in the Mishnah where we can be certain that the mishnah from mEd is
being cited. 74 Even more striking, the text of the mishnah does not present itself as
testimony – it is found in the collection of the leniencies of Beit Shammai.
yHag discusses mEd 8:1 in which R. Akiva “adds on” to the testimony of R.
Yehudah b. Beteira. R. Aha and R. Illa ask " דיעהל אב המ"
, i.e. what was R. Akiva was
adding in his testimony. Strictly speaking, R. Akiva himself (as opposed to R.
Yehudah b. Beteira) does not present testimony, although it is quite likely that since he
is adding on to someone else’s testimony, his comments are regarded similarly.
The final two sugyot that describe material as testimony stand out because they
both involve mishnayot which are not presented as testimony. bPes 14b refers to the
statement of R. Hanania Segan HaKohanim as testimony. mEd 2:1 begins by noting
that R. Hanania testified about four matters and proceeds to cite his testimony
regarding adding extra levels of impurity to sacral items in the process of destroying
74 In this case, the sugya explicitly states that the mishnah in question is found in two
places. Interestingly enough, the mishnah is actually found in three places, a point not
explicitly acknowledged by the Bavli. It may be, however, that contextually speaking
the question of two or three was irrelevant; i.e. the Bavli was initially attempting to
justify adopting a particular position because there were more anonymous mishnayot
in its favor than the single anonymous mishnah which supported the opposing
position.
339

them. When, however, this mishnah appears in mPes 1:6, it is introduced as יבר רמא"
" היננח and not with דיעה. In the course of the sugya, the Rava challenges a comment of
R. Nah9man with the following baraita:
רשבה לע םא - ודיעה המ לע וניתובר ודיעהשכש , היארל המוד ןודנה ןיא
340
: יסוי יבר רמא
... אמטנש
R. Yose said, “The analogy is not correct, for when our Rabbis testified,
to what did they testify? If regarding flesh that was defiled ...
The baraita here, and hence Rava, betrays an awareness of the fact that this mishnah
constitutes testimony despite the mishnah’s not being introduced (in any of the
witnesses which we possess) with the term he(id. 75 Either the baraita in the Bavli had
a different text in mPes or it was aware that the mishnah appeared in mEd as well.
Finally, in yRH 1:7 (=ySan 3:5, yShevu 7:4), when discussing the mishnah
which asserts that pigeon racers (" םינוי יחירפמ")
are disqualified as witnesses, R. Mana
links the authorship of the mishnah to R. Eliezer, whose view in mEd 2:8 is יחירפמו"
" תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי.
R. Yose in the midst of challenging this comments with respect
to R. Eliezer " ? דיעהל אב המ"
. The formulation is striking because R. Eliezer’s view is
presented as one of three things (two from R. Eliezer and one from R. Yehoshua) that
R. Akiva stated ( רמא)
and is found in the middle of an extended section (mEd 2:5-
3:14) in which no mishnayot are presented as testimony. Two things are apparent
75
This baraita appears in the Tosefta but is missing the reference to the edut:
... אמטנש רשב םע האמוטה דלוב אמטנש רשב היארל המוד הז ןודנה ןיא הסוי 'ר
'מא
All of the manuscripts of the Bavli here and in bPes 20b contain the line. Whether this
is an interpolation or an alternate textual tradition which the Bavli possesses is not
determinable. The Yerushalmi does not possess any tradition similar to either that of
the Bavli or of the Tosefta.

from R. Yose’s comment: 1) He is aware that the mishnah containing R. Eliezer’s
view (cited by R. Mana) is from mEd and 2)Even mishnayot in mEd which are not
prefaced by the term “he‘id” can be regarded as testimony.
B. mEd as a Source for other Tannaitic Materials
In a number of sugyot we find the suggestion that mEd served as the source
for a later Tannaitic ruling. yBer 4:1 suggests that R. Yehudah’s opinion (mBer 4:1)
that the period for morning prayers terminates at the end of the fourth hour may have
been derived from the testimony of R. Yehudah b. Beteira that the morning sacrifice in
the Temple can be brought until the fourth hour. The Yerushalmi states, דמל תודעמ יא"
" הדוי 'ר,
“If R. Yehudah learned it from testimony”, and cites mEd 6:1. 76
In a three sugyot in the Bavli we find the statement "... ינולפ לש ותודעמ"
, “From
the testimony of so-and-so”. In two of them the tradition is cited by R. H9iyya b. Abba
in the name of R. Yoh9anan who asserts that a particular mishnah or baraita was
extrapolated from a particular testimony, " וז הנשמ תינשנ ינולפ לש ותודעמ"
. For example,
in bH9ag 24a (and y H9ag 3:2) Rabbi Yoh9anan asserts that (the anonymous) m H9ag 3:1,
" שדוקל וכותבש המ תא ףרצמ ילכה"
, was extrapolated from R. Akiva’s testimony in mEd
8:1, " ולוכ תא לספש ותצקמב םוי לובט עגנש ... תלוסה לע הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה"
. In bYev 113b
(=bGit[ 55a), Rava asserts that from a certain testimony we can extract certain laws,
76 The Yerushalmi here parallels the Bavli’s notion of the confluence of opinions
between R. Yehudah and R. Yehudah b. Beteira. The Bavli, however, does not
suggest that R. Yehudah b. Beteira was the source for R. Yehudah, but merely that we
should adopt R. Yehudah’s opinion because it is supported by a mishnah found in
mEd.
341

" ךכו ךכ ןידה ינולפ לש ותודעמ"
. The notion of R. Yoh9anan that later tannaim derived
opinions from testimonies in mEd could imply that he believed that the tannaim
regarded mEd as an authoritative source. 77
C. Manner of Citation
i. Joint Citation with Baraitot
There are at least ten citations of mEd in the Bavli where the mishnah is cited
in conjunction with a baraita, frequently material found in the Tosefta. 78 In most of
the cases it is clear why the mishnah is cited in combination with the baraita; i.e. the
sugya needs the to prove its argument and the mishnah was needed to illuminate the
background of the baraita. There are three cases, however, in which the mishnah
alone should have sufficed; in once case we can probably explain the citation of the
baraita, but not in two of them.
Sometimes the baraita is marked with an introductory word (אינתו) and simply
appended to the mishnah, while on other occasions the two are joined or even
77 Whether this is true in fact does not impinge upon the idea that R. Yoh9anan may
have believed so, i.e. it at least speaks to R. Yoh9anan’s attitude towards mEd. It
happens in this case that R. H9anin (bH9ag 24a) disagrees with R. Yoh9anan’s
extrapolation and explains R. Akiva’s testimony in a different vein.
78 Those passages not cited in the text have been included in an appendix to this
chapter. The full list is mEd 1:8 (bNaz 52b), 1:16 (bH9ag 22b), 2:4 (bPes 19b), 3:3
(bBM 47b), 3:8 (bKet 36b, bGit@ 81a), 4:6 (bYev 15b), 5:1 [first segment] (bShab 77a,
bMen 104a), 5:8 (bMQ 15a), 8:1 (bMen 103b), 8:7 (bQid 71a). Two other related
examples, the first and fourth segments of mEd 5:2,will be discussed there as well.
342

interpolated into one another without any marker. 79 One example of a complicated
interpolation is found in bNaz 52b where the focus of the sugya is on whether or not
the vav in the expression " תלוגלגו הרדש"
is conjunctive (“and”) or disjunctive (“or”),
i.e. are both the skull and spine of a deceased person required to convey ritual impurity
through ohel or even just one. The sugya consists of mEd 1:8 combined with some
other material, a good deal of which appears in tAh. The sources appear as follows:
ג:
ג תולהא אתפסות
עשוהי 'ר
רמא
ירבד תושעל ינא לוכי
תיב
ירבדו יאמש
תיב
דחא ללה
םיכרימו םיקושמ
לדוגב ונינב בור אצמנ
: בנ ריזנ ילבב
עבור םירמוא
יאמש תיב
וא םימצעה ןמ תומצע
תיבו השלשמ וא םינשמ
תומצע עבור םירמוא ללה
וא ןינבה בורמ היוגה ןמ
עשוהי יבר רמא ןינמה בורמ
ירבד תושעל ינלוכי
ללה תיב ירבדו יאמש תיב
םירמוא יאמש תיבש דחאכ
השלשמ וא םינשמ םירמוא
דחא ךריו םייקוש ינשמ וא
דחא קושו םייכרי
ינשמ וא
םדא לש והבוג בורו ליאוה
ןמ םירמוא ללה תיבו הבוגמ
בורמ וא ןינב בורמ וא היוגה
יקרפמב ןנשיו ליאוה ןינמ
רמוא יאמש םילגרו םידי
ןמ וא הרדשה ןמ םצע וליפא
תלוגלוגה
343
ח:
א תויודע הנשמ
עבר םירמוא יאמש תיב
ןיב םימצעה ןמ תומצע
תיבו השלשמ ןיב םינשמ
תומצע עבר םירמוא
ללה
וא ןינבה ברמ היוגה ןמ
ןינמה ברמ
ולפא רמוא יאמש
דחא םצעמ
79
See Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 797-800 for a discussion of baraitot
which have been appended to mishnayot without any citation to indicate that the
baraita is an appendage. Almost every example he cites comes from a tractate on
which there is no Bavli. If one were to venture a guess as to why, it would probably
be that the mishnayot that are found in the Bavli itself are always delineated separately
from the gemara text either when found in their entirety or in partial form in the
pisqaot. Mishnayot from other tractates, by definition, have to first be cited within the
sugya and then the elaborating baraita follows it, which allows more frequently for the
possibility that the introductory " אינתו"
would fall out.

mEd 1:8
Beit Shammai say, “A quarter [qab] of bones from [a pile of] bones, be it from two or
three, conveys ritual impurity.” Beit Hillel say, “A quarter [qab] of bones from the
body, from a majority of the build or a majority numerically.” Shammai says, “Even
from one bone.”
bNaz 52b
Beit Shammai say, “A quarter[-qab] of bones from [a pile of] bones, whether from
two or three.”
Beit Hillel say, “A quarter[-qab] of bones from the body, from a majority of the build
or a majority numerically.” R. Yehoshua said, “I could make the words of Beit
Shammai and the words of Beit Hillel as one, for Beit Shammai say, "From two or
three", meaning either from two tibias and one femur or two femurs and one tibia
since they comprise a majority of person’s height; and Beit Hillel say, “From the
body, from a majority of the height or a majority numerically”, since they are in the
palms of the hands and feet.” Shammai says, “Even a bone from the spine of skull.”
tAh 3:3
R. Yehoshua said, “I could make the words of Beit Shammai and the words of Beit
Hillel one: [Three bones] from the tibias or femurs, in which case it is a majority of a
person’s build in height.”
There is one significant difference between the citation of the mishnah from mEd in
the Bavli and all of the manuscript witnesses to the mishnah; in the last line the Bavli
reads " תלוגלוגה ןמ וא הרדשה ןמ םצע"
and the other witnesses have " דחא םצעמ"
. There are
three possibilities to explain this: 1) The Bavli had a different version of the text 2)
This is not in fact the mishnah from mEd (unlikely since it is so similar and the text
exists nowhere else) or 3) The text of the Bavli is interpolated based upon the
conclusion of this sugya. That is to say, that when Shammai speaks of a quarter-qab
‘from one bone’ conveying impurity, the sugya assumes that there must be at least one
bone which, when complete, automatically conveys impurity (and hence a quarter-qab
from it can transmit that impurity) and since the only individual bones ever referred to
344

in the Mishnah as conveying impurity in their own right are the spine and skull, it
must be that each one alone (" דחא םצעמ")
is capable of conveying impurity
In bYev 15b the first half the mishnah from mEd 4:6 is interpolated into a story
to provide background for understanding the baraita. The mishnah is clearly marked
with " ןנתו"
but the continuation of the baraita is not marked. The text reads:
היהש יתיאר ינרוחה ןנחוי 'ר
לצא הרות דמול יתייהשכ קודצ רב רזעלא ר"
אד ש"
ת
םיתיז ול ךלוה יל רמא אבא תא יתעדוהו יתאב תרוצב ינשב חלמב הבירח תפ לכוא
אבא תא יתעדוהו יתאב םיתיז לכוא ינא ןיא יל רמא ןיחל ןהש ןתוא האר . ול יתכלוהו
םיתיז לש תיבח ןנתו םירמש הומתסש אלא התיה הבוקנ תיבח ול רומאו ךל יל רמא
םידומו בקנל הכירצ םירמוא ללה תיבו בקנל הכירצ ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיב םילגלוגמ
80
אל וישעמ לכ היה יאמש דימלתש פ"
עאו הרוהט איהש םירמש הומתסו הבקינ םאש
. ה"
ב ירבדכ אלא השע
Come and hear: R. Elazar b. S9adok said, “When I was learning Torah
with R. Yoh9anan HaH9orani, I saw that he was eating dry bread (without
oil) with salt during years of famine. I went and informed my father.
He said to me, "Take olives to him", and I took [some] to him. He saw
that they were moist (on the outside) and said to me, "I will not eat
[these] olives." I went and informed my father. He said to me, "Go
and say to him that the barrel had been punctured but dregs sealed it.”
And we have taught: "A barrel of ripened lives [where liquid may
accumulate on the bottom]: Beit Shammai say, “There is no need to
make a hole in the vessel” but Beit Hillel say “one must make a hole.”
They admit that if he made a hole and dregs plugged it that the olives
remain ritually pure." Even though he was a student of Shammai, all of
his actions were performed according to the opinions of Beit Hillel.
The mishnah from mEd (underlined) appears to be a quotation of R. Elazar b. Zadok’s
father. However, in tEd 2:2 (=tSuk 2:3) where this baraita appears in virtually
identical form, the citation of the mishnah is absent. It appears that the editors of the
80
Two manuscripts of the Bavli, Oxford 367 and Munich 141, read " הוליצה"
or " הלצוה"
instead of " הרוהט איה"
. This is probably an error due to the influence of mKel 10:6
which reads, " הוליצה םירמש הומתסו הבקינש תיבח"
.
345

sugya interpolated the mishnah from mEd to illuminate the issue under discussion in
the baraita (which in fact is commenting on or adding to that mishnah).
In bPes 19a, the mishnah from mEd 2:4 is cited with a baraita following it.
Except in one manuscript (MS Vatican 109), every witness presents the baraita
(underlined) without any connecting word ' אינתו'
allowing it to become part of the
mishnah. The text reads:
שרפב תאצמנ אמט רשבהו תורוהט םידיהו ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמנש טחמ לע םתה ןנת
. שדקמב םידי תאמוט ןיאש וניכז אביקע יבר רמא רוהט לכה
We teach there: “About a needle which was found in the flesh [of the intestines of
a sacrifice] that the knife and the hands [of the priest] are ritually pure and the
flesh is impure; and that if it was discovered in the excrement that everything is
ritually pure.” R. Akiva said, “We have merited that there is no ritual impurity of
the hands in the Temple.”
ii. Citation of Mishnayot with Multiple Cases
There are several citations in the Bavli and Yerushalmi of mishnayot from
mEd in which only one part of the mishnah was relevant to the sugya. Sometimes
only the relevant case will be cited, sometimes the entire mishnah will be cited and
sometimes the sugya will cite from the beginning of the mishnah up until the relevant
segment. Neither Talmud is consistent in its manner of citation. For example, mEd
6:1 records five testimonies of R. Yehudah b. Abba. The Bavli in one sugya requires
only the first case and in one case the last. In both sugyot, however, the entire
mishnah is cited. On the other hand, the first segment of mEd 5:1 is cited alone three
times in the Bavli. In two of the sugyot (bShab 87a=bMen 104a) the introduction to
the mishnah (" ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד השמח רמוא הדוהי יבר")
is cited
346

followed by the first segment. The rest of the mishnah is not cited. In the third sugya
(bKer 21a), only the first debate (without even the heading) is cited.
The Yerushalmi tends to abridge its citations more, but is not consistent. yTer
(1:8) needs the second segment of mEd 5:2 to prove its point. It cites the header of the
mishnah (" וכו השש רמוא יסוי 'ר")
followed by only the first two segments. There are
three different sugyot in which the Yerushalmi cites different segments of mEd 6:1.
When it needs the first, it starts with the introduction to the mishnah אבב ןב הדוהי יבר")
(" םירבד השמח דיעה followed by just the first testimony. When it needs the third case, it
cites just the case without any ascription to R. Yehudah. Finally, when it needs the
final case, it creates its own introduction, " אבב ןב הדוהי יבר דיעה"
, followed by just the
fifth case.
D. Traditions of Interpretation
i. Common Traditions on Mishnayot
There are several mishnayot in mEd for which the Bavli and the Yerushalmi
possess a common interpretation, one not automatically obvious from the text of the
mishnah. Whether they reflect a common tradition of interpretation, or are the product
of the cross-fertilization which took place between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael during the
amoraic period cannot be known.
a) mEd 2:5 אסרומ סיפמ and שחנ דצ
The Bavli states explicitly (in the name of Samuel) that, as a general rule, when the
Mishnah describes an activity on Shabbat as being " רוטפ"
, it implies that the activity is
proscribed Rabbinically, and hence one is “exempt” from the sin-offering brought by a
347

Sabbath desecrator. 81 Here, the Bavli in the name of Samuel 82 and the Yerushalmi in
the name of R. Yoh9anan both cite these two cases of the mishnah as examples of the
word " רוטפ"
in mShab connoting activity which is, ipso facto, permissible.
b) mEd 2:5 תוינורא םיספל
The Yerushalmi (in its anonymous layer) and one version of R. Yosef quoted in the
Bavli understand this term to refer to a closed earthenware vessel which needs to be
opened in order to function in its normal matter and that the debate in the Mishnah
(about whether the vessel is considered complete, i.e. " ותכאלמ הרמגנ"
, in this state)
directly correlates with the debate recorded in tShab 16:13 (=tBes9 3:13) regarding
opening such containers on the Shabbat and Festival days. That is to say, that the
definition of making something into a vessel on the Shabbat or a Festival is the same
as the definition of making that something into a vessel which renders it susceptible to
ritual impurity.
81 The Yerushalmi does not formulate the rule explicitly, but from R. Yoh9anan’s
citation is appears that the Yerushalmi was aware of a fundamental distinction
between the terms רוטפ and רתומ.
82
... תלת ינהמ רב(
ל)
רוסא לבא רוטפ תבשד ירוטפ לכ לאומש רמא
This particular case is somewhat unusual as the quotation is in Aramaic, whereas early
amoraic statements (pre-Rava) rarely appear not in Hebrew. A linguistically
comparable statement can be found in bBM 113b:
. תלת ינהמ רבל והייתוסא אנעדי ילימ לכ לאומש רמאד
Both citations of Samuel (bShab 3a, 107a) are in Aramaic; they differ in their
continuation, however. The first cites the three concisely, סיפמו שחנ תדיצ , יבצ תדיצ"
" אסרומ while the latter cites each of the three mishnayot in full, marking the first one
( " יבצ דצה"
, on which the sugya is commenting) with the expression " ןרמאד אה אדח"
and
introducing each of the next two with the word " ךדיאו"
. The latter, containing the
typical editorial terminology of the Bavli, is more likely an editorial expansion of
Samuel’s original statement which is quoted in bShab 3a.
348

c) mEd 2:8 בהז לש ריעב השא אצוי
mShab 6:1 rules (anonymously) that a woman may not walk into the public domain
wearing an " בהז לש ריע"
but is she does so she is exempt from a sin-offering ( רוטפ)
.
bShab 59a and yShab 6:1 cite a baraita where R. Meir rules that a woman who goes
out into the public domain wearing one on the Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering. The
Yerushalmi wonders about such a divergence of views on the same action; R. Meir’s
view in conjunction with the mishnah (i.e. " בייח"
and " רוטפ"
) is reasonable as is R.
Eliezer’s view with the mishnah (i.e. " רתומ"
and " רוטפ"
), but R. Meir’s opinion in
conjunction with that of R. Eliezer (i.e. " בייח"
and " רתומ"
) is difficult to understand.
bShab 138a cites R. Sheshet who challenges R. Kahana’s interpretation of mShab 20:1
based upon the same principle, i.e. one does not usually find such broad difference
between two opinions. R. Yosef responds to R. Sheshet’s challenge by citing the
debate between R. Meir and R. Eliezer in the case of " בהז לש ריע"
, confirming the
oddity noted anonymously in the Yerushalmi. To R. Yosef, Abaye responds:
? תאטח תבייח רמאד יאק ריאמ יברדא רזעילא יבר תרבס ימ
. הליחתכל רתומ והיא והל רמאו רוסא לבא רוטפ ירמאד יאק ןנברדא
Do you assume that R. Eliezer is responding to R. Meir who says that
one is liable for a sin-offering? In fact, he is responding to the Sages
who say that one is exempt but the act is prohibited; he says to them
that he is permitted to do so from the outset.
Abaye asserts, effectively, that when there is a middle position, such a divergence is
not a problem and that R. Eliezer’s debate should be viewed against the backdrop of
the opinion of the Sages, not R. Meir’s. Clearly, the Yerushalmi which leaves the
question unanswered (despite its awareness of the bridging opinion of the Sages) does
349

not agree with Abaye’s conclusion, but it is interesting that both the Bavli and
Yerushalmi seize upon the unusual characteristics of this issue within the larger
framework of the laws of Shabbat.
d) mEd 3:14 הינרק ןיבש העוצרב אצוי התיה ותרפ
bBes9 23a quotes a tradition regarding the cow in this mishnah that it was not actually
his, but rather that of his neighbor and that the position in the mishnah is ascribed to
him because he failed to rebuke her to not do so and thus was held responsible for her
behavior: 83
. ומש לע תארקנ הב החימ אלש ךותמו התיה ותנכש לש אלא התיה ולש אל : אנת
It is taught: “It was not his, but that of his neighbor, and since he did
not rebuke her, it is referred to as his.”
yBes9 2:8 cites the same tradition as being a Babylonian one:
המריאד סיריק יבר רמא ? ותניכש לע שנענ םדא שיו . התיה ותניכש ןירמא
ןמת
. וב היולת הלקלק החממ וניאו תוחמל ודיב הקיפס שיש ימ לכש ךדמלל
There they say, “It was his neighbor’s.” But is a person punished for
his neighbor’s actions? R. Qiris of )Iramah said, “To teach you that
anyone who is capable of protesting and does not protest, the blame is
placed on him.”
83
On this matter, I must acknowledge that I do not understand the point of the Bavli.
If it is to say that R. Elazar actually agreed with the Sages that such an act is
forbidden, then why is the Mishnah so misleading, i.e. that one Tanna permits the
activity. But if in fact, R. Elazar permitted what his neighbor was doing, why is it
described as " הדיב החימ אל"
– of course he didn’t ‘protest’ since he held her action to be
permissible.
84 For more on this expression, see Epstein, Mevo)ot leSifrut HaAmoraim, pp 314-7.
350
84

ii. R. Yoh9anan and Shit[t[ot
One amora who stands out somewhat in his relationship to mEd is R. Yoh9anan.
R. Yoh9anan cites mEd frequently and particularly in the context of creating what the
geonim referred to as a shit[t[ah, 85 a collection of individuals who, often in seemingly
unrelated contexts, subscribe to the same particular point of view. In the Bavli, the
phenomenon is introduced either with the expression " דחא רבד ורמא ינולפו ינולפ"
(when
there are only two individuals who subscribe to the list) or with והלוכ ... ינולפו ינולפ"
" והל אריבס (when there are three or more individuals). Of the first formulation, there
are fourteen occurrences in the Bavli, eleven of which are presented by Abaye and two
by R. Yoh9anan. Of the second, there are twenty-four, eleven of which are presented
by R. Yoh9anan, and four each by Abaye and Rabbah.
In the Yerushalmi, the shit[t[ah is always introduced with the expression ורמא"
" דחא רבד;
most of the time the number of individuals in the list (always two or three) is
prefixed to the expression, i.e. " דחא רבד ורמש ןתשלש/
םהינש"
, although occasionally it is
omitted. The expression is found between thirty-five and forty times, thirteen of
which are R. Yoh9anan.
Most interesting is that there are four opinions from mEd which are presented
as parts of various shit[t[ot, one of which appears both in the Bavli and the Yerushalmi.
All three occurrences in the Bavli and one of the two in the Yerushalmi are presented
in R. Yoh9anan’s name. The other occurrence in the Yerushalmi, which in the Bavli is
85 Cf. Nah9manides, Milh9emet HaShem, Sukkah 3b (Rif).
351

presented in R. Yoh9anan’s name, is presented by Reish Laqish, R. Yoh9anan’s brother-
in-law and contemporary.
IV. Conclusions
We have seen that (some of) the amoraim of the second and third century, both
in Bavel and Eretz Yisrael, regarded mEd as possessing a special status. This is so in
two ways: 1) The laws contained within mEd are considered authoritative, and thus
several amoraim rule in accordance with a particular tanna because his view is echoed
in mEd. According to some sugyot, it was even inconceivable that tannaim would
challenge the authority of mEd. 2) The collection of the leniencies of Beit Shammai is
regarded as complete and thus any leniency of Beit Shammai not found in mEd must
be regarded as a misrepresentation of a debate between the Houses. This authority is
assumed not only for the “testimonies” found in mEd, but for the other mishnayot as
well.
An analysis of the many sugyot which cite mishnayot from mEd indicates that
there are also a number of mishnayot which are contained in all of the manuscript
witnesses in which either part or all of the mishnah appears to be a post-tannaitic, or
perhaps even a post-amoraic, addition to the Mishnah. There are also a number of
additions found in only some of the manuscripts which can be shown, based upon the
analysis of the sugyot, to be later additions (i.e. medieval) to the text of mEd.
352

Chapter Eleven
Mishnah Eduyot and its Tosefta 1
Introduction
There has been much debate recently in scholarly circles regarding long
standing assumptions about the nature of the Tosefta and its relationship to the
Mishnah. The commonly assumed view, following Rav Sherira Gaon, 2 is that the
Tosefta was a commentary expanding upon the Mishnah compiled in the aftermath of
the Mishnah’s redaction. It was always acknowledged that, here and there, a source
antecedent to the Mishnah is preserved in the Tosefta; but those are the exception to
the rule. Recently, Shamma Friedman has challenged this notion, particularly with
respect to the synoptic parallels found in the Mishnah and Tosefta, and has suggested
that there is much material in the Tosefta which predates the Mishnah and that
frequently the Tosefta preserves the source material from which the redactors of the
Mishnah drew. 3 The approach is particularly fascinating in light of J. Neusner’s
1 The focus of this chapter is on tEd in its relationship to mEd and not as a study on
tEd itself. As a result, one extremely important issue regarding the Tosefta which we
will not discuss here is the relationship between tEd and the toseftan parallels found in
the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. On that issue, see Yaakov Elman’s Authority and
Tradition, as well as the articles by Elman (pp. 123-180) and Friedman (pp. 99-121) in
Introducing Tosefta. One brief note, however, worthy of mention is that material from
tEd is almost never cited anywhere in the Yerushalmi and, with one possible exception
(a fragment of 1:5), the little Toseftan material which is cited is found elsewhere in the
Tosefta as well.
2 Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, p. 6.
3 “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels” in Introducing Tosefta
and the Introduction to Tosefta (Atiqta.
353

theory that almost the entire Mishnah consists of a single uniform layer and no sources
may be discerned within its final form – according to Friedman, not only is the
Mishnah composed from earlier sources, but we also possess some of those sources.
In his studies on tPes, Tosefta (Atiqta, Friedman acknowledges that while the
Tosefta to that tractate supports his theory, each tractate of the Tosefta should be
considered independently. 4 In this chapter we will survey the contents of the Tosefta
and its relationship to the Mishnah of Eduyot and to the extent possible, comment on
its relevance to the larger debate.
1. Size
One superficial aspect of tEd certainly warrants Friedman’s caution regarding
extrapolating from one tractate to another: its size with respect to the Mishnah. The
entire Tosefta 5 is substantially larger than Mishnah – the Mishnah is about three fifths
the size of the Tosefta. 6 The case of tEd, however, is reversed – the Mishnah is
4 Elman, “Authority and Tradition”, p. 275, cautions similarly about extrapolating
from the results of his study on one tractate.
5 We do not possess a Tosefta for the following tractates: Avot, Tamid, Middot and
Qinnim. For calculating relative sized, these tractates in the Mishnah are excluded.
Similarly, the last chapter of mBik which actually is originally from the Tosefta is
counted as part of tBik and not as part of the Mishnah.
6 This figure was arrived out by calculating the total number of words in each. I have
used the texts found on the Bar-Ilan Responsa CD-ROM which uses the standard
Yakhin U’Boaz text of the Mishnah; for the Tosefta it uses Lieberman up until Bava
Batra and after that Zuckermandel. The number of words in the entire Mishnah (sans
the four Tosefta-less tractates) is 184935 and in the entire Tosefta 30312 (61%). The
354

substantially (almost sixty percent) larger than the Tosefta. Only six of the fifty-nine
tractates of Tosefta are shorter than their counterparts in the Mishnah. 7 The only one
of those tractates the Tosefta of which is even smaller with respect to its Mishnah than
tEd is to mEd, is tOrl. As a result, there are many gaps in the coverage of the mEd.
Furthermore, there are large sections of tEd which appear elsewhere in the Tosefta.
By way of comparison, in the first five chapters of tPes, there are three very short
passages which appear elsewhere in the Tosefta. In tEd, almost one third of the
material is found elsewhere. Some of this is due to the fact that only mEd has more
than one or two mishnayot which are found in another tractate. Nonetheless, a
substantial amount of the duplicated material is comprised of comments on mishnayot
which themselves are not duplicated elsewhere in the Mishnah.
2. Contents and Order
The Tosefta comments relatively extensively on the opening part of the tractate
(i.e. the debates between Shammai and Hillel and the mishnayot which discuss the
relevance of citing minority opinions) with the exception of the first debate between
ratio of letters is almost identical. Neusner (Introducing Tosefta, p. 39 and “The
Tosefta: Its Structure and Sources”, p. xx) opens his essay by asserting that the Tosefta
is about four times as large as the Mishnah. I am unsure as to how he arrived at this
figure.
7 They are (ratio of Mishnah to Tosefta in parentheses) H9allah (1.15), (Orlah (2.92),
Nedarim (1.31), Eduyot (1.56), Makhshirin (1.36) and T9evul Yom (1.03).
355

Shammai and Hillel which, as we have already demonstrated, 8 was not part of the
Mishnah until at least after the time of R. Huna. On the remainder of the first chapter,
which contains the collection of the Houses/Shammai debates and the retractions of
Beit Hillel, the Tosefta comments only on the first two retractions of Beit Hillel, both
of which relate to the women who reports on the death of her husband.
The testimonies of R. H9anania at the beginning of the second chapter are not
discussed at all. Of the remaining collections in the second and third chapters, one of
three issues which R. Yishmael did not know the answer for (in mEd 2:6) and four of
the five mishnayot (2:7-10) which involve R. Akiva are commented upon (at least in
part). In addition, three of the nine debates between R. Dosa and the Sages at the
beginning of the third chapter are referenced, although the last two repeat the contents
of mEd (as we possess it 9 ) without adding anything. In addition, two additional
collections which are not mentioned in the Mishnah are cited: six items which R.
Akiva declared impure and the Sages ruled pure (tEd 1:7) and four items which R.
Eliezer declared pure while the Sages ruled impure (tEd 2:1).
The leniencies of Beit Shammai, from the fourth to the middle of the fifth
chapters, are represented in the Tosefta more than any other section of mEd. Of the
twenty two debates recorded anonymously in the fourth chapter in mEd, eight are
8 Chapter Ten, pp. 260-3.
9 I add this caveat, because if one believes that the Tosefta post-dates the Mishnah in
its entirety, one might interpret the existence of a mishnah repeated in the Tosefta
without any changes as pointing to the possibility that the mishnah was not originally
in the Mishnah and was transferred later from the Tosefta.
356

eferenced. Of the seventeen attributed to the various Tannaim of Usha, six are
discussed and one additional case, not mentioned in the mishnah, is cited in the name
of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov.
Only one of the four debates between Akavia and the Sages (end of fifth
chapter) is elaborated upon, and none of the five testimonies of R. Yehudah b. Abba
(mEd 6:1) are referenced. The debate over the limb from a corpse (mEd 6:2-3) is
glossed over, while the extensive dialogue regarding the amputated limb is expanded
further. Only four of the sixteen testimonies in the seventh chapter are expanded
upon, but six of the twelve in the final chapter are referenced.
Aside from the three mini-collections already mentioned, there are four small
pieces which are found in tEd which do not comment directly on the contents of
specific mishnayot:
1) The introduction to the tractate which serves to explain the debates between
Shammai and Hillel themselves found at the beginning of the mishnah.
(tEd 1:1)
2) A discussion about how one acts when two authorities disagree as to the law
– this follows the discussion in the mishnah regarding the preservation of
both majority and minority opinions. (tEd 1:5)
3) A comment (found in tSuk and tYev also) about not picking and choosing
between the opinions of the Houses – one may choose to follow either but
not both. This follows from the story told of R. Yohanan HaH9oranit who
357

although from the students of Beit Shammai, could not bring himself to
ignore the rulings of Beit Hillel. (tEd 2:3)
4) A brief explanation of the which Sages are referenced by יבר and ןבר, and
which ones receive no title at all. 10 (tEd 3:4)
Only the last one does not seem to bear any connection to the mishnah.
There is one pattern which emerges from the selection of material found in the
Tosefta. With the exception of the material on the leniencies of Beit Shammai, there
are only four or five cases of mishnayot which are found in (nearly) identical form
elsewhere in the Mishnah where tEd comments upon the mishnah at all, and one of
them just cites mEd without any comment or elaboration. Of the forty cases of the
leniencies of Beit Shammai, ten are not found elsewhere in the Mishnah with five of
those being commented upon, whereas thirty are found elsewhere of which eight are
commented upon. Furthermore, in every one of the these eight cases as well as in two
of the earlier five cases, the material in tEd appears verbatim in the other location in
the Tosefta as well. As was the case with mEd, the Toseftan material was not
formulated twice – it was, rather, taken from one location and placed in the other.
Since, based upon the rest of its contents, tEd appears interested primarily in
commenting on mishnayot which are unique to mEd, it is likely that the material
10
This passage is found nowhere else in Rabbinic literature. The closest parallel we
find is in a passage from the Arukh (entry )abyy) in which he quotes:
. ומש ןברמ לודג , ןבר יברמ לודג , יבר ברמ לודג
The only discernible connection to the mishnah is that they have just cited
" יבר"
Yehoshua who cites " ןבר"
Yohanan b. Zakkai in the name of Moses (without
title), but the link is hardly compelling.
358

concerning the leniencies of Beit Shammai was transferred to tEd after its composition
elsewhere. One example which can only be explained by this approach is tEd 2:4:
םושל בתכ הנבמ לודג הטיג אהי אלש ןשי טגב ותשא תא רטופ םדא ןיא 'מוא
לליה תיב
םושל בתכ םהמ דחא םושל בתכו ןידמוע םיכלמ ינש ויהש וא תוניכראה םושל ןיכרפה
. רשכ ומש לע ארקנ היה םאו לוספ החפשמ יבא םושל רשכ ויבא יבא
Beit Hillel say, "One may not divorce his wife with an “old bill of
divorce”" lest her divorce precede her child. If he dated it to the reign
of Hiparkhin, to the reign of Archons; if there were two ruling kings
and he dated it to the reign of one of them; or if he dated it to his
father’s father it is valid. But if the father of the family it is invalid, but
if it was known by his name then it is valid. 11
The portion which is underlined relates to the mEd 4:7 (=mGit[ 9:4) and is also found
in tGit 6:3 (=8:4 in MS Erfurt). The other portion, however, bears no relationship to
mEd, but rather relates to the subsequent mishnah, mGit[ 8:5:
ןברוחל תיבה ןינבל ןוי תוכלמ םושל ידמ תוכלמ םושל תנגוה הניאש
תוכלמ םושל בתכ
הזמ טג הכירצו הזמו הזמ אצת חרזמב בתכו ברעמב ברעמב בתכו חרזמב היה
תיבה
. הזמו
If he dated it to the reign of an “inappropriate” kingdom, to the
kingdom of the Medes, to the kingdom of the Greeks, to the building of
the Temple, to the Destruction; or if he was in the east and wrote [as
the place name] “In the west”, she must be leave both this one and that
one (i.e. both husbands) and requires a bill of divorce from this one and
that one.
In this case, at least, the material was formulated for tGit[ in the context of mGit[ and
taken as a whole and placed in tEd as well. 12
11 For a discussion of the terms used and the meaning of this tosefta, see Lieberman,
Tosefta Ke-Feshut[ah, vol. 7, pp. 890-1.
12 Two other examples of this phenomenon are tEd 2:4e (=tMS 3:2-4) which contains
extra material relevant only to mMS 4:2 and the last line of tEd 3:1c which was
probably copied from tSan 2:13.
359

The order in the tEd mirrors that of its mishnah perfectly with one exception:
the two cases in mEd 4:6 (םילגלוגמ םיתיז and ןמש ךסה) are commented upon (tEd 2:2) in
reverse order. Two of the testimonies found in the seventh chapter are mentioned at
an earlier point in tEd (2:1), but their citation there is not as a comment on the
testimonies in the seventh chapter, but rather comprises a collection of four debates
between R. Eliezer and the Sages which is being appended to the collections found in
the second and third chapters of mEd.
3. Relationship of Toseftan Material to Mishnah
Material found in the Tosefta is almost always connected to some point in the
Mishnah, be it a logical/legalistic issue or, less commonly, a literary connection. 13
There are, however, many different roles that the toseftan comments play – some are
interpretive additions, some complement the lacunae in the mishnah and some
supplement the Mishnah with related material. In addition, the Tosefta frequently
records views which differ with the Mishnaic presentation, or attributes to other
tannaim presentations which differ from those of the tanna of our mishnah. Some of
13
An example of this latter kind is tKet 4:9-13 (ed. Lieberman) where a serious of
laws which open with " ינולפ 'ר
שרד"
are connected even though the latter are not all
topically related to the first (although all but the last deal with exegesis of terminology
found in legal documents.) The closest analogy in tEd is the addition of R. Akiva’s
six disagreements with the Sages (1:7) and the four of R. Eliezer (2:1) which are not
connected, substantively, to anything before or after. The analogy lacks, however, in
that mEd by its very definition is connected more literarily than topically, i.e. the
theme of this section of mEd is collections of multiple arguments between individual
scholars of Yavneh and the majority of their contemporaries. Accordingly, the
collection of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer are “topically” connected.
360

the material can be easily envisioned as stemming from the authors 14 of the Tosefta
and their interpretation of the Mishnah. Yet, there is much which clearly draws upon
source not at all preserved in the Mishnah. In this section we attempt to classify the
different types of comments found in tEd and to provide example of each. 15 The
references to the Tosefta follow the breakdown presented as the appendix to this
chapter.
a. Citation with no Elaboration 16
A number of passages in the Tosefta simply repeat the text of the Mishnah
without adding anything. There are three obvious possibilities for this phenomenon:
1) If one were to assume that the Tosefta represents the original source (or one
of the major sources) for the Mishnah, these passages may be vestiges of the original
which, for whatever reason, the editors of the Tosefta failed to excise.
2) There was material in the Tosefta expanding upon these passages which was
(accidentally) omitted in the transmission of the Tosefta.
3) The occurrence of the same material in the Mishnah may be a later addition
to the Mishnah which was drawn from the Tosefta.
14 By this I refer to those who shaped the Tosefta into a commentary on the Mishnah
and who followed, chronologically speaking, the Mishnah.
15 For other similar systems of classification cf. Moshe Herr, “Tosefta” in
Encyclopedia Judaica and Neusner, “A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities Part
Twenty-One”, pp. 247-278.
16 The entire list of passages is: 1:13 a, 1:17, 1:18, 2:5b, 2:7 a, 2:7 b, 3:1 c and 3:3 b.
361

It may well be that the differing explanations will explain different passages in the
Tosefta.
Two examples of note follow here. tEd 1:17:
'מוא
איהו תיבשנש םידע שי םא תלכוא וז ירה ינא הרוהטו יתיבשנ הרמאש השאה
. תלכוא הניא ינא הרוהט
A woman who says “I was taken captive but not defiled” may continue
to eat; but if there are witnesses to her being taken captive, she may
not.
In mEd 3:8 this line appears as demonstration (preceded by the word " דציכ"
) of R.
Dosa’s position. One could speculate that the Mishnah originally contained only R.
Dosa’s position without this elaboration and that it was later interpolated into the
mishnah and introduced with the word " דציכ"
. 17
Similarly, we read in tEd 3:3b:
17
It should be emphasized that this is only speculation – there is no evidence
otherwise that the text of the mishnah read differently. Furthermore, while at first
glance it is intuitive to assume that a section marked with " דציכ"
might be an
interpolation, upon further consideration its is apparent that the term itself does not
indicate a later addition. The very next mishnah states that there are four matters
which R. Yehoshua declared impure and the Sages disagreed, followed by the word
" דציכ"
and a list of the four situations.
רוהטה רבוע רוהטו דמוע אמטה דציכ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ עשוהי יבר תוקיפס העברא
ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ עשוהי יבר טיסה אל קפס טיסה קפס ... רבוע אמטהו דמוע
In that mishnah, the absence of the " דציכ"
clause would render the mishnah
meaningless, i.e. which four matters out of the hundreds or thousands of details in the
order of Teharot did they disagree on! Hence, a " דציכ"
clause cannot in itself be taken
as evidence of interpolation. (Interestingly enough, however, that mishnah appears
verbatim in the Tosefta [with no additions] with the exception of the word " דציכ"
which is omitted. The version of the Tosefta makes more sense – the term " דציכ"
usually gives a demonstration of what preceded it, but here the mishnah is simply
listing what the four items of disagreement were. For more on the term’s usage, see
Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 1032-9.)
362

יפ לע ףא םישדק ישדק ןילכואו םיחתפ ןיאש יפ לע ףאו ןיטחושש
יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
השדיק הנושאר השודקהש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא יניש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש
. אבל דיתעל השדיקו התעשל
R. Yehoshua said, “I have heard that one may “slaughter” even though
there are no “entrances”, and eat sacrifices of Qodshei Qodoshim even
though there are no curtains, [and eat] sacrifices of Qodoshim Qalim and
the “Second Tithe” even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]
because the second sanctification [of Jerusalem and the Temple] was
sanctified for its time and forever.
This passage is identical with the mishnah except in the substitution of the words
" ןיטחוש"
and " םיחתפ"
for the mishnah’s " ןיבירקמ"
and " תיב"
.
b. Brief Explanation of the Mishnah 18
These are short comments which explain either words or basic background
information about some aspect of the mishnah. This is typically done by citing the
mishnah and then either replacing the phrase to be explained with alternative wording
or by simply appending the clarifying information. An example of the first kind is tEd
2:8:
תיב הלבט אלש
תדלוי םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש רמוא רזעילא יבר [ mEd 5:4]
. שביו חל אמטמ םירמוא ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ םירמוא יאמש
19
אמטמ הדלי אלש תדלויה םד לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש רמוא
רזעילא יבר
[ T]
20
. שביו חל אמטמ 'מוא
לליה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד שבי אמטמ וניאו חל
18 The passages include: 1:2, 1:3 a, 1:3b, 1:4 b, 1:16 a, 1:8 and 2:8.
19
The word " הדלי"
is clearly a scribal error – a women cannot be a תדלוי and not have
given birth. The text of MS Vienna is also corrupt here, reading " האמט"
. The correct
reading is that of the mishnah, " הלבט"
.
20
Here the Tosefta uses a different format than the mishnah to present the two
opinions – instead of " רמוא ינולפו רמוא ינולפ"
it uses " רמוא ינולפ ינולפ ירבד"
. For more on
this terminology see Chapter 9, pp. 214-220.
363

[Mishnah] R. Elazar said that there are two matters among the leniencies of Beit
Shammai and the Stringencies of Beit Hillel: The blood of a post-parturient woman
who has not immersed in the ritual-bath: Beit Shammai say, “[It defiles] like her
spittle and urine” but Beit Hillel say, “It defiles both dry and wet.”
[Tosefta] R. Elazar said that there are two matters among the leniencies of Beit
Shammai and the Stringencies of Beit Hillel: The blood of a post-parturient woman
who has not immersed in the ritual-bath: Beit Shammai say, “[It defiles] moist and
dry”, but Beit Hillel say, “It defiles both dry and moist.”
Here the Tosefta explains via substitution that the “spittle and urine” of these women
defile only when still moist but not when they have dried up. 21
For the second kind we have tEd 1:8:
ןב עשוהי יבר ןשריפו רתיהו רוסיא אל םהב רמא אלו לאעמשי יבר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש [ mEd 2:6]
בייח הפ הל תושעל םא תבשב אסרומ סיפמה איתמ
: רוטפ החל ונממ איצוהל םאו
עשוהי ןשריפו רתיהו רוסיא ןהל רמא
אלו לאעמשי 'ר
ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש [ T]
בייח ןישוע םיאפורהש ךרדכ הפ הל תושעל וא הפלוקל םא תבשב אסרומ סיפימה איתמ ןב
. רוטפ החל הנממ איצוהל םא
[M] Three things they spoke about in the presence of R. Yishmael and he neither
permitted nor forbade them; R. Yehoshua b. Matya explained them: One who presses a
boil on Shabbat: if he does so to create an opening he is liable (for a sin-offering), but if
to force out the pus he is exempt.
[T] Three things they spoke about in the presence of R. Yishmael and he neither
permitted nor forbade to them; R. Yehoshua b. Matya explained them: One who presses
a boil on Shabbat: if he does so to peel it to create an opening as the doctors do he is
liable (for a sin-offering), but if to force out the pus he is exempt.
Here the Tosefta expands on the definition of " הפ תיישע"
and explains its purpose, to
aid in the healing by opening the wound.
21
The same understanding is obvious from the discussion found in bNid 34a on the
parallel mishnah (mNid 4:3).
364

Sometimes the explanation blends in so well with the mishnaic text that it is
easy to miss as in tEd 1:3a:
ןוילטבאו היעמש םושמ ודיעהו םילשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא [ mEd 1:3]
22
: םהירבד תא ומייקו הוקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשולשש
ןיגול תשלשש ןוילטבאו היעמש םושמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש השעמ [ T]
: םהירבד תא 'מכח
ומייקו הוקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ
[M] But rather until two weavers from the dung-gate in Jerusalem arrived and testified in
the name of Shma‘ayah and Avtalyon that three lugin of drawn-water invalidate the
ritual-bath and they affirmed their words.
[T] It happened that until two weavers from the dung-gate in Jerusalem arrived and
testified in the name of Shma‘ayah and Avtalyon that three lugin of drawn-water
invalidate the ritual-bath and the Sages affirmed their words.
The mishnah is ambiguous as to who “accepted” the testimony of the weavers – was it
Shammai and Hillel or the Sages – and the Tosefta clarifies (or interprets.)
There are also occasionally longer comments which are primarily explicating
without adding. Regarding the mishnah’s reference to the changing of weights and
measures (mEd 1:3), we find in tEd 1:2:
הצחמו בק ןהש ןרופיצב םיעבר שמח ןהש תורבדמ דועו םיעבר העבש םימכח
ורעיש
. תימלשורי
The Sages calculated [the amount of dough which mandates the
separation of h9allah] to be seven quarters and a bit which are five in
Sepphorean units which are one-and-a half qab (i.e. six) in Jerusalemite
units.
22
Interestingly enough the printed editions of the mishnah following the editio
princeps read " םימכח ומייקו"
. MS Munich as well as all of the extant manuscripts (mss.
Munich, Oxford 366 and Vatican 127) to bShab 15a also contain the same reading.
We are either dealing with a Babylonian mishnaic variant, or the Tosefta’s comment
may have caused this text variant in the mishnah (and the Bavli) in a later period. It is
also conceivable that both the Bavli and Tosefta reached the same interpretation
independently and that one or both of them later influenced the text of the mishnah.
365

Here the Tosefta records when the changes took place and what the arithmetic
adjustments were.
c. Small Supplementary Comments 23
There are a number of places where the Tosefta adds information which is
connected to the mishnah but not necessary providing any explanation for the mishnah
itself. For example, tEd 3:1d1:
לש לעו אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש לש הרוי ףסומ לע עבצוהש יאגנוס ןב םחנמ דיעה
. םירבדה ףוליח 'מוא
ויה הנושארבש רוהט אוהש םיעבצ
Menah9em b. Signai, who was a dyer, testified regarding the additional lip
[of the pot] of olive-cookers that it is susceptible to ritual-impurity and
regarding that of dyers that it is not, in contrast to that which they used to
say, i.e. just the opposite.
The Tosefta quotes the mishnah and inserts the underlined comment to explain why
Menahem had a vested interest or the expertise to discuss the matter, i.e. he was a dyer
by profession and hence understood what the purpose of the clay addition to the dyer’s
pot was.
In tEd 3:4a we find a longer expansion:
הבריקו םש התיה תרחא עורזב ןויצ ןב הקחירו ןדריה רבעב התיה הפירצה תיב תחפשמ
םהידימלתלו םהינבל ןתוא ןירסומ לבא םהילע תולגל 'מכח
וצר אלו עורזב ןויצ ןב
. עובשב תחא םעפ
The family of Beit S9ereifah lived in Transjordan and Bein-S9ion ostracized
them by means of force. And there was another [family] which Bein-
S9ion forcibly embraced them by means of force; the Sages did not wish to
reveal their (i.e. that family’s) identity, but they transmit it to their sons
and students once every seven years.
23 Included in this category are 1:9, 1:13 b, 3:1 a. 3:1 d, 3:2 c and 3:4a.
366

d. Reasons for Views in the Mishnah
In two instances the Tosefta offers (or records) a reason for the views expressed in the
mishnah by citing the mishnah and attaching the reason. tEd 2:4a states:
. הנבמ לודג הטיג אהי אלש ןשי טגב ותשא תא רטופ םדא ןיא 'מוא
לליה תיב
Beit Hillel say, "One may not divorce his wife with an “old bill of
divorce”" lest her divorce precede her child.
In a similar fashion, we have tEd 2:4d:
{
24
הביקנ תדילכ תותבש יתש 'מוא
יאמש תיבש הטימה שימשתמ ותשא תא רדמה
הבותכ ןתיו איצוי ןכ לע רתוי}
התדינ
ימיכו רכז תדילכ תחא תבש 'מוא
לליה תיבו
If a man vows to refrain from sexual intercourse with his wife: Beit
Shammai say, “[Up to] two weeks [but beyond that he must divorce her
and pay her ketubah] like the [separation period after the] birth of a
daughter”, but Beit Hillel say, “Only [up to] a week like the birth of a
son and the days of her period. {More than that, he must divorce her
and pay a ketubah.}
e. Complementary Material 25
There a number of Toseftan passages which are an attempt to complete mEd,
programmatically speaking. That is, that the mishnah seems to have had a
programmatic goal (as the Tosefta understood it) which it did not finish and the
Tosefta is attempting to finish it. For example we read in tEd 1:7:
... ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ אביקע 'ר
םירבד השש
24
This clause, which states the obvious, seems to be drawing upon the sequence of
mishnayot found at the beginning of the seventh chapter of mKet, and especially the
first which reads:
. הבותכ ןתיו איצוי ןכמ רתי סנרפ דימעי םוי םישלש דע ול תונהילמ ותשא תא רידמה
25 Included in this category are 1:7, 1:16 b, 2:1, 2:2 b, 2:6 and 3:2b .
367

R. Akiva declares that six things impart ritual impurity but the Sages
say they do not.
It appears that the Tosefta is stating that the mishnah forgot a collection of ‘things’
from one of the tannaim of Yavneh and it provides us the collection.
Similarly, we read in tEd 2:6:
... לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ דחא רבד 'מוא
בקעי ןב רזעילא 'ר
R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says that there is one thing among the leniencies
of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
Here (mEd 5:1-5) the mishnah has presented a series of collections of the leniencies of
Beit Shammai attributed to various tannaim of Usha; the Tosefta appears to be
asserting that there is one more which should be included.
f. Additional Opinions 26
In several places the absence of a dissenting opinion in mEd suggests that the opinion
recorded may be the only one and the Tosefta presents that opinion as being a matter
of dispute. As an example, mEd 2:10 records a statement of R. Akiva, homiletical in
nature, about five attributes which are typically passed from father to son. tEd 1:14-15
cites the opinion of the Sages who disagree with R. Akiva on fundamental theological
issues which stem from his statement.
Similarly, the mEd 2:7 cites R. Akiva who quotes two matters in the name of
R. Eliezer and one in the name of R. Yehoshua, without any indication that there exist
26 Included in this category are 1:10, 1:14-15, 2:2c and 2:4e1.
368

differing opinions. The Tosefta, for each of the three, asserts that the issues are
disputed by other tannaim. 27
g. Tangential Material
In two places, we find that the Tosefta quotes material which is not relevant to the
current mishnaic context, but was connected to the immediately preceding material in
the Tosefta. In both of these cases, the toseftan material appears in another location in
the Tosefta where both it and the material which precedes it are relevant. We read in
tEd 2:4e:
ןיבייחמ לליה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב תבש תלכלכ . A
. רסוא היה ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
רשעיש דע לכאי אל וריבחל חלשיש הלכלכ טקולה . B
. רסוא היה ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
רשעיש דע לכאי אל תבש יאצומל תבש ןהילע רבעו םוקמל םוקממ םיניאת ריבעמה . C
. רסוא היה
ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
The basket of fruits set aside for the Shabbat: Beit Shammai exempt [it
from tithes] but Beit Hillel mandate [the separation of tithes]. R.
Yehudah says, “Hillel himself prohibited [until tithes were separated].”
If one gathers a basket to send to his friend, he should not eat from it
until he has tithed. R. Yehudah says, “Hillel himself prohibited.”
If one was carrying figs from place to place and Shabbat occurred, he
should not eat from them after the Shabbat until he has tithed. R.
Yehudah says, “Hillel himself prohibited.”
27
The first issue is clearly disputed based upon mShab 6:1, but the other two appear
anonymously in the mishnah, and in the second case ( םינוי יחירפמ)
, nowhere do the
amoraim betray an awareness of a dissenting opinion.
369

The passage is identical to that found in tMS where all of these issues are relevant;
here they are cited as a tangent to the first case. The same is true for tEd 2:4b whose
latter part is relevant to mGit but not mEd. 28
h. Alternate Views to the Mishnah’s Presentation 29
There are a number of instances where the anonymous tanna of the mishnah presents
the views of tannaim and where the Tosefta comments that there were tannaim who
disagreed with the presentation. In these cases the Tosefta is not arguing with the
mishnah, but rather asserting that there was more than one opinion among the tannaim
and that the mishnah presents one but there is another. 30 Most of the examples relate
to the debates between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. 31 For example, we read in tEd
2:4c:
הכירצ הניאש יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה לע וקלחנ אל רזעלא ןב 'עמש
'ר
'מא
. לעבש לע וקלחנ המ לע יניש טג ונמיה
28
See above at the end of section 2 (Contents and Order) where this passage is cited
and discussed.
29 Examples of this are 2:2c, 2:4c, 2:4f, 2:5a, 2:7c, 2:9a and 2:9b.
30 I assume that the Tosefta’s attributing the debate to a named tanna is an indication
not of an endorsement but merely as an assertion that there is another opinion. Were
the Tosefta arguing on the Mishnah, it would have presented the alternative version of
the debate anonymously. If one is disinclined to see the distinction, one would treat
this material as the type in which the Tosefta argues on the Mishnah.
31
Additionally, most of the authorities named who differ are contemporaries of R.
Yehudah HaNasi.
370

R. Shimon b. Elazar said, “They did not disagree about one who
divorces his wife and then sleeps with her at an inn that she does not
require from him a second bill of divorce. About what did they
disagree? About one who had sexual intercourse.”
While the tanna of the mishnah asserts that the debate between the Houses over
whether or not the wife requires a second get[ applies in a case where the couple were
merely secluded ( דוחיי)
, the tosefta tells us that according to R. Shimon b. Elazar, Beit
Hillel only required a get[ when they engaged in sexual relations.
i. Introduction to Sections of the Mishnah
Two passages in the Tosefta serve as introductions to segments of mEd. The famous
opening passage of the Tosefta ( יאמשו ללהמ ליחתנ ... םימכח וסנכנשמ)
32 likely introduces
the material found at the beginning of the first chapter (and maybe 1:8-11 as well since
they include Shammai’s opinion). 33
j. Longer Additions Related to the Mishnah 34
As is common throughout the larger Tosefta, there are a number of expansions on the
Mishnah which either involve extensive dialogue between disputants or stories to
32
This is according to MS Erfurt and the editio princeps. However, MS Vienna reads
' ללה תיבל המו יימש תיבל המ',
which could be read as introducing the entire first chapter,
and perhaps even the material in the fourth and first half of the fifth chapters.
33 The other passage is the introduction to the leniencies of Beit Shammai, tEd 2:2a,
which merely informs us that there were twenty-four leniencies of Beit Shammai.
34 The cases are 1:14-15, 2:2e, 3:3a, 3:3a and 3:4c.
371

prove the point adduced in the mishnah. tEd 1:14-15 records an extensive debate
between R. Akiva and the Sages about children being rewarded based upon the merits
of their parents (vs. their own). tEd 3:2a provides a brief example of the latter (the
underlined portion is the mishnah text repeated):
ויה ןירחונ הריתפ ןב ןועמש 'מא
רוהט אוהש תוליבנ םד לע הריתפ ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
ושח אלו םהיתובוכר דע םדב ןיעיקפמ םילגר ילוע ויהו ךלמ לש תיטרטסיאב תורדע
. האמוט םושמ םהל
R. Yehoshua b. Pteirah testified regarding the blood of neveilot 35 that it is
does not impart ritual impurity. Shimon b. Peteirah said, “We were
slaughtering flocks in the highway of the king and the festival pilgrims
were wading in blood up to their knees and they were not concerned
about ritual impurity.”
These kind of comments are found in the mishnah as well (mEd 6:6-11 as example of
the former; 2:4: 7:3-4: 8 as examples of the latter), albeit less frequently. 36
k. Material Unrelated to the Mishnah
There are two passages in the Tosefta which seem to bear little if any relationship to
either the Mishnah or the surrounding passages in the Tosefta as we possess them.
The first is tEd 1:5 which discusses the rules of deciding the law when two individual
Sages disagree. The second is the final passage in tEd (3:4d) which states:
ןבר ותוא ןיארוק וידימלת וחכתשנ יבר ותוא ןיארוק וידימלתו םידימלת ול שיש ימ
. ומשב ותוא ןיארוק וליאו וליא וחכתשנ
35 Animals which died without a proper ritual slaughtering.
36
םישעמ"
" in the Tosefta are cited slightly more than twice the number of times as in
the Mishnah, while the Tosefta is a little less than one-and-two-thirds the size of the
Mishnah.
372

One who has students [still alive] he is called “Rabbi”. When his
students are forgotten he is called “Rabban”. When these and those are
he is called by his name [alone].
l. Disagreements Between Mishnah and Tosefta 37
There are a handful of comments in the Tosefta which simply disagree with the
presentation in the Mishnah. In a number of cases the debate involves only a reversal
of opinions. Other cases involve more substantive disputes. tEd 2:2e records:
תיבו רוהט דרויו תתושש יפ לע ףא 'מוא
יאמש תיב לבטו דרי אמטנו רוהט ןמש ךסה
. ( רוהט ןכימ תוחפ)
אמט ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
לליה
If one anoints himself with ritually-pure oil and then becomes ritually
impure and immerses in the ritual bath: Beit Shammai say, “Even if the
oil is still trickling he becomes ritually-pure” but Beit Hillel say, “If
there is enough oil remaining one him to anoint a small limb [he does
not].”
The text of the Mishnah is identical except that instead of the underlined words, it
reads " ףטנמש"
; i.e. the standard in the Tosefta for Beit Shammai is “trickling” as
opposed to the “dripping” of the Mishnah. The debate is not one of semantics as is
clear from mAh 3:5:
אצמנו תתוש ומדש בולצ הסובת םד והזיא םימכ הזו הז רמוא הדוהי 'רב
רזעילא 'ר
יבר רוהט םד תיעיבר ויתחת אצמנו ףטנמ ומדש תמה לבא אמט םד תיעיבר ויתחת
. אמט ףטנמהו רוהט תתושה אלא יכ אל רמוא הדוהי
R. Elazar b. Yehudah says, “This and that are [ritually pure] like water.
What is considered "blood of writhing"? A crucified person whose
blood is trickling and a revi(it of blood is found pooled underneath him
– [that blood is] is impure. But a person whose blood is dripping and a
revi(it of blood is found pooled underneath him – [that blood is] pure.
37 The cases are 1:4: 1:6c, 2:2d, 1:11, 1:12, 3:1b and 3:4b.
373

R. Yehudah says, “No, but rather the trickling is pure but the dripping
is impure”.
The twelve kinds of comments delineated above can be broken down into three
categories. The first (a-d) consists of comments that likely were composed in
response to an already completed mishnah and most of which did not need to draw
upon other sources not included in the Mishnah as they may have simply been
interpretation.. The redaction of these comments certainly postdates the Mishnah; the
composition probably does as well.
The second group (e-j) are comments which draw upon sources not preserved
in the Mishnah at all. Their formulation could theoretically have been a product of the
redactors of the Tosefta, but clearly whoever formulated these passages could not rely
upon the Mishnah alone (using interpretation.)
The third group (k-l) are materials whose formulation was clearly not in the
context of forming the Tosefta as a commentary upon the Mishnah. They were
incorporated here by the redactors, but they point to a work that was totally
independent of the enterprise of forming our Mishnah.
One final note with respect to the different types: given the unique nature of
the Mishnah of Eduyot, there are certain types of Toseftan material which would
rarely find elsewhere. Type “e”, materials which complement the broader Mishnaic
agenda, do not usually exist in other tractates because those tractates focus on a logical
theme rather than a common literary structure. If, for example, we were studying
374

tOrlah the “agenda” of the tractate would be the prohibition of orlah and any topic
within it that was not discussed at all in the mishnah would still be part of the same
logical theme and thus we would classify it as an addition to the Mishnah which is
related to it, either category ‘c’ [“Small Supplementary Comments”] or category ‘i’
[“Longer Additions Related to the Mishnah”]. 38 Similarly, type ‘i’ material
(“Introduction to Sections of the Mishnah”) is unlikely to exist outside of tEd because
other tractates have a clear raison d’etre and no introduction is needed. 39
4. Synoptic Parallels to the Mishnah
There are six cases of synoptic parallels that lend themselves to analysis of the
primacy of Mishnah vs. Tosefta and visa versa. 40 In two of them the Mishnah is
38
One example of this elsewhere is the sequence of mishnayot in mShab (8:7-9:4) in
which every mishnah begins with the question " ? ןינמ"
and produces a Biblical
prooftext to demonstrate the principle; none of the various laws are related to each
other except through the common literary presentation. The Tosefta there (8:23-30)
contains eight more examples which could be read as complementing the Mishnaic
agenda.
39 Type ‘g’ material (“Tangential Material”) are also probably uncommon outside of
Eduyot since they appear to stem from the editorial transference of a block of material
found on a mishnah from its original location to a second location where the very
same mishnah is found. Since duplications of mishnayot within the Mishnah, aside
from mEd and its parallels, are rare, so this phenomenon is likely to be as well.
40
Aside from the six we discuss, there are two other cases which might be included in
this category, but, in my opinion, are more likely examples of rearrangement of
material by the editors of the Tosefta. They are: 1) tEd 1:7, which appears to be a
verbatim adoption of two collections of disputes (from mToh 5:1 and mAh 2:6)
between R. Akiva and the Sages, each with six details, prefaced by an Eduyot-like
introduction of " ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ אביקע יבר םירבד השש"
and 2) tEd 2:1a which appears
to be a slight reworking of mKel 2:8, although the reverse is possible.
375

almost certainly primary and in two others it is probably the Tosefta. A determination
in the other two cases is difficult to make.
1) mEd 1:4 and tEd 1:3a:
תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
[M]
תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש ןוילטבאו הייעמש םשמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש
. ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה
תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשלש אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
[T]
היעמש םושמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש
השעמ הוקמה
. םהירבד תא 'מכח
ומייקו הוקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשלשש ןוילטבאו
The language of the mishnah here is awkward. The syntax of the expression ' דע אלא'
is
highly unusual, as the expression usually is translated “only until”, but here that
translation doesn’t work. The Tosefta appears to drop the awkward syntax of the
mishnah and immediately introduces the opinion of the Sages as happened in the
preceding two mishnayot (1:1 and 1:3) and then takes the story which led the Sages to
their conclusion and presents it as a related " השעמ"
. It is improbable that the mishnah
took such a clear presentation of the Toseftan presentation and created a distorted
syntax to make it more concise; more likely, the Tosefta took the difficult syntax of
the mishnah and clarified it, and hence primacy should be attributed to the Mishnah. 41
2)mYev 15:1 and tEd 1:6a:
התאבו םלועב םולשו הניבל וניב םולש םיה תנידמל הלעבו איה הכלהש השאה [M]
וניב הטטק םלועב המחלמו הניבל וניב םולש םביתת ילעב תמ אשנת ילעב תמ הרמאו
... ילעב תמ הרמאו התאבו םלועב םולשו הניבל
41 The format of the Tosefta, i.e. opinion followed by an illustrative השעמ, is common
in the Mishnah and is found several times in mEd. There is no reason to suppose that
the redactor of mEd would have been uncomfortable incorporating tEd right into his
mishnah if he had received the material in that form.
376

התאב םלועב םולשו הניבל וניב םולש םיה תנידמל הלעבו איה הכלהש השאה [T]
וניב ןיביר םלועב המחלמו הניבל וניב םולש םבייתת ילעב תמ אשנית ילעב תמ הרמאו
ילעב תמ הרמאו התאב םלועב םולשו הניבל
[M & T] A woman who travels overseas with her husband: When there
is harmony between them and no war in the world and she comes and
says, “My husband has died”, she may remarry or marry the levir. If
there was harmony between them but war in the world; or strife
between them but no war in the world and she comes and says, “My
husband has died”, she is not believed.
The substitution of the " ןיביר"
for " הטטק"
is difficult to assess. Both words are
extremely rare in Tannaitic literature, with " הטטק"
appearing only twice in the
Midreshei Halakha and " ןיביר"
nowhere else. 42 Both are Biblical roots, with " ביר"
being far more common. 43 The Bavli uses the term " הטטק"
in a handful of sugyot; that
and the rare occurrences of the term elsewhere in Tannaitic literature (as opposed to
the hapax " ןיביר"
) suggest that the term " ןיביר"
was an archaic usage which was
replaced by " הטטק"
, and hence the Toseftan version should be viewed as primary and
the Mishnah’s as secondary. 44
42
For enumeration purposes, Biblical quotations are excluded. In tNeg 1:7, we find
the expression " םיעגנל ןיביר שיקמ"
but that is merely a rephrasing of the Biblical ביר לכ"
" עגנ לכו (Deut. 21:5) cited there.
43
The root qtt (or qvt) appears several times in Scripture. The usage most closely
related to the Mishnaic Hebrew word is Psalms 139:21, " טטוקתא ךממוקתמבו"
.
44
Friedman (Introducing Tosefta, p. 109) cites an example of this from tShab 13:14
where the term " שבכ"
used in the mishnah is replaced in the tosefta with the word
" אלקס"
(Greek σκόδα, gangplank), and the term " לכתסמ"
with " הפוצ"
. He suggests that
the tosefta represents the original text and that the mishnah substituted the common
Hebrew term for the obscure Greek one and a mishnaic Hebrew word ( לכתסמ)
for the
Biblical one ( הפוצ)
. While his conclusion about the progression is justified, one
377

3) mKel 15:2 and tEd 2:1:
'מכחו
רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
םיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ רזעילא
'ר
378
לתוכב ועבקש ןימותחנ לש ףד [M]
הרוקב וא שירמב רביחש רמסמב ועבקש םימותחנ לש ףד [T]
ןיאמטמ
[M] A tray of a baker which he attached to the wall, R. Eliezer declares
not susceptible to ritual impurity but the Sages declare susceptible.
[T] A tray of a baker which he fixed to a nail which he attached to a stud
or a beam, R. Eliezer declares not susceptible to ritual impurity but the
Sages declare susceptible.
It is difficult to judge in this case which reading is the original; it is also conceivable
that these two versions represent two independent formulations of the law and should
not be considered truly synoptic.
4) mEd 5:1 and tEd 2:5b:
תיב ירבדכ הרוסא ואל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמנ הב אצויכ שי םא הלבנה תציב [M]
רוסיאב הלידגש ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפרט תציבב םידומו ןירסוא ללה תיב יאמש
רוסיאב הלדגש ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפירט הציבב םידומ [T]
ןהב אצויכ שי םא 'מוא
יאמש תיבו ןירסוא לליה
תיבש הליבנ תציב לע וקלחנ המ לע
הרוסא ואל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמנ
[M] The egg found inside a neveilah: if there are similar ones (i.e. it is
sufficiently developed) sold in the market it may be eaten but if not, it
is prohibited but Beit Hillel prohibit [eating it]. But they (Beit
Shammai) agree that the egg of a tereifah is prohibited because it
developed while [the hen was] prohibited [already].
[T] They agree that the egg of a tereifah is prohibited because it
developed while prohibited.
wonders about the chronology – it is entirely plausible that the mishnah originally read
as does the tosefta and that the change took place in the amoraic period or later. If that
were the case, then it would be true that the tosefta preserves an earlier form of the
mishnah, but not that the tosefta actually precedes the mishnah.

About what do they disagree? About the egg of a neveilah, for Beit
Hillel prohibit [it] but Beit Shammai say, “If there are similar ones sold
in the market it may be eaten but if not, it is prohibited.”
In this case the order of the clauses is reversed and as a result the transition phrase לע"
" וקלחנ המ must be added. Initially, one might conclude that since the mishnah’s
formulation matches that of its other cases (case + ruling according to Beit Shammai +
" מוא ה"
ב ש"
ב ירבד"
+ ruling according to Beit Hillel), the Toseftan version represents
the original source and the redactor of this mishnah edited it to conform to the
mishnaic format. However, the Toseftan version itself is extremely unusual – first it
tells us what they agree upon before even noting about what they disagree 45 , which
might lead us to conclude that the Toseftan version is simply a confused one, 46 not
necessarily an original one. We might conjecture that if the Tosefta represents an
earlier version, it is a response to another presentation of the debate which asserts that
the Houses argued over a " הפירט תציב"
(with Beit Shammai permitting) and the Tosefta
responds by asserting that even Beit Shammai agrees by a " הפירט תציב"
and that they
permit (and disagree with Beit Hillel) only by a " הליבנ
תציב"
. Were this the case we
45 Such a presentation is rare but not unheard of; an example would be mKet 8:1:
תנתונו תרכומש ללה תיבו יאמש תיב םידומ סראתת אלש דע םיסכנ הל ולפנש השאה
ולאו ולא)
םייקו
רוכמת אל םירמוא ללה תיבו רוכמת םירמוא יאמש תיב הסראתנשמ הל ולפנ
(. םייק הנתנו הרכמ םאש םידומ
46
It should be noted that there are numerous places in our texts of the Tosefta where
material clearly is mixed up and should not be regarded as a reflection of the original
source. One example which stands out is tEd 1:6 which cites (a) six “doubtful” issues
( תוקיפס)
and six items ( םירבד)
about which R. Akiva and the Sages disagree, but the
headings are reversed, i.e. the six doubtful cases are preceded with the statement השש"
" ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ ע"
ר םירבד and visa versa.
379

would conclude that the redactors of this mishnah adopted the conclusion of the
Tosefta (as opposed to the opinion to which the Tosefta was responding) and
reformatted it to make it fit stylistically with the rest of the mishnah. 47
5) mEd 5:4 and tEd 2:8:
ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש רמוא רזעילא יבר : מ
שביו חל אמטמ םירמוא ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ םירמוא יאמש תיב הלבט אלש תדלוי םד
. שביו חל אמטמ
לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש 'מוא
רזעילא 'ר
: ת
'מוא
לליה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד שבי אמטמ וניאו חל אמטמ הדלי אלש תדלויה םד
In this case, it is likely that the Tosefta has substituted the explanation for the mishnaic
reference and thus the mishnah here is primary. That is, the mishnah states that the
post-parturient women’s blood has the same status as her spittle and urine, but does
not specify what exactly that is. The Tosefta comes along and fills it in. 48
6) mEd 8:6 and tEd 3:3b:
לע ףא םישדק ישדק םילכואו תיב ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןיבירקמש יתעמש עשוהי יבר רמא : מ
השדק הנושאר השודקש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא ינש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש
יפ
. אבל דיתעל השדקו התעשל
לע ףא םישדק ישדק ןילכואו םיחתפ ןיאש יפ לע ףאו ןיטחושש יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
: ת
הנושאר השודקהש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא יניש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש יפ
. אבל דיתעל השדיקו התעשל השדיק
47
See H9asdei David on this passage where he proposes an alternative construction in
light of bH9ul 58b; unfortunately his conjecture is based upon his understanding of an
alternative reading which is based on MS Vienna, " רוסיאב הילודיגש ינפמ"
. This version,
which in any case differs from mEd, MS Erfurt and all five Bavli manuscript
witnesses, does not, in my opinion, justify his conclusions. If he were correct,
following bH99ul,
the text should have read " רוסיאב הרמגש"
.
48 bNid 34a assumes this in its discussion but does not cite a source.
380

This passage is identical with the mishnah except in the substitution of the words
49
" ןיטחוש"
and " םיחתפ"
for the mishnah’s " ןיבירקמ"
and " תיב"
. The unusual term ' םיחתפ'
brings to mind reminds us of the passage in bEruv 2a:
רמאנש ןילוספ לכיהה תותלד תחיתפ םדוק ןטחשש םימלש לאומש
רמא הדוהי בר רמאד
. םילוענ ןהש ןמזב אלו ןיחותפש ןמזב - דעומ להא חתפ וטחשו ( 'ג
ארקיו)
For R. Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, “Peace-offerings which
were slaughtered before the doors of the Temple were opened are
invalid because it is said (Lev. 3), "And he shall slaughter it at the
opening of the )ohel mo(ed" – when they are open and not when they
are closed.”
The expected term is the one found in the mishnah – whether tEd represents an archaic
usage or an emendation under the influence of a dictum similar to that of the amora
Shmuel is unclear. 50 In this case, both the Mishnah and Tosefta are quite clear in
meaning and there is no chronology of versions which can be reasonably asserted.
49
The only other occurrence in the Mishnah or Tosefta of this term in reference to the
Temple is in tKel BQ 1:11:
םיול ןיסנכנ םינהכ ןיא םינהכב הוצמ האמוטה תא איצוהלו ןקתלו תונבל םיסנכנ לכה
ןיא ןימימתב הוצמ ןיאמט םיסנכנ םירוהט ןיא םירוהטב הוצמ םילארשי םיסנכנ םיול ןיא
ןכו ןיחתפ ךרד ןיסנכנ
תובית םש ןיא תוביתב וסנכיש הוצמ ןימומ ילעב ןיסנכנ ןימימת
. 'וגו
האמוטה לכ תא ואיצויו רהטל תיבה םינפל םינהכה ואוביו רמוא אוה
50
There certainly is a tendency in the Mishnah to the use of Biblical and even
“anachronistic” terminology. The use of the term " םיעלק"
(which in the tabernacle
corresponded to the walls of Jerusalem in later times) here and in the fifth chapter of
mZev is the classic example. In this case, however, it seems that the term " תיב"
is the
Biblical one. The only clear Biblical usage of the term would be Prov. 8:34, רומשל"
" יחתפ תוזוזמ
and perhaps in Ps. 24, " םלוע יחתפ ואשנהו"
.
There is one instance in Rabbinic literature where the Biblical term " םיחתפ"
is
taken as a substitute for " םיתב"
. In the introduction to Eikhah Rabbah (sec. 7) we read:
הליבאו םינפבמ הנינא היחתפ ולבאו ונאו חתפ
אנינח רב יסוי 'ר
םשב והבא יבר
...
ינש ןברוחו ןושאר ןברוח - היחתפ ; ץוחבמ
381

In sum, two of the six cases suggest that primacy belongs to the mishnah and
one to the Tosefta; about the other three we can only conjecture. Even the one case
that does suggest the primacy of the Tosefta is not tEd against mEd but tEd against
mYev. The data from this study does not support the same conclusion that Friedman
drew from tPes, i.e. the primacy of Tosefta over Mishnah. The limited data leans in
the opposite direction, the primacy of Mishnah over Tosefta, although the sample is
too small to suggest any broad conclusions.
5. Possible influence of Tosefta on the Text of mEd
There are several instances in which the text of the Tosefta appears to have influenced
the text of individual mishnayot after the redaction of the Mishnah. 51 In some cases,
we can only conjecture that the mishnaic text changed as there is no manuscript
evidence to an earlier reading which would demonstrate change. In others, the
variation in manuscripts points to, especially in light of the Tosefta text, development
of the mishnaic text.
1) mEd 1:4:
ןוילטבאו הייעמש םשמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא
. ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש
The synoptic parallel in the Tosefta (tEd 1:3a) reads, ומייקו"םימכח"ןהירבד תא , a reading
also found in MS Munich and the editio princeps as well as all of the Bavli witnesses
51 I assume here, as is common, that the redaction of the Mishnah was more or less
completed by R. Yehuda HaNasi and his contemporaries.
382

in bShab 15a. It is conceivable that this may be a variant between the Eretz Yisrael
and Babylonian tradition of the Mishnah, although it is more likely that the addition
was influenced by a text like our tosefta, or arrived at by the same exegetical process
in which the author of the Tosefta engaged. 52
2) tEd 1:3b:
ןיאו ידרג אלא הדירי תונמוא ךל ןיא אלהו ןתונמוא םשו ןהיתומוקמ םש ורכזוה המלו
םהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא המ אלא תופשאה רעשכ םלשוריב יוזב םוקמ ךל
. העומש םוקמב ורבד לע םדא דימעי אלש המכו המכ תחא לע העומש םוקמב
Why were their place of origin and profession mentioned? Behold there
is no lower profession than a weaver and no place in Jerusalem more
despised than the dung gate and [nonetheless] the eminent Sages did
not adhere to their opinions in light of a [conflicting] report, how much
more so that an [ordinary] individual should not adhere to his opinion
in light of a [conflicting] report.
From the comments of Rashi (bShab 15a, s.v. םיידרג ינש) 53 and the Meiri (mEd 1:3) 54 it
appears as if they had a Mishnah text which contained comments similar to the
52
The expression of "[ םהי/
הי/
וי]
רבד תא ( םימכח)
ומייקו"
appears in several places in the
Bavli: bGit[ 15a, 28a, bQid 26b, bBB 139b, 151b and 156b. One (bGit[ 28a) is in a
mishnah where the preceding words are " םימכח ינפל"
and hence we would not expect
the term " םימכח"
to be repeated (as it is, in fact, not.) The other passages consist of
two stories repeated in different sugyot; there is a great deal of variance in the
manuscripts, although the predominant trend is towards including the word ' םימכח'.
I
would surmise that it is more likely for the term to be added than to be removed, but it
is difficult to be sure.
53
The text in Rashi (brackets mine – the text inside them is a digression of Rashi to
demonstrate the low status of weavers) reads:
ומצע םדא ענמי אלש רמול : םמוקמ
םשו םתונמוא םש רכזוה המל שרפמ תוידע תכסמב
אלו לודג ןהכ אל ונממ ןידימעמ ןיאש]
ידרגמ התוחפ תונמוא ךל ןיאש שרדמה תיבמ
ועירכהו תופשאה רעשמ תוחפ םילשוריב רעש ןיאו [ ( : בפ)
ןישודקב ןנירמאדכ ךלמ
. לארשי ימכח לכ ןתודעב
54 The text of the Meiri reads:
383

Tosefta. None of the mishnah witnesses we possess contain such a variant. If indeed
their texts had an addition, it was probably under the influence, if not taken directly
from, our Tosefta.
3) mEd 3:6:
הניאש היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד המורתב תלכוא היובשה
איהו תבשינש םידע שי םא תלכוא ינא הרוהטו יתבשינ הרמאש השאה דציכ תלכוא
. תלכוא הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא
As we suggested earlier 55 , it is conceivable that the original mishnah did not contain
the illustration of the position of the Sages and that the tosefta which contains only the
illustration might have been introduced into the mishnah with the prefatory ' דציכ'.
4) mEd 8:3:
הסיעה הנוהכל הרישכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע הריתב ןב עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
רזגו השענ המ לבא ןכתודע ונלבוק 'אילמג
ןבר 'מא
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרישכ
אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה ךכ לע ןיד תיב בישוהל אלש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר
. ברקל
The line in question may have been inserted under the influence of the Toseftan
parallel:
לבא ברקלו קחרל ריתהלו רסאל רהטלו אמטל הסיע תנמאנ ורמא םהירחאלש ןיד תיב
56
. ועגנ אל הסיע תנמלאב
ךדמלל ובישהו תותיחפב םהינשש רחא םמוקמ םשו םתונמוא םש רכזוה המל הב ולאשו
ןמ התוחפ תונמוא ךל ןיאש םיתוחפבש תוחפ וליפאו שרדמה תיבמ ומצע םדא ענמי אלש
םלשוריב רעש ךל ןיאו לודג ןהכ אלו ךלמ אל םהמ ןידימעמ ןיאש םיגרוא ל"
ר םיידרגה
. לארשי ימכח לכ םתודעב ועירכה כ"
פעאו הופשאה רעשמ תוחפ
55 Above pg. 362 and footnote 17.
56 For a discussion of the other evidence, see Chapter Ten, pp. 273-5.
384

The court which followed them said, “A mixed-up group is believed to
declare [it] genealogically fit or unfit, to ostracize or embrace (i.e., a court
may attempt verify the facts.); but did not touch [the case of] a widow of
the mixed-up group.”
6. Conclusions
Briefly summarizing, we have seen that tEd is much shorter (proportionally)
than most of its counterparts in the Tosefta. Many sections of the Mishnah are
ignored or only briefly commented/expanded upon. As with Mishnah Eduyot, there is
much material duplicated elsewhere in the Tosefta, particularly in the section which
addresses the leniencies of Beit Shammai. Using the same techniques that we used in
the study of mEd, it appears that much of the duplicate Toseftan material was
formulated in the parallel locations and was subsequently transferred into tEd. This
process is the reverse of the process which occurred in mEd, in which mEd served as
the source for most of the duplicate material found elsewhere in the Mishnah.
tEd contains all of the kinds of comments, in terms of their relationship to the
Mishnah, which are commonly found in the Tosefta. In addition, there are one or two
kinds of comments which are rare elsewhere in the Tosefta; these types of expansions
are a product of the unique organizational structure of mEd. A comparison of the
synoptic parallels found in tEd and the Mishnah suggests that primacy in the case of
Eduyot belongs to the Mishnah, not the Tosefta. However, the data sample is too
small to reach any definite conclusion on the issue of Mishnah/Tosefta primacy.
385

Conclusions
We have analyzed Mishnah Eduyot in its various historical stages; it has been
studied in the context of the rest of the Mishnah and traced through the amoraic
period, and a critical edition of the manuscript tradition has been prepared. Finally, it
has been compared to its Tosefta to identify what light it may shed on the text and
history of the Mishnah.
The Tannaitic Era
The central question we have explored is whether or not mEd, from a literary
perspective, precedes its parallels elsewhere in the Mishnah, or (to borrow from
Neusner) is merely an anthology. Historiographically speaking, there have been two
basic views:
a) Eduyot precedes other tractates in the Mishnah (Rav Sherira Gaon, Albeck).
b) Eduyot is an anthology of certain kind of material (Maimonides, Neusner).
There is a third view, which is similar on a fundamental level to the second, that our
Eduyot represents a scaled down version of what was once a larger block of material
most of which was distributed throughout the Mishnah and removed from mEd.
(Hoffmann and Dünner)
We have studied each mishnah (where applicable) in comparison with its
parallels and attempted to judge which context seems to be the location of its original
formulation. In most cases we have seen that duplicate mishnayot were not
formulated originally in the parallel locations in the Mishnah, and hence have
386

concluded that they were formulated in the context of mEd or its precursor. Excluding
post-tannaitic additions to mEd, there are at most a handful of mishnayot in mEd
which appear to have been formulated in another location which we can identify; thus
almost the entire mEd, including both the mishnayot found nowhere else and the many
duplicated mishnayot, is “original” to mEd. Our tractate is no anthology gathered
from the rest of the Mishnah; rather it is the source for most of the mishnayot that are
found in mEd and duplicated elsewhere in the Mishnah. Along similar lines, since
mEduyot appears to precede its parallels in the Mishnah, the third possibility above,
i.e. mEduyot is a reduced version of a larger body of material, is also untenable.
Furthermore, the editors who transferred material from mEd did not attempt to
hide its origins by reworking the material in its new context; in several cases, the
material was transferred despite its redundancy in the parallel location. In other cases,
the formulation of the mishnah could have been adapted to fit its new context and yet
was left intact.
It follows from this that Neusner’s major challenge to previous mishnaic
scholarship, i.e. his argument that the Mishnah consists of a single layer the sources of
which cannot be discerned, is not sustainable at least with respect to mEd. Along
similar lines, the study of mishnaic terminology in Chapter Nine suggests that the
same is true for material elsewhere in the Mishnah as well – there is a pronounced
tendency in certain introductory formulas found throughout the Mishnah to be used
consistently within tannaitic eras. That is, certain terminology is found predominantly
among the Houses, less so among the tannaim of Yavneh, and least among the
387

tannaim of Usha. Other terms are used (almost) exclusively with the tannaim of one
era and not the others. Given, at the same time, that the most common introductory
terminology is found in all of the eras, it is almost certain that, at least in the case of
the introductory formulas studied, we are either able to discern different layers in the
Mishnah, or, at least, that the Mishnah’s redactors wanted us to see them – clearly, we
are not dealing with a document that “does not wish to have a history”.
There are two points worth reflecting upon which flow from this conclusion:
1) If the Mishnah as a whole betrays some of its sources, one can no longer
speak of the Mishnah, as Neusner does, as a comprehensive philosophy. One can
debate whether or not the format of the Mishnah itself speaks of a certain outlook, but
just as it would be problematic to state that the (smaller) earlier layers speak of a total
world-view of the earlier redactors, it is also difficult to speak of a comprehensive
view of the redactors who took earlier materials and added to them. 1
2) Once it has been established that there is intact material preserved from
earlier generations, we can speak of, in a very limited sense, intellectual biography.
This is not to say that for biographical purposes the mere attribution of an opinion to a
particular tanna should be considered absolute evidence, but rather that one does not
have to assume that material attributed to earlier authorities must be considered
unusable until “verified”. Needless to say, as with all rabbinic literature, due caution
1 For more on the topic of Neusner’s view of Mishnah as a “Philosophical Work”, see
E.P. Sanders, “Jacob Neusner and the Philosophy of the Mishnah”, Jewish Law from
Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, pp. 309-331.
388

needs to be exercised in relying upon any single statement or attribution for historical
purposes. Nonetheless, from a broader view, the enterprise cannot be ruled out.
The historical stage at which material was transferred from mEd to elsewhere
in the Mishnah is not certain, i.e. were these materials copied into the parallel
locations as part of the formation of those tractates or were they a later editorial
decision to duplicate (where relevant) the material of mEd throughout the Mishnah. If
the former is the case then Albeck is certainly correct that mEd represents the first
redacted tractate and that the rest of the Mishnah followed; if the latter, i.e. that they
were a product of a later editorial process, one can speculate that the editors who
transferred the material did so because they attributed a special authority to mEd. The
data actually suggests that some of the duplicate material may have been used in the
formation of other tractates while other material was the product of a later transfer:
1) The handful of cases in which material was transferred from mEd and
created redundancy in the tractate to which it was transferred suggests that the
transfer was part of a late editorial process. 2
2) On the other hand, the numerous cases of material transferred where there is
no redundancy in the parallel locations in the Mishnah, and thus the absence of
2 Also included in this category is some of the material the formulation of which does
not fit the parallel context so well. If the material was used during the formation of
the parallel locations/tractates why was the newly formulated material not tailored to
match mEd. For example, in mTer 10:7-9 (see above Chapter Seven, pp. 175-8), if the
redactors had begun with mEd 7:2 (=mTer 10:9), which uses the passive verb ושבכנ,
why did they not formulate the preceding two mishnayot with the passive voice as
well. In this case it makes more sense to argue that mTer 10:7-8 is independent of
mEd 7:2, and only later was the mEd 7:2 added to mTer.
389

the material taken from mEd in those locations would leave substantive
lacunae in the parallel tractates, suggests that the material was used in the
original formation of the other tractates.
It is also likely that in some cases both processes occurred within one mishnah,
i.e. that the material parallel to mEd was first adapted in the original formulation of
that tractate and subsequently, the editors created a duplication in the same parallel
location through a second transfer of the material. In particular, the example of mEd
3:10 is illustrative. We have shown that mEd was transferred to mKel 12:5 creating
redundancy. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that even the material that appears
in mKel (12:4 and the first half of 12:5) immediately preceding the duplication
appears to be a reworking of the same mishnah from mEd. Thus in one mishnah we
have both the traces of mEd used as a foundation on which to build a unit and of a
later editorial decision to distribute (without change) material from mEd to the rest of
the Mishnah. It remains unclear, however, why some of the material that could have
been transferred was not. 3 Regardless of how we resolve the above issues, it is clear
3
Albeck, Untersuchungen, p. 112, posits that Mishnah Eduyot was known to all of the
schools of tannaim and any mishnayot not duplicated elsewhere in the Mishnah must
not have been part of the original collection. Of course, this solution rests on two
suppositions, both of which cannot truly be proven:
1) That a truly comprehensive programmatic decision was made to distribute
the material from mEd to the relevant locations in the Mishnah, and thus any
available material that does not appear duplicated elsewhere must have been
unknown to the redactors of the other tractates.
2) That we can speak with definitiveness of “schools” of tannaim who had a
hand in our Mishnah. Although from a literary perspective one may discern
layers in the Mishnah and can even point to sources (e.g. " יעבר
םרכ"
vs. עטנ"
" יעבר),
I am not aware of any firm evidence to prove that there were different
schools of tannaim who did not have access to each other’s material and who
390

that mEd is not later than the other tractates. Thus the similar notions of Halevy,
Hoffmann and Neusner that mEd is later than the rest of the Mishnah are not borne out
by the data.
In addition, we have observed that the opinions that are accepted in mishnayot
of mEd that were not duplicated in the Mishnah are assumed elsewhere in the
Mishnah. For example, it is assumed throughout mMiq that the measurement of
drawn water that invalidates a ritual bath is three lugin, in accordance with the
conclusion of mEd 1:4. This, again, suggests that mEd represents an earlier stage of
mishnaic legal development during which certain issues were being worked out and
that the later tractates draw on the conclusions of mEd. This argument, however, is
not compelling. One could argue that even if mEd were later than the other tractates,
its editors would have made sure that the assumed opinions of the other tractates were
incorporated into mEd as its conclusions.
One other observation arising from our study also points to the early
redactional history of mEd. Albeck suggests that organization by a superficial feature
(tradent, literary similarity) is the mark of early attempts to preserve material. 4
Neusner, in a sense, also acknowledges this when he argues that sections of the
Mishnah not ordered by topic represent explorative attempts to organize the Mishnah
that were abandoned in favor of the topical approach. mEd 7:9 contains the five
had a hand in the formation of our Mishnah. By contrast, the five plus tractates
of the Bavli that are assumed to have been redacted separately display their
different provenance much more clearly.
4 Untersuchungen, p. 110 and footnote 1.
391

testimonies of R. Yoh9anan b. Gudgedah. Its parallel in mGit[ (5:5) is part of a larger
non-topical unit within mGit[. Here we have a mishnah that began its existence as
(part of) a collection of testimonies and was subsequently incorporated into a unit
dealing with tiqqun (i.e. tiqqun ha(olam, tiqqun ha-mizbeah9), which was subsequently
incorporated into mGit[ (4:1–5:5). In this case we can see not two stages in the
redaction of a specific mishnah, but rather three. It very well may be that other
material was also compiled and redacted in multiple stages, but our study only focused
upon and, for the most part, the data is only available to demonstrate two stages of
development.
What holds true for mEd may also be the case for other parts of the Mishnah.
A full study collecting and analyzing the duplicate passages in the Mishnah would be
helpful in determining the extent to which the conclusions this study hold true in the
rest of the Mishnah. Such a study should involve looking not only at duplicate
mishnayot, but also at mishnayot the formulations and structures of which are drawn
from other mishnayot. The example of mYad 1:2 and mPar 5:5 cited in the
Introduction is one example of this phenomenon in which the dependence of one upon
the other is clear, as is the direction of the borrowing. In a similar direction, the study
of introductory terminology throughout the entire Mishnah would further the goal of
identifying earlier layers.
The Amoraic Era
392

We have seen that mEd occupied a special status already in the amoraic period;
at least as early as the second generation in Babylonia it possessed special authority.
The same holds true in Eretz Yisrael but the precise dating is uncertain. Both in Eretz
Yisrael and Babylonia the collection of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and
stringencies of Beit Hillel was assumed to be complete (and authoritative). Finally,
we have observed that there a number of mishnayot which appear in our mEd which
were added after the tannaitic era. In at least one case 5 it appears to have been added
intentionally; in the other cases scribal issues alone can account for the additions.
The last point raises a larger question that still requires systematic and
comprehensive attention: was there a point during the late-amoraic (or post-amoraic)
era in which a revision of the Mishnah, at least on a minor scale, was undertaken? 6 Or
perhaps is the entire notion of a canonized mishnah by the beginning of the amoraic
5 mEd 3:1=mAh 3:1.
6 The debate over whether or not the Mishnah was written down by its redactors does
not necessarily play a role in this discussion. If one assumes that the later editing of
the mishnaic text was deliberate, there is no reason to assume that a written text would
be different than an oral one. If, however, one assumes that the later changes were
unintentional, it is easier to imagine the changes occurring in an oral text than in a
written one. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to conceive of a process by which such
changes occurred even in a written text (as they clearly happen in the medieval
period). For example, it is easy to envision a scribe copying a text of mEd and
noticing that mNid 1:1 (Shammai, Hillel and the Sages who disagree with both) fits
perfectly with formulations of mEd 1:3-4. He then copies the mishnah from mNid in
the margin simply as commentary. Subsequently, a second scribe copies the first
scribe’s manuscript and mistakenly assumes that the mNid 1:1 was a marginal
correction by the first scribe, i.e. the first scribe was copying mEd and accidentally left
it out, and he copies it into the mishnaic text of his manuscript.
For a discussion of the issue of when the Mishnah was first written, see S.
Safrai, The Literature of the Sages, pp. 73-5 and Strack and Stemberger, Introduction
to the Talmud and Midrash, pp. 37-44.
393

period an artificial construction? After all, we find earlier amoraim editing the text of
individual mishnayot. Did this process stop completely, or is it possible that material
was moved around within the mishnah and clarifying examples were added to
mishnayot later, either drawn from other baraitot or amoraic sources? Is the process of
additions to medieval manuscripts a natural continuation of such a process? A
complete census of the Mishnah to identify what can be shown to have added in the
post-tannaitic era would be a first step in this direction. 7
The Tosefta
We have analyzed the material in the Tosefta and studied its relationship to the
Mishnah. Most of the kinds of comments found in Tosefta Eduyot are similar to those
that are found in other tractates of the Tosefta; due to the unique nature of mEd to
which the Tosefta relates, there are one or two types of expansions that are very rare
elsewhere in the Tosefta. In addition, the Tosefta is significantly smaller than the
Mishnah.
As was the case in the Mishnah to our tractate, a significant amount of material
(approximately one third) of tEd is duplicated elsewhere in the Tosefta. In this case,
7 It would also be important to sift through the mishnaic corpus to determine what
material can be shown definitively to have been in the Mishnah of the amoraim and
what material we cannot be sure about one way or another. This can be done fairly
easily with tractates to which there is a Talmud; on the order of Teharot it will not be
as easy. Also, the Tosefta may be helpful in this regard, but only if one can decide
clearly on a position of the primacy of the Mishnah vs. the Tosefta and how to date the
latter.
394

as opposed to that of mEd, the evidence, where it exists, suggests that the material was
copied from elsewhere in the Tosefta into tEd.
Regarding the primacy of Mishnah vs. Tosefta in the synoptic parallels, it was
difficult to draw any real conclusions because the data sample was too small. The
little data that was found favored the Mishnah over the Tosefta, but even if this so in
Eduyot, it may not be reflective of a larger tendency.
The most intriguing question though is why tEd is so small and why certain
sections of the Mishnah are ignored completely? Answering this question will require,
first, an analysis of the other proportionately small tractates of the Tosefta and an
explanation for why large sections of material are ignored.
The critical edition of Mishnah Eduyot, aside from the inherent value of
presenting the best possible version of the text, proved valuable in two respects. First,
there were a few places where the manuscript evidence contributed to determining the
original location of a mishnah. In addition, the manuscript evidence pointed to several
medieval additions to the text of the Mishnah.
Mishnah Eduyot is perhaps the most unusual, but the least known, of the
tractates in the entire Mishnah. Theories of the formation of the Mishnah have always
drawn upon it or have had to account for its existence and special character.
Unfortunately, the origins of a tractate the primary purpose of which was to organize
and clarify are still somewhat obscure. This study will hopefully move in the direction
of lifting part of the veil from the tractate that was “Chosen”.
395

Section III
396

Introduction
I. Introduction to the Apparatus
A. The Base Text
The base text of the critical edition, following A. Goldberg and D. Rosenthal, is
MS Kaufmann. The manuscript has been printed on top of the page adhering closely
(in its layout and in the marginal and supralinear glosses) to the text of the manuscript.
The lines have been numbered to assist in the use of the apparatus and the numbers
used correspond to the lines on the page of the actual manuscript. No column in mEd
is longer than thirty lines. The erasures in the manuscript (either via crossing out or by
means of marks in or on the words) and emendations have been reproduced as
faithfully as possible. The purpose of preserving these is to indicate what clearly
belongs to the original manuscript and what is or may be secondary, as the manuscript
itself was vocalized in a later period and many of the erasures stem from the vocalizer
or some other later hand.
All references to mishnah numbers in mEd follow the numbering of MS
Kaufmann. A table linking the numbers can be found at the end of this introduction.
The mishnah numbers for all other tractates use the numbering system of the modern
printing of the Mishnah.
B. Variants to mEd in other manuscripts of Eduyot
The right column of the apparatus is a record of variants that occur within the
manuscripts of mEd. Aside from the base text, MS Kaufmann, there are nine
manuscripts which were used in preparing the edition, as well as whatever Genizah
fragments were available. The format of the apparatus is to cite the line number (only
next to the first lemma from that line), the lemma from the base text followed by a line
( " | " ) and finally each manuscript which varies and the reading it contains. The
397

manuscript letter is smaller and in bold. When multiple manuscripts contain the same
variant reading, the manuscript letters are listed consecutively followed by the variant
reading. The order of the manuscripts follows the list given below. When there are
multiple variants to one lemma, the order in which the variants are presented is
determined by the first manuscript for each particular variant reading. If the same
word occurs twice in the base text on the same line, the lemma will have a number in
superscript next to it to indicate which occurrence is being cited in the lemma.
When the word or words in the lemma are missing in a manuscript, the symbol ()
is used to indicate so. When a word is found in a manuscript but not in the base text,
the procedure is to take the word from the base text which precedes the missing word
and to use it as the lemma. The variant reading will repeat the word found in the base
text and add to it the word found only in the manuscript. For example (p. 3, line 9),
where the base text has the word " ןיבייח"
and two of the manuscripts have the
expression " הלחב ןיבייח"
, the line reads:
. 'לחב
א
'יבייח
מ הלחב ןיבייח י
398
| ןיבייח
If the additional word is being added, conceptually speaking, before a particular word
in the base text, the lemma will be the word which follows the missing word. For
example (p.32, line 28), there is an individual referred to in the base text without the
title “Rabbi”. In several of the manuscripts he has been ordained. The line reads:
א . עשוהי יבר
י עשוהי 'ר
ד ש ר
| עשוהי
If a word is present but unreadable in a particular manuscript, it will only be noted in
the apparatus if there already are other variants to the word. This is done to avoid
allowing the absence of mentioning the particular manuscript to be taken as an
indication that it agrees with the base text. In such a case, empty square brackets
("[]") will be used to indicate the lack of readability. When there are no variants for
the word in any other manuscript, unreadable text in one manuscript will not be noted.
Each note is ended with a period. If the number of variants exceeds the space
available on the line, the line will continue of the following line(s) with a hanging
indent.

In two places in mEd (p. 64, line 14 and p. 69, line1) there is an extended
selection which has been added to more than one of the manuscripts. Each selection
is prefaced by the letters of the manuscripts in which it occurs followed by the
selection which is printed across the width of the entire page. The text for the
additional selection is chosen from one of the manuscripts and variants from the others
which contain the addition are indicated after each word in pointed parentheses (“<
>”).
In one mishnah in mEd (pp. 33-34) there are two lines in the base text which
appear to have been missed by the scribe because of homoiotelueton/archton. Here
the base text has been supplemented with the missing lines from MS Parma de Rossi
138 and they are bracketed in the main text with a note. Otherwise, all words missing
from the base text are indicated only in the apparatus.
The manuscripts will be described in more detail after this introduction, but
here we will list just the letters and the manuscripts for which they stand.
וק Base text – MS Kaufmann (10 th -11 th century)
פ א MS Parma de Rossi 138 (11 th century)
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
MS Parma de Rossi 984 (14 th -15 th century)
MS Paris 328-329 (14 th -15 th century)
MS Oxford 1272 (14 th -15 th century)
MS Cambridge Add. 470.1 (14 th -15 th century)
MS Sassoon 72-73 (12 th century)
י א ,י ב MS JTS Rab. 220-1 1 (14 th century)
מ
ד
MS Munich 95 (14 th century)
Ed. Naples, editio princeps 1492
1 י א refers to the paper segment of the manuscript which was filled it at a later date
(with which the tractate begins) to replace the lost leaves. י ב is the original parchment.
399

As a general rule, anytime where there is no indication of a variant of a lemma
in a particular manuscript in mEd, it may be assumed that the manuscript agrees with
the base text. This is not so for both the genizah fragments and for the parallels and
citations found in the left column of the apparatus. In the case of the genizah material,
due to their fragmentary nature, the absence of notation in a particular lemma does not
necessarily indicate agreement with Kaufmann; the text may simply be missing and to
indicate every word which is missing from the genizah fragments is too cumbersome.
Frequently, when a genizah fragment concurs with MS Kaufmann on an unusual
reading or spelling, its letter (see later for a description of the fragments) will be
placed before the vertical dividing line which marks the end of the lemma.
The genizah fragments come from several different collections. Amazingly
enough, despite it enormous size, there are no fragments of mEd in the Oxford
collection. There are several fragments from the JTS collection, several from the
Cambridge collection, one large fragment from the Antonin collection in Leningrad
(St. Petersburg) one from the Mosseri collection and one from the Holon collection.
The following is a list of the genizah fragments used in this edition along with the
mishnayot which they cover:
ב:
ח - ט:
ה
400
A
Antonin | ג
Jn
( עטקה רפסמ=
n)
הקירמאבש םינברל שרדמ תיב לש הזינג | ג
ט:
ו-ז:
ה
בי:
ג-א:
ג
ז:
ח
ד:
ב-ג:
ב
ו:
ב-ה:
ב
ה-א:
ב , וי-גי:
א
גי-ה:
א
ט:
ה , ז-ה:
ה , ב:
ה , אי:
ד - י:
ד
1487.30
1487.91
1487.95
3012.13-14
3399.9
5
ת
81 רפסמ , ןולוח , ןמית יזנג | ג
M
III, 86.2, 1 , ירסומ יזנג | ג
nש
( עטקה רפסמ=
n , רטכש יזנג | ג
E2:77 - 2
1
2
3
4
1

ח:
ה - ז:
ה
ז:
ח - ח:
ז
ז:
ח - ב:
ח
ח:
ז - ה:
ז , א:
ה - י:
ד
ה:
ח-
ג:
ח
401
E2:78 - 2
E2:79 - 2
E2:80 - 2
T.S.-N.S. 36.2
T.S.-N.S. 167.39
A more detailed description of each of the fragments can be found later in this
introduction.
If a reading is found either in the margins of a manuscript or inserted above the
line, it is marked with a superscript. Not every marginal and supralinear gloss is noted
among the variants. Such variants will generally be noted only in one of two
circumstances:
1) If the reading with the gloss is at variance with the base text and hence must
be noted anyway, in which case the variant will indicate that the word or one of its
letters is a gloss in the manuscript.
2) If the absence of the gloss suggests an important possible variant.
The former criteria is an objective one, while the latter is subject to the judgement of
the editor of the edition.
If the gloss is supralinear, it will be noted in superscript. If it is the margins, it
will be marked with a superscript ' ג'
(ןוילג) next to the manuscript letter. When an
entire mishnah appears in the margins, it will be treated in a similar fashion, i.e. each
variant will be marked with the supralinear ' ג'.
A complete list of marginal and supralinear corrections and glosses (regardless
of provenance or importance) can be found with the description of the individual
manuscripts.
2
3
4
5
6

C. Variants to mEd in other sources
The left column of the apparatus is used to indicate variants found in other
places in Tannaitic literature (Mishnah parallels, Tosefta and Midreshei Halakhah) and
in citations of the mishnah in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi. In this material there
is frequently a good deal of judgment to be exercised as to what constitutes a true
parallel which can have “textual variants” as opposed to something which should be
viewed as an alternative version of the tradition which is worthy for study in the
context of mEd, but should not be included in the variants of a critical edition.
The lemma in the base texts for variants in these bodies of literature is still
placed in the right hand column, regardless of whether or not there are variants to the
lemma in the manuscripts of mEd. If there are no variants in the manuscripts of mEd,
the right column to will be left blank and the first variants will appear in the left
column.
The location of the parallels in their respective bodies of literature is noted at
the bottom of the page. An effort was made to indicate when the parallels only extend
for part of a mishnah by indicating the parts of the mishnah which are extant or cited.
When there are multiple parallels within one body of literature, they are numbered and
those numbers are used in the apparatus to indicate which parallel/s in that particular
body of Rabbinic literature contain/s the recorded variant. Multiple parallels occur
only once in the Tosefta and twice in the Mishnah, but many times in the Bavli and
Yerushalmi.
As a rule, even the most minute variants (i.e. abbreviations) in manuscripts are
noted in the apparatus, with the sole exception of printed editions of texts, where the
tendency of the printers was to expand all abbreviations. Therefore abbreviations are
not noted in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi, the Vilna edition of the Bavli or in
the Midreshei Halakhah (for which printed critical editions have been used). The only
time minutae from these sources will be noted is when the absence of mention will
suggest an odd reading in the printed edition (e.g. ש " ב will usually be noted so as to
402

make clear that the printed edition does not read ימש תיב as the typical lemma from MS
Kaufmann contains the spelling ימש.) Also, ed. Naples is treated as a manuscript for
the purposes of minutiae in the variants.
i. Parallels in the Mishnah
For the many parallels to the mEd elsewhere in the Mishnah the apparatus uses
the same nomenclature as the Mishnaic parallels within mEd. The only changes are
that MS Kaufmann appears with the symbol " וק"
and that three of the manuscripts are
not recorded because they exist only on a limited portion of the Mishnah and hence
contain few or no parallels to mEd. The three are MSS Parma 984 (Nashim and
Neziqin), Oxford 1272 (Neziqin) and JTS Rab. 220-1 (Neziqin). MS Sassoon,
Maimonides’ autograph of his commentary on the mishnah, contains only the first five
orders of the Mishnah and is therefore included, when available, in the apparatus on
the left hand side.
The location of the parallel in the Mishnah is given at the bottom of the page.
The mishnah (chapter and) number given follows that of the standard modern printing
of the mishnah. In the two cases where there are more than one parallel to mEd
elsewhere in the Mishnah (mEd 4:5 and 7:9), they are numbered on the bottom of the
page and a superscript number (or numbers) is added to the manuscript letter to
indicate which occurrences contain the variant reading which follows. For example,
where the base text (p. 63, line 1) contains the word " רועיב"
, the left column following
the lemma reads:
ר 1ב י 2
ד רוע . רועב
This should be taken to mean that MS Paris (ר) in the first mishnaic parallel (mPe 7:7)
has been corrected supralinearly to read the same as the base text and that the word in
the second mishnaic parallel in ed. Naples (ד) is spelled without the yud.
403

ii. Parallels in the Tosefta
The parallels to the mishnah in the Tosefta come primarily from tEd. There
are a handful of parallels from elsewhere in the Tosefta. In all cases, the readings of
the two primary manuscripts of the Tosefta have been noted in the apparatus, MS
Vienna (indicated as ת ו ) and MS Erfurt (ת ע ). When the two manuscripts contain the
same variant, they will, for the sake of brevity, be recorded asת' ו · ע ' . In the one case
where there are two parallels in the Tosefta, the number of the parallel is placed
immediately following the letter which indicates the manuscript name. For example, a
ת ו 1 before a variant means that the reading is found the first of the two parallels in MS
Vienna.
iii. Parallels in the Midreshei Halakhah
There are only five parallels to mEd found in the Midreshei Halakhah.. Printed
editions have been used for these so variants which are just abbreviations will not be
noted. The editions used were:
Mekhilta deRashbi 2 J.N. Epstein Jerusalem, 1979
Sifra Weiss Vienna, 1862
Sifrei Devarim Finkelstein New York, 1969
Midrash Tannaim L’Dvarim Hoffman Tel-Aviv, 1963
The letter ' ה'
will be used in the apparatus will be used to denote that the variant is
found in the Midrash Halakhah.
2 There were no parallels to mEd in the Mekhilta deRabbi Yishmael.
404

iv. Parallels in the Bavli and Yerushalmi
Where mEd is cited in the Bavli, the variants in two versions have been
recorded: MS Munich 95 and the Vilna edition. The latter is of little value for text
critical purposes, but is nonetheless interesting for conveying a sense of how mEd is
seen through the lens of the modern text.
MS Munich does not contain the text of the mishnah within the main text of
the Talmud, but only in the margins. The mishnah is written in clear block script in
the margins of the codex, whereas the Talmudic text is in a much smaller cursive
script. As a result, in cases where the only citation of the mishnah outside of mEd is
in the Mishnah, the variants from Munich will be subsumed under the parallels in the
Mishnah and be marked with the letter ' מ'.
In such cases, there will still be readings
from the Vilna edition (which contains the mishnah within its text), marked with ב' ו '
where the bet stands for Bavli and the vav for Vilna. In situations where there is only
one citation of mEd and it appears in the Talmudic text, the Vilna reading will be
presented with the same ב' ו ' and the Munich reading with ב' מ '. If both texts contain the
same variant the apparatus will contain a combination, '
405
ב מ · ו
Vilna edition for mishnayot on which there is no Bavli is not cited at all.
'. The printed text of the
The same basic approach is followed when there are multiple Talmudic
citations for one mishnah from mEd. The notations ב' מ ' and ב' ו ' will be followed by one
or more numbers indicating which parallel contains the variant reading. As in the
parallels to the Mishnah and Tosefta, the locations and numbers of the citations are
found at the bottom of the page.
It is well established that the mishnayot found in manuscripts of the Talmud
were later reintroductions of external mishnaic texts and are not necessarily
“Talmudic” mishnayot. 3 The only remnants of such mishnayot are to found in the
brief lemmas frequently found in Talmudic manuscripts and printed editions known as
3 See Safrai, Literature of the Sages, p. 252.

pisq)aot. When the pis)qaot contain a variant reading, it is noted with a ספ" ב "
followed (in superscript) by either a ' מ'
for Munich or ' ו'
for Vilna. When both Munich
and Vilna contain the same variant reading in the pisqa the apparatus will contain the
ספ ב מ · ו
combination '
'.
The nomenclature for the Yerushalmi is identical to that of the Bavli except in
that the manuscript used is the famous MS Leiden (Scaliger no. 3) and the printed
edition is the four columned Venice edition. A variant from MS Leiden is prefaced
with a רי' ל ' and one from Venice with רי' ו '. When both contain the same variant, they
רי ל · ו
are marked with '
(ספ י ל · ו ), as are multiple citations.
'. Pisqa)ot are handled in the same fashion as they are in the Bavli
It should be noted that MS Munich contains the entire mishnah (Zera(im,
Teharot) whereas MS Leiden contains only those sections which are accompanied by
the Palestinian Talmud.
1. MS Kaufmann (וק)
II. Manuscripts of mEd 4
MS Kaufmann has been dated to the 10 th or eleventh century by D. Rosenthal. 5
4 For more on the manuscripts, see Strack/Stemberger (Introduction to Talmud and
Midrash) pp. 140-142 and Krupp (in Safrai, Literature of the Sages) pp. 252-262.
There are several extant non-Yemenite manuscripts which were not included in the
edition. They all contain the original Hebrew translation of Maimonides’ commentary
on the Mishnah. They are adequately represented by the three manuscripts of the
same type (MSS Paris 329, Oxford 1272 and Parma 984) which are included in the
notes of the edition. Of the many Yemenite manuscripts we chose only one (early)
exemplar since all of the Yemenite manuscripts stem from the mishnah text of
Maimonides and adhere to it quite closely.
406

The writing is a block script and it was probably written in Italy and is written two
columns to a page. The vocalization is later and does not always conform to the
consonantal text. Numerous corrections were made, mostly by later hands. Erasure in
the manuscript was done either by crossing out the word or by marking an individual
letter inside with a half circle. A few of the corrected places were probably errors, but
many reflected a different orthography. The words which have a letter marked for
deletion are:
1:2 תשמשמ ( ה)
, 1:9 ( י)
דירצ,
1:15 ןירוח ת ( י)
ב,
1:16 וכותב ( ה)
ש,
2:6 ( ו)
רמא,
2:9 דצ ( י)
ב,
2:11
ושד ( ו)
ח,
3:11 הקלח ( ה)
ש twice, 5:1 הר ( ו)
הט,
5:9 ךוב ( י)
רקי,
6:7 אמט ( י)
ת,
6:8 אמט ( י)
ת,
6:10
ר ( ו)
הט,
7:5 ר ( י)
זנש,
7:8 היירוסב ( ה)
ש,
7:9 ןת י(
נ)
ש,
8:7 ק ( ו)
חרל,
8:7 ( ו)
היילא.
Many of these (the heh which follows the relatice pronoun ' ש',
and the vav
which marks the short qamatz certainly) are not errors but different spellings.
Several words are marked for erasure by a line crossing them out, most of
which are obvious dittography:
1:16 תיבימש תיב , 2:6 םאוהלאיצוהל , 3:2 עגמהאשמהולהאה םע אשמהו , 5:5 תיבוללה תיבו , 8:2
הנחרוהשהנח, עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלועורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו.
One (3:2) is an alternative reading (found in one genizah fragment) which the secondary
hand did not understand.
There are a number of words in MS Kaufmann which are either errors or highly
unusual forms. A number of them are corrected in the parallel mishnayot in MS
5 For a summary of the views see Strack/Stemberger ibid., p. 141.
407

Kaufmann itself:
1:28 תיבוללה (correct in mNid 1:1), 1:7 ורמאו (instead of ורמאי but see Epstein, Mavo
leNusah9 HaMishnah, p. 1084), 1:11 תיעבירבו (metathesis of תיעיברבו – correct in
mMS), 2:3 שיטפמהש (metathesis of פ and ט – correct in mZev), 30:19 ורוביח הניא
(correct in mPe), 3:2 דע (instead of לע – correct in mAh), 3:7 לוביק תיב לש (instead of
תיבש but MSS Parma d.R. 138 and Munich read the same), 4:8 הב סג ובלש (should be
ובל ןיאש; parallel in mGit has the word ןיא added in the margin), 5:2 הבוטב אלשו הבוטב
(probably should be just הבוטב), 4:10 הומםילש and מריזנ (both correct in mNaz), 6:9 לע
יתעומשב (should not be there – perhaps under the influence of mEd 1:5 םהירבד לע ודמע),
7:2 הנש ימש and 8:2 הנח רוהש twice (should be one word).
There is one place in mEd where more than a word is missing and was not
completed by a later hand (2:6) and the base text of the edition has been supplemented
here by MS Parma 138. In one other place (3:3), two lines slipped out of the
manuscript and were inserted in the margin.
When the scribe began a word at the end of a line and could not finish it, he
usually placed marks above one or more of the letters of that word. Words are not
broken between lines. The one exception (perhaps) to this rule is the preposition לש
which (when not the last word on the line) is, more often than not, attached to the next
word.
The orthography in MS Kaufmann is quite unique. The only manuscript
which contains many of the odd spellings and other features of Kaufmann is the Parma
408

(d.R. 138) manuscript. A number of the genizah fragments also display many of these
peculiarities. A fair number of these unusual spellings are leveled in the parallels to
mEd in the Mishnah in MS Kaufmann elsewhere (several examples are 2:1 וענמינ ->
ו ענמנ,
2:3 לובטיב -> לובטב, 2:9 תורכיכ -> תורככ, 3:13 רמגימה -> רמגמה, 5:2 וחסיפ -> וחספ,
7:5 םוי is missing in the parallel)
The scribe uses abbreviations consistently for the singular and plural forms of
רמוא (only twice is the plural fully spelled out), םימ כח (twice spelled out) and יבר (once
spelled out). Multiple words are (יפ לע ףא, לאילמג ןבר, ' ר רמא,
רחא רבד, יאמש / ללה תיב)
never abbreviated, although some words, especially names (e.g. לאילמג) will be
shortened, especially at the end of a line. As in most of the manuscripts, active
participles are spelled far more frequently with nunnation than mimmation, but
display a larger number of cases of mimmation like the other two Eretz Yisrael
manuscripts (Parma d.R. 138 and Cambridge). Passive participles, different from all
of the other manuscripts almost always use nunnation. The same is true for pronouns
and pronominal suffixes – only this manuscript contains a predominant number of
nuns. Singular nouns ending with mem/nun and plurals, as in all of the other
manuscripts, show a pronounced tendency towards final mem, but even here more
frequently contain final nun. Two words which appear in none of the other
manuscripts with final nun which stand out are ןירבד (18 out of 22 times) and ןדא 6 (2
6
This unusual nunnation is probably reflected in the creature referred in mKil 8:5 as
" הדשה ינדא"
which appears to be a semi-human creature ( " רוטד שנ רב"
according to yKil
8:4). I suspect that the term really should be " הדשה ימדא"
.
409

out of 8).
Unlike most of the other manuscripts, MS Kaufmann does not display a
consistent rule in joining (20 cases) or separating (13 cases) the preposition לש from
the noun that follows. The vocalizer tried to join every case in the vocalization
(dagesh forte in the lamed and a shwa underneath), but a careful look at the
consonantal text shows that the scribe was not consistent and sometimes left a space in
between the words. In the parallels to mEd in the mishnah, MS Kaufmann always
contains the לש attached to the next word.
The orthography of MS Kaufmann is more plene than any other manuscript,
including the spelling within scriptural citations. Most לעפנ, ליעפה and לֵע ִפ verbs have
a yud following the first letter. The same holds true for imperfect verbs in the qal
following the prefixed " ןתיא"
letters. The text also contains a number of yud’s before
the furtive patah9. 7 There are two occasions where a preposition with a chiriq is
followed by a yud. One is " לובטיב"
(2:2) and the other was erased by the naqdan (דציב
in 2:9 – apparently the original scribe must have vocalized it with a chiriq). The only
other occurrences of this spelling in the manuscripts are once in MS Paris (ינשיכב –
7 MS Kaufmann is the only manuscript (aside from the genizah fragments) which
contains this yud. There is discussion among the medievals as to how the furtive
patah9 is to be pronounced. One view is that it should be pronounced as a glottal stop
in front of the guttural that follows it (ה, ח or ע). The alternative method is to
introduce a consonant which follows naturally from the final vowel before the patah9 (ו
for shuruq or holam and י for tzeireh and chiriq) and place the patah9 under that
consonant (cf. Minh9at Shai to Genesis 1:5, s.v. עיקר יהי). The tradition assumed by the
text of MS Kaufmann (as well as by the vocalizer) is clearly the latter of the two
options.
410

3:1, 41:15) and once in MS Oxford (ינשיכ – 3:1, 42:19). Vav is used on a number of
occasions to indicate qamatz qaton. Otherwise, plene spellings with vav’s occur only
slightly more frequently than in other manuscripts
With respect to the matres lectionis used following the qamatz, the manuscript
shows one form not found in any of the other manuscripts (but found in one genizah
fragment) and that is the feminine pronominal suffix of " ָה " being followed by an
aleph (e.g. אהוקשיהו). Second person perfect verbs are usually followed with a heh
(e.g. התיאר) but not always. The choice between heh and aleph following a qamatz at
the end of nouns shows no pronounced tendency towards one or the other. In names,
there is a tendency towards a heh in names such as הביקע, היננח and הריתב. Along with
MS Parma 138, only this MS contains (occasionally) הסוד spelled with a heh.
Likewise, הסוי contains a heh consistently in both MS Kaufmann and Parma d.R. 138,
and nowhere else. The aleph in the name Eliezer is always preserved while the aleph
in Elazar is always dropped. The name סניכרא is always spelled with an aleph as is
typical of the Eretz Yisrael tradition. The spelling of Shammai is consistently without
an aleph (and normally with just one yud); the same holds true for the dipthong ending
of patah9-yud (ייכז instead of יאכז, יינת instead of יאנת). Hillel is, as in almost all
manuscripts, spelled without a yud (ללה).
The conjunctive vav is used most of the time for joining disputants, including
the Houses. Many of the parallels elsewhere in the Mishnah in MS Kaufmann lack
this vav and were inserted as later emendations (See mEd 1:9, 1:10, 1:11, 1:12, 4:3,
4:4, 4:8, 4:9, 4:11, 5:2 [3 times]). All but two of these cases are with mishnayot in the
411

orders of Zera(im and Teharot.
Aleph’s as the third radical are frequently elided (אמט in ןימטמ and אצי in א ָצוי),
although not as consistently as in MS Parma 138. In the parallels in the Mishnah,
however, MS Kaufmann uniformly elides these aleph’s. The word םושמ as it appears
so commonly in the later manuscripts and printed editions never appears with the vav
but always as ם ֵשמ.
Consonantal vav’s (excluding conjunctive vav’s) are almost always doubled in
the manuscript (4:7 containing the lone exception). Yud’s are also more frequently
doubled, but not with the same consistency as the vav. The word תייזכ appears a
number of times with two yuds, something found elsewhere only in the genizah
material. יח appears once with the doubling in MS Kaufmann, again found elsewhere
only in the genizah material.
Two final notes of interest: 1) There are three places in the MS where the
expression יפ לע ףא is not followed with the relative pronoun ש ( ןיפיסומ < ש>
[2:1,2]
twice and ףטנמ < ש>
[4:6]). In the first two cases, all of the manuscripts contain the
pronoun. Furthermore, the parallels in MS Kaufman (mPes 1:6) contain the pronoun
inserted as an emendation. Here, the corrector did not recognize the phenomenon
involved. Throughout the mishnah, MS Kaufmann does not use this pronoun when it
is followed by a participle. Occasionally, the manuscript will contain the word
אוהשinstead of the prefixed pronoun, but in the absence of the separate word, the shin
is omitted. Remnants of this phenomenon are scattered throughout the manuscripts of
the mishnah. Even the modern printed edition preserves several examples (mKel 2:3,
412

3:3, mUq 2:2) of this feature.
2) The word לקד (twice in 4:2), instead of רקד, is found only in MS Kaufmann
here and in MS Cambridge both in mEd and in mBes. A more careful look at the
strange shaped reish’s in MS Kaufmann in mBes9 (1:2) indicates that the scribe wrote
it there also as לקד and a later hand erased the top of the lamed to make it conform to
whatever text it had in front of it. The word לקד which refers to an instrument for
digging is known elsewhere in Rabbinic literature. In ySot 2:2 we read:
היהי רשא וא ןכשמה עקרקב היהי רשא רמול דומלת הפוקל חבזמה ןמ לוכי רפעה ןמו
. היהי רשא 'מול
דומלת לקדב רופחיש דע לוכי ןכשמה עקרקב
The etymology of the word is from the Greek δίκελλα which is a two pronged fork. 8
The evolution in the word, which can be explained in purely linguistic terms of a
switch of the liquid consonants, probably occurred due to a combination of the fact
that the Greek was unknown and that the root dqr in Hebrew means to pierce or push
through which makes sense in this context.
2. Parma de Rossi 138 (פ א )
This Parma manuscript is well known as being of the Palestinian text type and
has been identified as the vorlage of the mishnah text in MS Leiden of the
8 This implement was probably not ideal for digging, which would probably explain
the opinion in yShab 7:2 (=yBes9 1:2) that digging up dirt with this implement is
considered וכרדכ אלש, and hence not a violation of Biblical law.
413

Yerushalmi. 9 It is easily the closest manuscript to MS Kaufmann. The script is a
block script, written two columns to a page. The manuscript contains the entire
Mishnah with large sections vocalized, but this section is unvocalized (with the
exception of a word here and there [4:3, 4:5, 4:9, 5:1]). The mishnayot are numbered
and each chapter concludes the number of halakhot (i.e. mishnayot) in the previous
chapter followed by " קרפ"
and the alphabetic-numerical equivalent (i.e. ' ג ,'ב)
of the
next chapter. 10 The tractate is entitled ' תוידע תכסמ'
and concludes with ' תוידע תלסח'.
No
chapter number appears for the first chapter and no mishnah count appears for the last
chapter. The scribe marks the end of each mishnah with an abbreviation mark well
above the line.
There are several lines that are missing from the text of the manuscript which
are inserted in the margins. They are: all of 1:12 11 , 3:2, 3:5 (3 word), 4:4 (3 words),
4:8 (the debate of תיציצב ןידס). The first two and last are a result of
homoioteleuton/archton. A number of words were inserted in the margins or above
the lines. They are: (superscript indicates above the line, [] indicates in the margin)
9
I.Z. Feintuch, " ןדייל די-בתכ
ימלשוריה ינפלש הנשמה לע"
, Tarbis9 45 (1975-6), pp. 178-212.
10 This order, found also in MS Cambridge and a number of genizah fragments, is the
reverse of MS Kaufmann, which contains the next chapter number followed by the
mishnah count of the previous.
11 We have noted elsewhere that this mishnah is missing in mss. Parma d.R. 984,
Cambridge and Munich 95. Epstein (Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, p. 964) mistakenly
cites our manuscript here as proof of the fact that the mishnah is a later addition. But
as we have noted, the numbering of the mishnayot demonstrates clearly that the
manuscript from which our scribe copied contained the mishnah, even if the actual
copying of the mishnah in the margin may have been by a later hand.
414

1:14 ימש תיב וא '
, 1:16 אוהש אמט
בג לע , 2:7 לאעמשי 'רש
415
'וא
, 3:7 ר ' אסוד, 3:8 הניא [ ינא]
הרוהט,
3:14 קמ ר ןיפצ, 4:7 רסיאב , ה ו א, 5:1 ןילכוא ןיא 'מוא
[ ללה]
תיבו,
5:3 ללה תיבו וא ' ןיליבטמ ןיא , 5:4 ' ד
(as a correction of a duplicate numbering of ' ג הנשמ),
6:10 ורמא ול
הינוחנ 'רל,
7:4 לע
םילחוזה and 8:2 ה החפשמ. Other corrections are: in 3:3 the word ריאמ (an obvious error)
has הסוד written on top of it; in 3:6 the word תורוהט is marked with erasures before and
after and the word תואמט is written on top; in 3:7 the words האמט and הרוהט are
reversed by marking the first with a ' ב'
over it and the second with an ' א';
12 in 3:9 the
word האמטו is flanked by colons to mark it for erasure. In 5:5 ומייקי is marked for
erasure with a line over it and in 7:1 an extra word לש (dittography) is marked for
erasure with colons before and after it. There are two obvious errors of missing words
which were not corrected at all: ( ימש)
תיב in 1:12 and הפירשה תיבל ( אצי)
אלא in 2:3.
The scribe uses abbreviations much the same way as in MS Kaufmann. One
point of interest is that in 5:2-5, it substitutes the perfect form ' מא for the participle
רמוא in each of the introductions to the mini-collections of the leniencies of Beit
Shammai (e.g. םירבד השש 'מא
הסוי יבר),
13 and on two other occasions (6:2 and 2:11).
Every variant of the substitution of רמא for רמוא found in any manuscript (and only one
12
The only other occurrence of this anywhere in the manuscripts of mEd is in MS
Parma 984, mEd 1:13.
13 If this represents a real alternate textual tradition, it may reflect an earlier stage of
the Mishnah’s redaction. If we adopt for the moment the classic assumption that mEd
is early it is clear that this section does not belong to the original layer of the tractate
(as these tannaim are of the Usha period). If so, the introduction of the later material
may have been marked as a result of the alternate source from which it was drawn, or
perhaps from the redactor’s desire to mark the material as such.

manuscript has even two occurrences) is also found in MS Parma. When the scribe
begins a word at the end of the line and runs out of room, he marks the word with an
erasure mark and restarts it in the next line. As with the other Eretz Yisrael
manuscripts, it displays a marked tendency towards mimmation. Almost every
passive participle conatins a final mem.
MS Parma, without exception, joins the preposition לש with the noun that
follows. It does, however, split them at the end of a line (3 occurrences).
The orthography of MS Parma is fuller than any other manuscript except for
MS Kaufmann.
The choice between heh and aleph following qamatz at the end of nouns shows
no pronounced tendency towards one or the other. In names, there is a greater
tendency towards a heh in names such as הביקע, היננח and הריתב. Along with MS
Kaufmann, only this MS contains (occasionally) הסוד spelled with a heh. Likewise,
הסוי contains a heh consistently in both MS Kaufmann and Parma, and nowhere else.
As with MS Kaufmann, the aleph in the name Eliezer is always preserved while the
aleph in Elazar is always dropped. The name סניכרא is usually spelled with an aleph.
As in MS Kaufmann, the spelling of Shammai is consistently without an aleph
(normally just one yud); the same holds true for the dipthong ending of patah9-yud (ייכז
instead of יאכז, יינת instead of יאנת). Hillel is, as in almost all manuscripts, spelled
without a yud (ללה).
The conjunctive vav is used most of the time for joining disputants, including
416

the Houses. Aleph’s are elided in this MS (in אמט, אצי) more frequently than even in
MS Kaufmann. As in Kaufmann, the word םשמ always appears without the vav.
3. Parma de Rossi 984 (פ)
This Parma MS contains only the orders Nashim and Neziqin. The manuscript
contains a Hebrew translation of the commentary of Maimonides on the Mishnah and
dates from the fourteenth century. The mishnah text is in a neat block script but the
commentary was in a cursive script and is written two columns to a page. The
mishnah is unvocalized and contains no mishnah numbers, although the mishnayot are
broken up by the commentary. The title of the tractate is given as תויודע תכסמ, and the
individual chapters (except the first) are labeled as ינש קרפ, ישילש קרפ etc. The tractate
concludes with " איימש ימחרב אתכסמ אקילסו אקריפ קילס"
. There are large parts of the
manuscript where the text is almost worn out and thus small portions of the mishnah
text are completely unreadable. 14
The abbreviations of רמוא and its plural are mostly two or three letters, although
there are a fair number of times where everything but the last letter is written. This is
even true with respect to םימכחו which is frequently spelled out or contains four letters.
The Houses are very rarely abbreviated. The word יפ לע ףא is always, with the exception
14 This is my judgment from using the facsimile edition; given that on many pages
there is both clear text and (almost) unreadable text, it is unlikely that the problem lies
with the facsimile edition.
417

of the marginal supplementation, abbreviated with four letters ( י " פעא),
something shared
only with the editio princeps. The marginal abbreviation is always the standard three
letters. 15 The scribe frequently abbreviates words at the end of a line, but he frequently
starts the word and then marks it for erasure and begins again on the next line. With
respect to the use of non-standard abbreviations (truncation of words), this manuscript
uses more abbreviations than any manuscript other than Munich. Aleph and lamed
when consecutive (regardless of where in the word) are almost always written as one
composite character.
There are many lacunae in the text, most of which have been completed in the
margin. Most striking are mEd 1:11 which is not present in the manuscript at all;
3:12-14 have only the first few words given and the rest has been supplied by another
hand in the margin; 7:2 which was missing from its expected place, but whose second
half appears immediately following (and as part of) 7:3 and the entire mishnah appears
in the margin in another hand following 7:1. 7:4 was written twice, but it appears that
all of the commentary is intact between these three mishnayot (i.e. 7:2-4). 3:1, 3:8 and
7:6 contain one or more lines which have been duplicated and are marked for erasure
with circles before and after the lines. 5:7 includes an erasure by crossing out three
words. 3:3 is missing one whole line which was not supplemented at all (although
there is some undecipherable writing in the margin) and the text of 1:13 was badly
mangled by the scribe.
15
This makes it almost certain that the corrected hand was not that of the scribe
reviewing his own work.
418

Complete mishnayot which were omitted in the original manuscript but
supplemented in the margin are: 2:2, 3:10, 5:8, second half of 4:1, almost all of 4:2
and most of 4:7. Mishnayot which are missing entire lines and supplemented in the
margin are: 1:8, 1:9, 5:1, 5:2, 5:3, 6:3, 6:6, 6:10 and 8:6.
Individual words inserted in the margin or supralinearly are: 2:3 מא '
' יקע 'ר
, 3:2
רחא רבדו] 1 [, תיז יצחכ לעו] 1 [, [ רוהט]
תיז יצחכ,
[ אמט דחא]
םשמ,
3:7 ש לוביק תיב, 3:9 אמטהו]
[ רבוע,
4:7 םיחא השלש םינש , 4:10 יימש תיב מוא ' הקלחנ, 5:7 הדוקפה רעש [ אמטמ]
, 5:9 ועמש םהו]
[ םיבורמה יפמ,
6:1 ממיש א
םיני, 6:4 הבורמ [ א"
ד]
, [ ףדמ ויבג לעו]
, 6:5 נוחנ י א 2 , 6:6 הרועשכ םצע
[ ונממ שרופה]
, 6:8 [ יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה]
הרועשכ,
6:9 [ רזעילא]
'רל,
6:10 אמטמ אשמבו עגמב , 7:7
ח ו ל, 7:8 [ יאנת לע]
, 7:9 י וי
ע
ן
ש
נ ח
וה
ו
, 8:5 תא השאה , [ ואצמנש]
8:6 םינפבמ [ םינוב]
, הנושאר השודק [ ש]
and
8:7 ש וברמ עמש.
In three cases, there is one letter which was crossed out and another letter written
above it, or one letter partially erased and turned into another letter. In 2:3 the original
reading was " ןה"
and the later the heh was partially erased and an aleph was placed
above it with a yud carved out of what remained of the heh. This makes the
manuscript conform to the reading found in MSS Sassoon and Oxford. In 8:3 the vav
in הסיעהו was crossed out and a shin placed on top which makes it conform to one
genizah fragment and with the later ed. Naples. Finally, again in 8:3, the aleph in
" השעא"
was partially erased to leave a nun (i.e. " השענ"
) making it conform to all of the
other manuscripts. In the phrase האבה ת חא או םיה תנידמב
מ (1:13) the order two phrases
419

were reversed by placing an aleph over the second and a bet over the first. There are a
number of words (commonly dittography) erased with marks over them: 5:1 תֹ רֹ כֹ מֹ נֹ
קֹ וֹ שֹ בֹ was written twice, 5:9דיעה ו' א ' לאללהמ ןב היבקע , 6:6 תיזכ אמטת ת יֹ זכ ֹ אמֹ
טמ ֹ , רֹ בֹ ֹא
ןמ רבאמ
יחה, 8:4 ברקידו ןכ ' נ ' ןוניא
' ןייכד
16
The manuscript is of mixed character. It shares many common readings with
MSS Paris 329 and Oxford 1272 (which are not of the Eretz Yisrael family) but at the
same time contains shares some of the features of the Eretz Yisrael tradition (MSS
Kaufmann, Parma d.R. 138, Cambridge), including sharing some very strange spellings
and readings with MS Kaufmann.
The manuscript contains a degree of mimmation generally found only in the
Eretz Yisrael manuscript tradition. The word לש is consistently written as a separate
word with the exception of the marginal supplementation. The spellings in the
manuscript are more frequently plene than some of the other mss, but not anything like
MSS Kaufmann and Parma d.R. 138. One defective spelling of note is the word להאמ
(instead of ליהאמ) which it shares consistently with Munich 95 alone.
The name Shammai is usually spelled with two yud’s (יימש) although about one
out of four times it is spelled יאמש, and four times it is spelled with just one yud. When
not abbreviated (as ה " ב),
Hillel is, with one exception (and one marginal
supplementation), spelled with a yud, i.e. לליה. This spelling is found only once in MS
16
This was probably intended to be " ןכד ןוניאד"
, a reading found in ed. Naples and one
genizah fragment (T.S. – O.S. E2:80).
420

Kaufmann (and in several parallel mishnayot in MS Kaufmann) and once in MS Munich
and nowhere else in mEd. יסוי is spelled with a yud at the end and the aleph of
Elazar/Eliezer is never lost. The manuscript leans heavily towards ending names on an
aleph rather than a heh. Names such as אסוד, אינוחנ and אביקע are spelled with the aleph.
Only the edition princeps shows a more pronounced tendency towards the aleph. The
name סניכרא is usually spelled with an alpeh as which is typical of the Eretz Yisrael
tradition. 17 Second person perfect verbs are usually written with הָתּ at the end.
The conjunctive vav for joining disputants is usually omitted. Aleph’s are
occasionally elided. The word םשמ usually appears without the vav, but there are
some exceptions.
One odd and archaic reading which the manuscript shares with MS Kaufmann
alone is the archaic spelling of " הש"
of the prefix " ש"
found in the word " הקלחנהש"
(twice in 3:11). In MS Kaufmann both occurrences of the heh were erased by a later
hand. The manuscript contains a " ו"
before the " ס"
in every occurrence of סניכרא / ה
(i.e. סוניכר א)
which appears to be under the influence of the spelling of סונקרוה,
standard for R. Eliezer’s father. Also of interest is that in two of the three occurrences
of the word " דציכ"
(2:1, 3:8 but not in 3:9), the manuscript reads " דצ הזיאכ"
. This form
is not found in any of the other manuscripts, but is the standard spelling of the word
found in MS Erfurt of the Tosefta 18 and in a dozen or so places in the Yerushalmi.
17 The only non-Eretz Yisrael manuscript which has an aleph is MS Munich.
18 MS Vienna of the Tosefta always uses the usual form.
421

It should also be noted that there are a good number of places where this
manuscript and MS Munich share a particular reading. Many of them are the
abbreviation of words which are not normally abbreviated, but there also many other
shared readings unique to these two manuscripts, among them: 1:1 לליה, 1:14 ' ודוהל,
2:4 םא ( ו)
, 2:6 איצוהל םא ( ו)
, 2:10 חכב, 3:1 להאמ (no 'י'before the ' ל')
three times, 3:7 גורא,
4:5 'יינעו, 4:7 םדא (אוה) רטופ, 5:2 יברעב, 5:6 תורקיהל, 5:9 ךישעמ(ו), 6:2 עשוהי יברןבאינוחנ
(instead of אינוחנ 'רו),
6:11 אל םא (instead of םא א ל),
7:1 שמחב (instead of שמחכ) and 7:1
ןוידפב (instead of ןוידפכ).
4. MS Paris 329-330 (ר)
The manuscript contains the entire Mishnah along with the Hebrew translation
of Maimonides’ commentary. It was written at the turn of the fourteenth century and
is vocalized. The script is block leaning towards cursive and is written two columns to
a page. The bet and the kaf are often extremely difficult to differentiate. The
commentary is smaller and unvocalized, but the same script. The mishnayot are
numbered (except for the first in each chapter) and the chapters (except the first) are
introduce with יניש קרפ, ישילש קרפ etc. The tractate is entitled תויודע תכסמ and
concludes with " תוידע תכסמ : והל קילס"
followed on the next line with אנמחר : ךירב"
" ןמא : ןעייסד.
The scribe splits words between lines when he cannot finish them at the end of
the first line provided that he can break a word after a prefix. Otherwise, he fills in the
422

emaining space with what appears to be vav’s or a yud and a daled. There are
remarkably few emendations in the manuscript. Aleph and lamed at the end of a word
is almost always written as a composite character (the exception is the first לאללהמ in
5:6) and God’s name is written as three yud’s with the middle one raised.
Only a few words have been corrected supralinearly: 1:1 ן' ירמוא ' , 1:2
ש
תמשממה,
2:4 אה י הש ' and 4:9 מ " תש " שמ " שימשתמ . There are several lines that were missed by the
scribe: 3:1 [43:24-26] (this section is missing in MS Paris in the parallel in mAh also
which suggests that we are perhaps dealing with an alternate textual tradition), 3:11
[53:13-14], 3:14 [58:7-8], 4:6 [65:10-12] and 6:10 [106:3-4]. There are several word
missing which are clear errors: 1:9 ( האמוטב ןיליכאמו)
הרהטב,
1:11 ( 'מוא)
םימכח ינפל םינדה,
1:15 וימד יצח ( לע)
רטש,
3:2 עגמה ( ןמ)
ץוח,
3:5 הנמ הנמ ( תוזזוג)
, 4:5 תגל ( ולוכ)
, 5:7 ( היה)
אוה
אמטמ and 6:4 הבורמ.
The manuscript contains one significant addition to mEd 4:1 of הדלונש המהב"
" בוט םויב which is found only in MS Oxford 1272 and ed. Naples. As we have
discussed elsewhere, 19 this section is clearly a late addition. 20
Abbreviations are usually used for the forms of רמוא, but every so often he will
spell out ןירמוא (always with nunnation). םימכ חו is spelled out more often than not
(with mimmation). יפ לע ףא is always written with the standard three letter
19 Chapter Ten, pp. 329-330.
20 It is somewhat interesting that this addition found its way only into mEd and not
into mBes. This oddity is true for all three of the manuscripts which contain this late
insertion.
423

abbreviation, and the Houses are, with only a handful of exceptions, always
abbreviated.
With the exception of nouns, the manuscript almost always uses nunnation.
With nouns, however, it almost always follows the standard pattern of mimmation.
The word לש is always attached to the next word, but will be split across lines (which
in the manuscript can happen with any word). Spellings are typically defective, but
one word which stands out for being written consistently plene is יניש (including the
chapter heading). Second person perfect verbs are usually written with " הָתּ " at the end.
On the handful of occasions that Hillel and Shammai are spelled out, they are
spelled with the standard modern spelling (יאמש, ללה). יסוי is always spelled with a yud
at the end, Elazar/Eliezer with the aleph and qamatz endings of names are always with
a heh with the exception of אסוד which is always with an aleph.
A brief perusal of the list in III:C (Phrasings, Extra Words, Names), III:E
(missing definite direct object markers) and III:F (conjunctive vav’s between
disputants) makes amply clear how closely related this manuscript is to MS Oxford
1272. Several other examples of readings shared only by these two manuscripts which
merit mention; 3:6 "ןיאמט" instead of "תואמט", 2:11 אוה"היה"רמוא , 4:7 "ובלש יפל"
instead of "ובלש ינפמ", 6:10 עבורתומצע (instead of just עבור) and in 8:7 both contain אל"
" קחרל אלו ברקל,
the reverse of all the other manuscripts. Elision is rare, םושמ is usually
written with the vav and the patah-yud diphthong ending is always written with aleph
and yud.
424

5. MS Oxford 1272 (א)
The manuscript contains only the order of Neziqin along with the Hebrew
translation of Maimonides’ commentary. It was written in the fourteenth or fifteenth
century and is unvocalized with the exception of several names of places and people
and a letter or two here and there (7:3 ה ָי ְליִפה,
7:4 ה ָי ְל ֳהאב,
7:9 יא ְנ ַג ַס , 8:3 תו ֵנ ְמלאב).
The
script is block leaning towards cursive (quite similar to MS Paris) and is written with a
single column per page. The commentary is smaller but the same script. The
mishnayot are numbered (except for the first in each chapter) and the chapters (except
the first) are introduce with ינש קרפ, ישילש קרפ etc. The tractate is entitled תוידע תכסמ
and concludes with " ןעייסד אנמחר ךירב"
.
One line in the middle of 6:4 crept in from the commentary of Maimonides to
the mishnah and is marked for erasure with circles before and after. 21 In three places
lines were skipped in the text and are inserted in the margin: 4:7, 5:9, 6:6. Otherwise,
there are no major segments missing from the text. MS Oxford shares with MS Paris
the addition to 4:1 regarding בוט םויב הדלונש המהב and its affinities with that manuscript
have already been noted. There are a fair number of corrections of individual words
marginally or supralinearly. They are: 1:4 ואבש דע, ןי ִא (correcting ןיי ִה found in the
text), רעשמ (correcting רשעמ in the text), 1:6 רמה ו ןיב, ךומסי (correcting ךמוס in the text),
21 This indicates that the scribe writing this manuscript must have been copying from a
Mishnah text from one that already contained the commentary of Maimonides and was
not introducing the commentary from another manuscript.
425

1:10 עלסה לכב תועמ , לקשב ףסכ , 1:11 רשעמ [ לש]
, 1:13 ש " ב ה' " 'ב
ירבדכ תורוהל ורזחש,
1:15 'ל י לטב,
1:16 טשכ י התרה, 2:5 א ע
ם , ירה איה לעב לש, 2:8 םושמ
426
םושמ דחאו רזעיﭏ
'ר
, 3:1 חכב עגונ וא צ י, 3:2 םע
ו תוזזוג ו 'ר [ אשמה]
אשמה, 3:5 ןהש לכ, 3:9 טהו האמ, 3:10 תועשה קודצ, 3:14 [ ןיפצרקמ]
לבא
(correcting ןיצפרקמ in the text), 4:6 ללה תיב מוא ' תכיס ידכ, ןמש אמט ותליחתמ, 4:8 [ יאמש]
תיב
ןיריתמ, 4:9 ללה תיב מוא ' תחא תבש, רוא ל ו
םינומש, ... תיציצב ןידס ןיבייחמ ה " ב,
4:10 תוריזנ ןאכ ןיא
' '
ץראל הצוחב'
(marked for erasure), 4:11 ה"
ב
תרבוע in the text), 5:3 ... חצקה
ו
מוא
לולח ם דא , 5:1 [ תדמוע]
הרורצ (correcting
ןיבייחמ ה " ב,
5:8 [ וייודינב]
תמו
ןילקוס , 5:9 ריבחל י ך, 6:6 שרופה
' אמט
' אה ' י ' ונממ (marked for erasure), 6:9 עב צ תומ, 6:10 רשבה רשבהש שרופה, 6:11 אל םא םתרמא,
7:1 םולכ לוד ' ג ' ןהכל ןאכ ןיא,
7:5 רסח םוי דחא, 7:6 ונלכאו תא הדלו, 7:7 ב רדא לכ and 8:2 לארשי
ןהכל [ תאשנש]
, רוהש תקונית ה . הנ,
8:6 הש ודיק ' .
When running out of space at the end of a line, the scribe either abbreviates or
marks the letters of the word that he started with an erasure mark and restarts the word
on the next line. The letters aleph and lamed are not combined into one composite
character and God’s name is written as three yud’s with the middle one raised.
The words רמוא and םירמוא are almost always abbreviated with three letters,
םימכח is (with one exception) always spelled fully and the expression יפ לע ףא is always
written with the standard three letter abbreviation. The Houses are abbreviated only
sometimes with no evident pattern.
On the handful of occasions that Hillel and Shammai are spelled out, they are
spelled with the standard modern spelling (יאמש, ללה). יסוי is always spelled with a yud

at the end and Elazar/Eliezer with the aleph. Names ending in qamatz are split in their
endings; היננח, הריתב and היבקע have a heh while אביקע is spelled with and aleph.
The word לש (with two exceptions) is not attached to the next word. The
niph(al commonly is spelled plene with a yud after the nun prefix, but otherwise the
plene and defective spellings are not unusual. Second person perfect verbs are usually
written with " הָתּ " at the end. Elision is rare, םושמ is usually written with the vav and
the patah9-yud diphthong ending is always written with aleph and yud.
6. MS Cambridge Add. 470 (II) (ק)
MS Cambridge is well known as the “The Mishna on which the Palestinian
Talmud Rests” or " אברעמ ינבד אתינתמ"
. An excellent transcription was done by Lowe
and published in 1871. 22 In mEd there are only three clear errors 23 in his transcription.
This edition relies upon the actual manuscript for mEd but depends upon Lowe’s
transcription for the parallels to mEd elsewhere in the Mishnah.
The manuscript contains the entire Mishnah and is of the Eretz Yisrael type. It
belongs to the fourteenth or fifteenth century but contains no commentary. It is
unvocalized as a rule, but a word here and there is pointed (1:3 ןי ִה אָלמ,
2:6 ש ֶפיֶמה,
22
Lowe, William H., ימלשוריה דומלתה הילע דסונ רשא הנשמה, Cambridge University
Press, London, 1883.
23
2:1 אמטנש instead of אמטינש, 4:7 המ ע instead of ומע and 4:7 ילעבמ < דחא>
תמ (דחא is
missing). There were a number of other places where my reading differs from his, but
none are clear enough to be labeled as errors.
427

םיִסַפ ַל ֲא , 5:7 רַעֵשׂ, 6:9 א ֵמט and 7:2 ר ֵצ ). The script is block leaning towards cursive and
is written one column to a page. The mishnayot are numbered (except for the first in
each chapter) and the chapters (including the first) are introduce with ' א קרפ,
' ב קרפ etc.
At the end of each chapter, the number of mishnayot are marked with ' לה and the
number of mishnayot, followed by the numbering of the next chapter. The tractate
concludes with " הנומש םיקרפ תוידע תלסח"
.
The manuscript in mEd contains no emendations at all. 1:10 is missing
although it may not be a scribal error. Otherwise, there are two lines that fell out of
the manuscripts: one in 1:11 and one in 4:9. When the scribe ran out of room at the
end of the line and had started a word he wrote the extra letters in the margin angling
them upwards. When he anticipated insufficient space to finish the word he placed a
s9adi at the end of the line. 24 The letters aleph and lamed at the end of a word are
combined into one letter.
The spelling of רמוא is split between being fully spelled out and spelled with
three letters; only once is it spelled with two. םירמוא appears in every conceivable
form but the two most common are ' ירמוא and ' מוא.
םימכח is generally spelled out fully
or as ' ימכח;
only three times is it spelled as ' כח and never as ' מכח.
The Houses names
are never abbreviated.
As with MS Parma 138, the manuscript leans heavily towards usage of
mimmation. The only group of words which uses nun’s frequently (as is the case in
24 Lowe suggests (???) that this was his initial.
428

all of the manuscripts) is that of active participles. The prefix לש is never joined to the
word that follows.
The orthography of the manuscript is far less plene than the other manuscripts
of the Eretz Yisrael tradition, although it contains the only case (aside from MS
Kaufmann) of a yud before the furtive patah9 (7:5 חילגמ). 25 Second person perfect verbs
are usually written with " הָתּ " at the end.
Shammai is almost always (two exceptions) spelled with two yud’s (יימש) and
Hillel is always with the standard spelling. Yose is spelled with a yud and the aleph in
Elazar/Eliezer is, except in one case, always elided. Most of the names ending with a
qamatz are followed by a heh, but one can start to see a shift towards aleph in some of
the occurrences of several of the names: אינוחנ, איבקע, אדגדוג and אריתב. The name סניכרא
is always spelled with an א as is typical of the Eretz Yisrael tradition.
It usually contains the conjunctive vav which joins disputants and it elides
alephs more frequently than any of the non-Eretz Yisrael manuscripts, but it generally
uses the form םושמ and not םשמ. It also uses aleph in the patah9-yud diphthong ending.
It shares a good deal of unusual readings and spellings with MS Kaufmann. The
vav in יחה ןמ רבא ףאו (twice in 6:6), אפג with an א (4:4) and ןויצ ןיב with a yud (8:7) are
good examples.
25 For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Minh9at Shai to Genesis 1:7.
429

7. MS Sassoon 72-73 (ש)
This 12 th century manuscript is generally accepted as the autograph copy
of Maimonides of his mishnah text and original commentary, including his subsequent
emendation. 26 It is written one column to a page and contains most of the first five
orders of the Mishnah. The script is cursive as is that of the commentary, which is, of
course, in Judeo-Arabic. The mishnayot are not numbered but they are broken up by
the commentary which may serve the same purpose. The chapters are, with the
exception of the first, numbered ינש קרפ, ישילש קרפ etc. The tractate begins with תכסמ"
" תוידע and ends with " ןדהב עייסד אנמחר ךירב"
. The manuscript on the whole is
unvocalized, but most of the mishnayot have at least a word or two which are pointed
and sometimes the line marking rafeh over a bgdkpt letter is used (e.g. 1:9 ֿדיִר ַצ ).
There are no corrections (of the Mishnah text) in the margins or lines that appear to
have fallen out. There are very few words (or letters) which were written above the
line (2:4 דצב , 3:5 הנמ הנמ סרפו, 4:10 ריזנ ו הבורמ ת, 6:2 ןתנלא ןב , 8:7 רצ י הפ) and in this
manuscript their being emendations is probably irrelevant since they were most likely
corrections of Maimonides himself.
There is one mishnah (4:7 ... תורצה תא ןיריתמ יאמש תיב)
where a significant
amount of text from the parallel in mYev (1:4) has been added to the mishnah text.
Since no other manuscript (other than JTS Rab. which is derivative and the editio
26 For a discussion of this issue, see S. D. Sassoon in the Introduction to the facsimile
edition (Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam : e codicibus Hunt 117 et Pococke
295 in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxoniensi servatis et 72-73 Bibliothecae Sassooniensis
Letchworth); S. M. Stern, “Peirush HaMishnah bi-Ktav Yado shel HaRambam,”
Tarbis9 23 (1950), pp. 72-88; Y. Blau, “Ha)umnam Yesh Be-Yadeinu Tofes shel
Peirush HaMishnah be-Es9em Ketav Yado shel HaRambam,” Tarbis9 27 (1954), pp.
536-543; S. M. Stern and D. S. Sassoon, “(Al Tofes Peirush HaMishnah be-Es9em
Ketav Yado shel HaRambam,” Tarbis9 29 (1956), pp. 261-7; Y. Blau, “Peirush
HaMishnah le-HaRambam, Seder Qodshim,” Les6oneinu 32 (1968), p. 400.
430

princeps) contains this addition, it should be viewed (from the perspective of the
textual of history of mEd) as secondary.
Words for which there is not enough space on the line will overflow into
the margin on occasion. In in couple of instances (רגתוצי of 3:12 and ופןירט of 4:9) he
begins the word at the end of the line and being unable to complete it marks it for
erasure and begins again on the next line. Aleph and lamed when used theophorically
are usually joined together in one letter and God’s name is written with three yud’s.
Maimonides also marks almost every one of the words in Scriptural passages cited
with a mark on top and tends to abbreviate many of them. 27
Maimonides rarely uses abbreviations. The words רמוא, םימכח and פ " עא
and the Houses are never abbreviated. ןירמוא is only rarely abbreviated (5 times as ' מוא
and once as ' ירמוא)
and when spelled out always written with nunnation. The only
word regularly abbreviated is " יבר"
.
The text is heavily tilted towards nunnation but even in this manuscript the
nominal forms are usually with final mem. לש is usually written as part of the
following word, but there are a handful of exceptions. The orthography of the
manuscript is probably more defective than any other, including its derivative JTS
Rab. 220-21. Heh is rarely used in the masculine second person of verbs in the
perfect. Shammai (with one exception) and Hillel are always spelled in the standard
manner. יסוי is spelled with a yud, the Aleph of Elazar/Eliezer is never elided and all
names ending with the qamatz are spelled with a heh with the exception of אסוד.
After the opening chapter, there is only case of a disputant not joined with the
27 One wonders if this was based upon the injunction (bGit[ 60a) of writing anything
less than a full sefer of Scripture. Cf. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:14.
431

conjunctive vav. Elision of alephs does not occur, םושמ is usually spelled with a vav
and the patah9-yud diphthong ending uses an aleph. Elision of aleph and heh does not
occur, םושמ is always with a vav and the patah9-yud diphthong ending is written with an
aleph and yud.
One variant of interest: 8:3 contains לאילמג ןב ןועמש ןבר (of Usha, an obvious
error) instead of לאילמג ןבר (II of Yavneh). This reading is found subsequently in MS
JTS Rab. 220-1 and in ed. Naples. 28
8. MS JTS Rab. 220-221 (י א / ב )
This manuscript is, as is typical of Yemenite manuscripts, a faithful rendering
of Maimonides’ autograph. The 14 th century manuscript, which contains the order
Neziqin, was partially destroyed and the missing pages were later replaced. The early
leaves are written on parchment and are written in a block script, but the later ones are
on paper and in a Rashi-like script. The sections which were replaced with paper,
mEd 1:1-2:2, 2:6, 3:7-9, 4:2-6:6 and 7:5-8:7, constitute a majority of the tractate. The
commentary of Maimonides on the Mishnah is in Judeo-Arabic. The manuscript is
unvocalized except for two words (3:3 ל ַכוא and 7:4 אָיְלֵהאָ ְב ) on the parchment. The top
of the page in the paper sections (and a few of the leaves of the parchment) contains
the tractate name and chapter on that page (i.e. א " פ תוידע)
in Rashi script (even the
parchment leaves). The tractate is titled " תוידע תכסמ"
and does not have any
conclusion. The chapters, with the exception of the first, are labeled with ינש קרפ, קרפ
28 For more on this swap see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, pp. 1199-1202.
432

ישילש etc. The parchment leaves which conclude a chapter contain at their end קילס"
" אקריפ with the exception of the sixth chapter. No such appendage is found in the
paper sections. Small blanks follow both each section of mishnah text and its
commentary. The mishnayot are unnumbered.
The scribe did a superb job of copying. There are no lines that were skipped,
עבור
only one word had to be inserted supralinearly (1:8 'מוא
ה"
ב תומצע) and the ancestor
of the manuscript (MS Sassoon) is very accurately rendered. Following MS Sasoon,
there is long addition to 4:7 based on mYev 1:4. The largest set of differences are in
abbreviations and orthography. MS JTS usually uses ' מוא for רמוא and ןירמוא, although
the latter frequently also is written out fully, typically with a final nun. יפ לע ףא is
abbreviated using the expected three letters. The Houses are usually abbreviated in
the paper sections but not the parchment. The pattern of nunnation/mimmation is
quite similar to that of MS Sassoon. Unlike in its progenitor, the manuscript always
joins לש to the word which follows.
The names are spelled almost identically to MS Sassoon: Shammai and Hillel
(with one exception 1:8 in both manuscripts) are spelled in the standard way, יסוי is
with a yud, the aleph in Elazar/Eliezer is not elided. The one exception is the spelling
of אינוחנ consistently with an aleph and the patah9-yud diphthong ending is written with
an aleph and yud.
433

9. MS Munich 95 (מ)
This famous manuscript, which contains virtually the entire Babylonian
Talmud, also contains the entire Mishnah, even those tractates for which there is no
Talmud. The mishnah text of the manuscript is written in a very square block script
without any commentary. There is no title at the beginning of the tractate. It is treated
as the last in the order of Neziqin and hence it ends with:
הנמש 'יקריפו
תוידע קילס
תועשומל ﭏ ונל ﭏה
תועושי רדס קילסו '
ו' ע' א' ו ' ך' ל' נ' ב'
In the last section of the manuscript, the scribe becomes artistic: on the second
to last page he lays out the text in four triangles which meet in the center of the page
and on the last page he makes the lines progressively narrower (a reverse pyramid).
The chapters, starting with the first, are titled ' א 'פ,
' ב 'פ
etc. and the mishnayot
are not numbered. However, there are spaces in the line where the mishnayot in other
manuscripts typically break. Since the scribe was willing to abbreviate almost any
word, he never has the problem of starting a word at the end of the line and running
out of room, but in the artistically shaped columns where the space often gets narrow
it happens a few times and he marks the last letter for erasure and begins again on the
next line.
The manuscripts is replete with two features: abbreviations and, unfortunately,
errors. There are no marginal corrections to supplement the lines that the scribe
skipped and hence the tractate is probably lacking somewhere between five and ten
434

percent of the text. The missing lines are 6:26-27 (mEd 1:6), 7:1-2 (1:6), 13:25-26
(1:11), 31:21-25 (2:5), 33:פ א 1 – פ א 2 (2:6), 35:11-12 (2:8), , 40:6-10 (2:11), 42:19-21
(3:1), 44:M-45:3 (3:3), 50:25-27 (3:8), 51:1-2 (3:9), 53:13-14 (3:11), 57:30-01 (3:14),
63:1-2 (4:5), 66:13-15 (4:6), 83:5-6 (5:3), 85:14-86:15 (5:5), 88:26-29 (5:7), 113:10-
12 (7:6), 115:19-21 (7:7), 117:26 (7:8) and 124:1-2 (8:3). In addition, there are two
mishnayot completely absent: 1:11 and 4:4. 29 Most of the omissions were because of
homoioteleuton/archton. This list does include the (too numerous to list) individual
words or word-pairs that were lost by the scribe and a good number of words that are
clearly errors. One word was added in the margin ( " טגב"
in 7:9), but from the
handwriting it appears to be from the pen of the original scribe. There are some
interesting readings in the manuscript shared by no other manuscripts, but given the
poor job of copying, variants must be used with great caution.
In one place (3:10-3:11), the order of the mishnayot is reversed; the only other
manuscript in that this may be possible is in MS Parma 984, where 3:10 was omitted
and supplemented in the margin before 3:11, although this is by no means certain.
There is hardly a word that the scribe is not willing to abbreviate. In almost
any given line at least half of the words will be shortened, and frequently almost every
single one is. Of the standard abbreviated words, רמוא and םירמוא are always
abbreviated with ' וא,
םימכח is usually abbreviated as ' מכח or ' כח (once it is spelled out,
twice as ' ימכח)
and יפ לע ףא is always abbreviated with the standard three letters. The
29 The first of these may not be a scribal error, but the second certainly is.
435

Houses are always abbreviated. The aleph and lamed at the end of a word when
spelled out will be written as one letter and God’s name is written with three yud’s
with the middle one supralinear.
The pattern of final nun vs. final mem is difficult to be certain about because
between half and two thirds of the words ending in those letters are abbreviated, but of
what remains there is an extremely one sided tendency towards nunnation. There are
only eleven words in the manuscript which contain mimmation. The word לש is
always separated from the following word. The plene/defective spellings are
generally unremarkable. The second person perfect suffix never contains a heh at the
end. A preferenced for qamatz heh vs. aleph endings is impossible to know because
of the abbreviations.
Shammai is spelled with an aleph. Hillel is only spelled out three times; the
first time as לליה and the latter two with the standard ללה. יסוי is spelled with a yud,
and the aleph in Elazar/Eliezer is never elided. It is difficult to be sure about qamatz
ending due to the abbreviations; אינוחנ is spelled out twice with an aleph, הריתב once
with a heh, אסוד once with an aleph and הביקע once with a heh. Elision does not occur,
םושמ (when present, as half of the occurrences are missing) with a vav and the patah9-
yud diphthong ending is written with an aleph and yud.
10. Ed. Naples 1492 (ד)
436

Naples is generally treated as the editio princeps of the Mishnah. 30 It contains
the Mishnah with the Hebrew translation of Maimonides’ commentary. It was printed
two columns to a page like a number of the manuscripts. The mishnah text is in block
print and the commentary is in Rashi type.
The tractate’s title is " תוידע תכסמ"
(although a majority of the page headings
read " תויודע"
) and concludes " תיודע תכסמ קילס"
. The chapters (except for the first) are
numbered ינש קרפ, ישילש קרפ etc. The mishnayot are, on the whole, numbered as well,
but many of them are missing a number and several of them (e.g. 3:7 [=3:5 in Naples])
have errors. Although a printed edition, Naples still shows certain features typical of
manuscripts. There are many abbreviations and words which were started at the end
of a line are often left uncompleted and are restarted on the next line.
As a printing, it has no marginal or supralinear corrections. There is one
mishnah completely missing (3:2) and there several lines that the typesetters missed.
They are 39:5-6 (2:11) ,41:17-18 (3:1), 44:4-5 (3:3) and 117:26 (7:8). The word " לכה"
in 1:16 (in all other manuscripts " ילכה"
) contains a blank space after it. It is possible
that it was set as " ילכה"
and that the last letter did not make an impression.
There are two large additions to the mishnah text which are found in this
printing (and subsequent ones); " הדלונש המהב"
(shared with MSS Paris and Oxford)
which is printed as the preface to the second mishnah (rather than as an addendum to
30 A. Haberman (Mishnah (im Periush HaRambam Defus Rishon, “Introduction”, p. 2)
notes that the Mishnah was printed first on the Iberian Peninsula, but only a few pages
remain of that printing and thus ed. Naples should be regarded as the editio princeps.
437

4:1 as in the other manuscripts) and the parallel from mYev regarding תא ןיריתמ ש"
ב"
" תורצה (shared with MSS Sassoon and JTS Rab. 220-1).
Abbreviations are typically followed by a standard kind of mark. There are,
however, a number of cases where the mark is absent. Although it is possible that
some of these words should be understood as an abbreviation, we record these in the
apparatus as if they are not abbreviated since in some cases they are most likely true
variants. The words רמוא and םירמוא are usually written out and full, but are
abbreviated between one quarter and one third of the time. םימכח is always written out
fully or as ' ימכח,
although mostly the former. יפ לע ףא is sometimes abbreviated, and,
when this is the case, is written as י " פעא (only MS Parma d.R. 984 shares this
abbreviation). The names of the Houses are abbreviated very infrequently.
The word לש is always separate from the word that follows and the
orthography generally leans towards defective. Second person perfect verbs are never
written with a heh at the end, and, distinct from all of the manuscripts, the edition
shows a pronounced tendency towards aleph as the final matre lectionis for a qamatz
rather than a heh.
Shammai (with the same one exception as in MSS Sassoon and JTS Rab 220-1,
1:8) and Hillel are spelled with the standard spelling. יסוי is with a yud, the aleph in
Elazar/Eliezer is never lost and every name (with the exception of two occurrences)
ending in qamatz is followed by an aleph. Occasionally, the printing uses what would
be an Eretz Yisrael spelling. One prime example is " רקבה"
with a bet and not a peh
(found only in MSS Kaufmann, Parma 138 and Cambridge). Alephs are rarely elided,
438

םושמ is almost always with a vav and the patah9-yud diphthong ending is written with an
aleph and yud.
Ed. Naples is the only one of the witnesses to spell םילשורי in its modern spelling
(with the yud of the diphthong) as opposed to the Biblical spelling, but only in the first
three of the five occurrences. Three other notes of interest: 1) 3:8 contains an addition
of " ריתהש הפה אוה רסאש הפהש"
under the influence of the parallel in mKet 2:5, 2) the
name " ןועמש"
in mEd 5:3 became לאעמשי 31 and 3) " לאילמג ןבר"
became ןב ןועמש ןבר"
" לאילמג (following MSS Sassoon and JTS).
1) JTS 1487.30
mEd 5:7-6:9 ( J1 ג)
III. Genizah Fragments 32
The fragment contains one leaf, recto and verso. It is written in a square block
script and contains only a few words here and there vocalized. There are a number of
corrections supralinearly and one large section in the sixth chapter which was
supplemented in the lower margin (with similar spellings and orthography to the main
31 For more on this see Epstein, Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, 1191-4 The printed
version is an obvious error as the first five mishnayot of the chapter are collections of
leniencies of Beit Shammai which are attributed to the major Tannaim of Usha. R.
Yishmael lived during the period of Yavneh (ibid. p. 1193).
32 The genizah fragments here are the ones that I was able to locate using the various
catalogues available to me. The catalogues can be found in the Bibliography.
Unfortunately, the Talmud Department at Hebrew University was not willing to allow
me access to the list in their possession.
439

text). The mishnayot are numbered in the same way as the Eretz Yisrael manuscripts
(i.e. the Akavia material is broken into four mishnayot). The fifth chapter ends with
" ה אקרפ"
followed by ' כלה (with the parchment under the number missing) and then
followed by " ו אקריפ"
with the letter vav inside a little tent of two poles.
Abbreviations, with the exception of ' ר for יבר are not used. The orthography,
most closely resembles MS Kaufmann (perhaps even more plene); it contains spellings
such as ייח, םיתימה, ךסנתינש, קפקיפש, דיעיה and עושוהי. רביא is plene and הרועסכ is spelled
with a samech, found in the manuscripts only in MS Kaufmann. It spells the word
" אהוקשיה"
, an ending found only in MS Kaufmann. Second person perfect endings are
written with a heh at the end. לש is attached to the word that follows.
The same can be said for the textual tradition. םיבורמ (without the heh) only
the first two times in 6:9 is identical to Kaufmann alone as is the vav lacking in לע(
ו)
ףדמ ויבג in 6:4. More striking is the formulation in 4:2 " להאה םע אשמהו אשמהו עגמה"
which the vocalizer in Kaufmann took to be dittography and crossed out the first
" אשמהו"
; all other manuscripts contain " אשמה םע עגמה"
.
2) JTS 1487.91
mEd 3:1-3:12 ( J2 ג)
The fragment contains one leaf, recto and verso, but a good part of the lower
half is missing. It is written in a square block script and contains only a few vocalized
words. It appears to be of the same hand (and perhaps same manuscript) as JTS
440

1487.30. Unusual spellings include תייז 33 , עושוהי, תבשינש, טיסיה, עיגונ, הייצח (instead of
יאצח or ייצח), ףרטצימ, יניש and ןומיסח (instead of ןומיסא). לש is joined to the next word
and the aleph in " םימטמ"
is elided. הסוד is once spelled with a heh and three times with
an aleph. One word, תישארב, is abbreviated.
3) JTS 1487.95
mEd 8:7 ( J3 ג)
The fragment appears to be part of a prayerbook which contains the last
mishnah in each of the orders of the Mishnah. 34 The mishnah is fragmentary and
contains only one reading of note; the second "ןיב"ןויצ is spelled with the yud (the
parchment is missing by the first) a spelling found only in MS Kaufmann (both times),
in one other genizah fragment (ג ש 3 , only the second time) and in MS Cambridge (only
the first time).
33 This is the one respect in which it differs from 1487.30 where the spelling is תיזכ.
Note, however, that in MS Kaufmann, the word תיזכ is usually with two yud’s and תיז
almost always with one, so inconsistency between the two words may stem from the
same scribe.
34 The only manuscript that we possess which treats mEd as the final tractate of
Neziqin is MS Munich. The placement at the end probably reflects the lack of a
Talmud on the tractate. Most manuscripts and printings follow size order and hence
Eduyot follows Shavuot and precedes Avodah Zarah. It is of some interest that the
aggadic ending of Eduyot which is an addition from the Usha period (although it is
hard to be sure if in the context of mEd it can truly be regarded as aggadic) suggests
the possibility that this is the end of the order, much as we find at the ends of the other
orders of the Mishnah (cf. mMQ 3:9, mQid 4:14, mQin 3:6 and mUq 3:12).
441

4) JTS 1487.95
mEd 2:3 ( J4 ג)
This small fragment comes from a manuscript which contained a commentary
in Judeo-Arabic. The mishnah text is only on the back of the fragment. The only
readings of minor note are " היננח"
(as opposed to " הנינח"
and with the heh ending) and
" יתיאר אל ןיא"
instead of " וניאר אל ןה"
. The word " יתיאר"
is only found in MSS Sassoon
and JTS Rab.220-1.
5) JTS 1487.95
mEd 2:5-6 ( J5 ג)
This tiny fragment contains only a few words of the mishnah. The only
reading of note is בז אשמ instead of בזה אשמ shared by MSS Sassoon and Cambridge.
6) Antonin 483a
mEd 5:9-8:2 ( A ג)
This sizable fragment, containing one page recto and verso, contains almost
one-quarter of the tractate. It is vocalized in its entirety and uses the Babylonian
system of vocalization. It has been published in photographs 35 and in transcription. 36
35
Yisrael Yevin, ילבב דוקינב הנשמה לש הזינגה יעטק ףסוא, pp. 37-8 and Abraham Katsh,
הנשמ יזנג,
pp. 94-7.
36
Kahle, Paul, “The Mishnah Text in Babylonia II”, HUCA XII-XIII, (1938) pp. 293-
7.
442

The script is block and the letter are thick. There are no abbreviations in the
manuscript The mishnayot are numbered; in the fifth and seventh chapters it is
identical to the numbering in the Eretz Yisrael manuscripts, and in chapter 6 (whose
precise details are not consistent in the Eretz Yisrael tradition) it comes closest to that
of MS Kaufmann. The chapter ends with the formulation:
443
" '1+x
אקרפ y אתכליה
'x
אקרפ אנה"
The orthography is not usually as full (after the chiriq) as that of Kaufmann ,
but there are some words will are consistently more plene: אליא, רביא, רביאימ, תי ֵמה,
ריהט, ליהאבו, דיעיה and התי ֵמ . All of these plene spellings follow the tzeire vowel; this
kind of spelling is rare in MS Kaufmann and not found anywhere in the other full
manuscripts. One striking (archaic) form it contains is " וניצאמ"
. The fragment also
tends to use a samech instead of sin: הרועסכ (sometimes in MS Kaufmann), םיאיסמש,
and השעמ is emended above the line to הסעמ. The word לש is attached to the word that
follows and second person perfect verbs are written with a heh at the end.
There is one major lacuna in the text which may shed light on an earlier stage
of the text. The mention of R. Eliezer in 7:6 along with the redundant opinion of the
Sages (which is the same as R. Yehoshua and R. Pappyas) is missing. This maybe due
to homoioteleuton, but if not, it may reflect an earlier stage of the text and reinforce
our suggestion elsewhere that this segment was introduced into mEd from mBekh. 37
37 See Chapter Seven, 211-4.

7) ןמית יזנג – ןולוח 81 38
mEd 1:13-16, 2:1-5 (ג ת )
This fragment contains one leaf, recto and verso, mostly complete. The
writing is a square block script. There is no commentary. The mishnayot are
numbered; the second chapter conforms to the Eretz Yisrael tradition of where the
breaks are placed but the first chapter contains fifteen mishnayot (as opposed to
sixteen in MSS Kaufmann and Parma 138). Since we only have from 1:13 and on, it
is impossible to determine where the one mishnah was lost, but the breaking up of
1:13 and 1:14 into two is consistent with the Eretz Yisrael manuscripts.
The orthography in the fragment is on the fuller side (םתנקית, ילטית, אמטינש,
תלוביש) but not as plene as MSS Kaufman or Parma 138. There is only one reading of
special interest. Instead of " ימש תיב ןהל ורמא"
at the beginning of 1:14, we find ורמא"
" ללה תיבל ימש תיב,
a reading found only in MSS Sassoon and JTS Rab. 220-1. It also
reads ירה"איה" both times in 2:5, similar to MSS Sassoon and JTS. (The word "וניאר"
in 2:3, however, does not match that of MSS Sassoon and JTS which alone read
" יתיאר"
). Shammai is spelled without an aleph (and only one yud) in consonance with
the Eretz Yisrael traditions. One interesting spelling is the word " יפלעפא"
written as
one long word.
In 2:4, the scribe wrote " רשבב הֹ בֹ וֹ קֹ ֹנ
תאצמנש טחמה לעו"
. The word " הבוקנ"
is not
38
A photograph of the text can be found in Y. Yeivin, דוקינב הנשמה לש הזינגה יעטק ףסוא
ילבב, pp. 173-4.
444

found in any of the other witnesses and probably came from the wandering mind of
the scribe. The expression " תאצמנש טחמ"
is used in a baraita in bH9ul 50b in a
discussion of a hole which was made in one of the animal’s stomachs ( תוסוכה תיב)
and
the use of the term " הבוקנ"
in the context of " טחמ"
is found in the laws of muqs9ah on
Shabbat (mShab 6:3 and bShab 52b) and in the discussion of ritual impurity of needles
(tKel BM 2:2).
8) ירסומ יזנג – III 86.2
mEd 1:5-13 (ג מ )
The fragment contains one leaf recto and verso, but is missing a good part of
the left side of the page. The script is cursive. The mishnayot are not numbered; they
are separated only by colons. The spelling is generally defective, although ןיינימ, ןייניב
and strangely אליא are spelled plene. Shammai is spelled with two yud’s (like MS
Cambridge and occasionally MS Parma 984). Unlike the Eretz Yisrael manuscripts, it
contains the preposition bet in " לקשב"
in 1:11. Otherwise, the fragment is
unremarkable.
9) Taylor-Schechter Old Series E2:77
mEd 4:10-11, 5:2, 5-7, 9 (ג ש 1 )
The fragment contains one leaf, recto and verso, written with two columns to a
445

page. The top half of the page is gone as well as most of the right side when facing
from the recto side. The script is a very neat square one and it is mostly vocalized
(with the Tiberian vocalization). The orthography is generally defective with the
exception of heh being used after second person perfect verbs (התייהש [5:6], התאצמ
[5:9]). There are no remarkable readings found in the fragment. Shammai is spelled
with an aleph (except once as ימש) and common abbreviations are used.
10) Taylor-Schechter Old Series E2:78
mEd 5:7-8 (ג ש 2 ) 39
The fragment contains one leaf, recto and verso, mostly intact. The mishnah
text is written in a large square block script and it is accompanied by a translation in
Judeo-Arabic. There are two interesting spellings, אריבו"ו"ת (5:8), which is found only
in MSS Kaufmann, Parma 138 and one other genizah fragment. Even more significant
is the spelling " המכד"
which contains a kaf instead of a gimmel; only MSS Kaufmann
( אמגכיד)
and Parma 138 ( המכיד)
have a kaf in their spellings. 40 Also of interest is the
name " ךנח"
(5:8, MS Kaufmann has " דנה"
) making it the only source to read it as a h9et
as found in the modern printing ( " ךונח"
). The fragment appears to be part of the same
manuscript as in T.S. Old Series 167.39.
39
The text of this fragment, now numbered as T.S. E1 – 124a, was published by
Epstein. in תוימש תונושלבו דומל תה תורפסב םירקחמ,
vol. 2a, p. 75.
40 See Epstein, תוימש תונושלבו דומלתה תורפסב םירקחמ, p. 74.
446

11) Taylor-Schechter Old Series E2:79
mEd 7:8-8:7 (ג ש 3 )
This fragment, one leaf recto and verso, is clearly of the Eretz Yisrael tradition.
Its script and orthography bare a striking resemblance to the JTS 1487.30 fragment.
The script is square and block, the mishnayot are numbered and chapter seven
concludes with: " 'ח
אקרפ 'ט
'לה
'ז
אקרפ"
and the ' ח'
is enclosed by a tent of two sides.
The tractate concludes with " ח יקרפ תוידע תלסח"
with a diamond like shape around the
' ח'.
Yose is spelled with a heh, " עושוהי"
is spelled with two vav’s and " הריתב/
הביקע"
with heh’s at the end. The name " ייכז"
is with two yud’s. Two unusual readings it
shares with MS Kaufmann are the name "ייגנס" (7:9) and ב"י"ןויצ ן (the second time in
8:7) with a yud. The orthography is generally plene, such as " התיֵמ
" (7:9), " הסנכינ"
(8:2) and " דיעיה"
(8:3 and 8:5). One unique spelling the fragment contains is " ויינבש"
instead of " ואנבש"
(7:9) and " םיאיסמש"
(8:5). Two very unusual readings it shares with
MS Kaufmann are " רוהט לכה(
ו)"
(8:5) and " והיש"
instead of " ויהשכ"
(8:6).
12) Taylor-Schechter Old Series E2:80
mEd 8:2-8:7 (ג ש 4 )
This fragment, one leaf recto and verso, is written in block script. A portion of
the page towards the bottom is missing. The mishnayot are numbered. The spellings
are on the whole plene (הרתסינ [8:2], ונל ביק,
םכיתודיע [8:3], הושדיק [8:6], וליא [8:7]). הסוי
is spelled with a heh and ייכז is spelled with two yud’s. The expression יפלעפא is
447

spelled as one word (found only in the genizah fragment ןולוח 81). One reading is of
particular interest as it appears only in the editio princeps (and subsequently in the
modern printing) and nowhere else 41 is " ןייכד ןוניאד"
instead of just " ןייכד"
(8:4).
13) Taylor-Schechter New Series 36.2
mEd 4:10-5:1, 7:5-8 (ג ש 5 )
The fragments contains one leaf recto and verso. Given the gap between the
two sections it would appear that the original page was very long. 42 The text is in a
block script and there is no commentary. The small amount of text shows no readings
of great interest.
14) Taylor-Schechter New Series 167.39
mEd 8:3 (ג ש 6 )
The fragment contains a small amount of vocalized text with mEd 8:3 (along with the
end of the commentary from 8:2) along with a commentary or translation in Judeo-
Arabic (definitely not that of Maimonides). The only spelling of interest is " יכז"
instead of " יאכז"
or " ייכז"
. The writing, and commentary, very much resemble the T-S
41
This may also have been the reading in Parma d.R. 984 which the scribe confused
and was later marked for erasure.
42 The work was done with the microfilm of the Cambridge Genizah material. The
two photographs are torn in such a way that it seems quite clear that they are front and
back of the same piece of parchment/paper. It is possible that there they are actually
recto and verso of two consecutive pages, both of which were torn at the same time,
448

Old Series fragment E2:78.
which would provide more than enough space to contain the gap in the material.
449

IV. Table of Contents of Mishnayot
Kf Modern ed. Page# Kf Modern ed. Page#
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:5
1:6
1:7
1:8
1:1
1:1 cont.
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:5
1:6
1:7
1
2
2
3
5
6
7
8
4:4
4:5
4:6
4:7
4:9
4:10
4:11
4:4
4:5
4:6
4:7-9
4:10
4:11
4:12
62
62
64
66
71
73
75
1:9
1:10
1:11
1:12
1:13
1:14
1:15
1:16
1:8
1:9
1:10
1:11
1:12
1:12 cont.
1:13
1:14
9
11
12
14
15
17
19
22
5:1
5:2
5:3
5:4
5:5
5:6
5:7
5:8
5:1
5:2
5:3
5:4
5:5
5:6
5:6 cont.
5:6 cont.
76
79
82
84
85
86
88
90
5:9 5:7 91
2:1 2:1 25
2:2 2:1 cont. 26
6:1 6:1 94
2:3 2:2 26
6:2 6:2 95
2:4 2:3 28
6:3 6:2 cont. 96
2:5 2:4 30
6:4 6:2 cont. 97
2:6 2:5 32
6:5 6:3 98
2:7 2:6 34
6:6 6:3 cont. 99
2:8 2:7 35
6:8 6:3 cont. 101
2:9 2:8 36
6:9 6:3 cont. 103
2:10 2:9 37
6:10 6:3 cont. 104
2:11 2:10 38
6:11 6:3 cont. 107
3:1 3:1 40
3:2 3:1 cont. 42
3:3 3:2 44
3:4 3:3 46
3:5 3:3 cont. 46
3:6 3:4 47
3:7 3:5 48
3:8 3:6 49
3:9 3:7 50
3:10 3:8 52
3:11 3:9 52
3:12 3:10 54
3:13 3:11 56
3:14 3:12 57
4:1 4:1 59
4:2 4:2 60
4:3 4:3 61
450
7:1 7:1 108
7:2 7:2 109
7:3 7:3 110
7:4 7:4 110
7:5 7:5 111
7:6 7:6 112
7:7 7:7 114
7:8 7:7 cont. 116
7:9 7:8-9 117
8:1 8:1 120
8:2 8:2 121
8:3 8:3 123
8:4 8:4 125
8:5 8:5 126
8:6 8:6 127
8:7 8:7 129

1
כסמ
ז
הת
ז
ע
ז
יד
ז
תו
ז
רפ
'
א
'
27
מוא ימש
'
תיבו ןתעש ןייד ןישנה לכ
וא ללה
'
םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ
מכחו הברה
'
מוא
'
ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל
תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז
לע
די
1
הדיקפמ
הדיקפל
הדיקפל הדיקפמו
כ
"
תוידע לש י
27
ימש
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
מש
יא
.
מוא
| '
ר
ירמוא
'
ן'
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רמוא
מ
וא
'
.
ןישנה
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םישנה
מ
ישנה
'
.
ןייד
|
28
ללה תיבו
|
פ
א
ק
ד
ללהו
פ
מ
לליה
ר
א
ש
י
א
ללה
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רמוא
ר
א
מוא
'
.
הדיקפמ
|
מ
דיקפמ
'
.
הדיקפל
|
מ
דיקפל
'
.
וליפא
|
פ
ר
א
י
א
מ
יפא
'
ד
ולפא
.
ימיל
ם
|
פ
מ
ימיל
'
.
29
הברה
|
מ
ברה
'
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ימכחו
'
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
םימכחו
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ר
ש
י
א
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
ירבדכ
2
|
מ
בדכ
'
.
30
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
תעמ
|
תטעממ
|
מ
עממ
'
.
1
הדיקפמ
|
מ
דיקפ
'
.
הדיקפל
|
מ
דיקפל
'
.
הדיקפמו
|
מ
יקפמו
'
.
הדיקפל
|
ר
דיקפל
'
מ
יקפל
'
.
תוליבקמ
ר
מ
ד
רי
ו
ספ
י
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
פ
א
מ
רי
ל
ב
מ
2
וא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
·
ו
ספ
י
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
םישנה
מ
ד
ישנה
'
.
ד
ןיד
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
1
ללה
מ
ב
מ
2
לליה
ב
ו
2
ללהו
.
וק
מוא
'
ר
ק
רמוא
.
מ
יקפמ
'
.
מ
יקפל
'
.
ר
ב
מ
2
יפאו
'
ב
ו
21
וליפאו
מ
רי
ל
יפא
'
.
מ
ד
ימיל
'
.
מ
ברה
'
.
וק
פ
א
כחו
'
ר
ב
מ
2
םימכחו
ק
ד
ימכחו
'
מ
מכחו
'
.
ק
ירמוא
'
ר
ןירמוא
ב
מ
2
מ
וא
'
.
מ
לא
'
.
ב
מ
2
עמ
'
.
מ
טעממ
'
ב
ו
2
טעממ
.
מ
ד
דיקפמ
'
.
מ
ד
דיקפל
'
.
מ
יקפמו
'
ד
דיקפמו
'
.
מ
דיקפל
'
.
א
פ הדנ הנשמ
"
מ א
"
א
פ הדנ ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
א
.
ילבב
1
ב הדנ
.
2
בש
וט ת
.

תשמשמהו
םידעב
ו·
מב
ו
ספ ב
וב
ו ו
ספ ב רי
ו·
לי
השא לכ ב ' : תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ
ה התעש הייד תסוו הל שיש
c תשמשמ
לע תטעממו הדיקפכ וז ירה ןידיעב
הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לעו תעל תעמ די
םייבקמ 'וא
ללה הלח בקמ 'מוא
ימש ג'
. לכלו
תוליבקמ
. טעממ
ד
לכו
. 'שא
2ו
ב
ק וק
. תסו
. היד
. 'תעש
ו·
לי
ל א
ספ רי ר פ תשמשמהו
מב
.[ 'שמשמה|
ספ]
'משמהו
מ
ספ
. 'טעממ
ו·
ל
רי ד ק ר
מ תטעממ ד ק
מ
ו
ב ד מ
ו
ב ד
מ
ד ק וק
א ןידעב פ םידיעב
. 'ידעב
מ
. יאמש
ו מ ע
. ללהו ב לליהו ב ת
תטעממה
ו מ ע
ב ב ת
ו·
ל
רי
. 'דיקפמ
יימש
. 'וא
. בקכ
וק
א
פ
מ
ו
ת
מ ו
ב ת
ו
ת
ללה תיב
ע·
ו . 'מוא
. םיבקמ
ו
ת
ת
ו
ת
. ב הדנ ילבב
2
ר
ד
שמתשמה
'שמשמה
. 'ידעב
5
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'עממ
מ | תטעממ
. 'א
הנשמ
ךשמה ד ק א ר | ב הנשמ
א . לע מ לכו ק פ פ | לכ
.() מ | השא
מ
. הב מ | הל
א . תסו מ י ש | תסוו
א . 'ייד
מ היד י א ר | הייד
. 'תעש
מ ק | התעש
א תשמשמה א ק פ | תשמשמ
א ש
תשמשמהו י ש תמשממה
. תשמתשמה
פ
א
א
מ [] ש םידעב ד י ק א ר פ פ
. 'טעממ
מ
תטעממ
. 'דיקפמ
מ
א
ד ק א ר פ פ
| ןידיעב
| הדיקפכ
| תטעממו
.() מ | די לעו תעל תעמ
. 'יקפמו
מ | הדיקפמ
. 'דיקפל
מ | הדיקפל
. ב הנשמ ד ק א ר | ג הנשמ
א . יאמש ד מ י ש א ר יימש ק פ | ימש
א
א
. םירמוא ד רמוא י ש 'וא
מ פ פ | 'מוא
| בקמ
. הלחל ד 'לחל
מ | הלח
א
. לליה פ ללהו ד ק פ | ללה
א . רמוא ד י ש ק 'מוא
א ר | 'וא
. 'ייבקמ
מ | םייבקמ
. א"
לה א"
פ הדנ ימלשורי א"
מ א"
פ הדנ הנשמ
.
וט תבש ילבב א"
מ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות
2
3
4
5
6
ב
ג

3
מכחו
'
וא
'
הז ירבדכ אל
רבדכ אלו
'
אלא הז
ולידגיהשמו הלחב ןיבייח הצחמו בק
ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודימה
10
ר
'
מוא הסוי
'
השמח ןירוטפ השמח
ןיבייח דועו
:
ד'
וא ללה
'
ןיה אלמ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
7
מכחו
'
וא
| '
י
א
כחו
"
א
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ימכחו
'
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
םימכחו
מ
כחו
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
א
מוא
'
ר
ש
ןירמוא
ק
ד
םירמוא
.
רבדכ
| '
פ
א
פ
ק
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ירבדכ
.
אלא
|
ק
()
מ
לא
'
.
8
הצחמו
|
מ
צחמו
'
.
ןיבייח
|
פ
יבייח
'
מ
בייח
'
ד
םיבייח
.
הלחב
|
מ
לחב
'
.
ולידגיהשמו
|
פ
א
ק
ד
ולידגהשמו
פ
ימ
לידגהש
ו
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ולידגהשמ
.
9
תודימה
|
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תודמה
מ
ודמה
'
.
ורמא
|
תשמח
|
פ
תישימח
מ
שמח
'
.
םיעבר
|
םיעבר
|
א
ןיעבר
מ
יעבר
'
.
ןיבייח
|
י
א
הלחב ןיבייח
מ
יבייח
'
לחב
'
.
ןיבייח
|
פ
א
פ
םיבייח
מ
יבייח
'
.
10
הסוי
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יסוי
.
מוא
| '
פ
א
פ
מ
וא
'
ש
י
א
ד
רמוא
.
השמח
|
מ
שמח
'
ד
תשמח
.
ןירוטפ
|
פ
א
פ
ק
םירוטפ
מ
וטפ
'
.
השמח
|
פ
ש
י
א
השמחו
מ
שמח
'
.
11
ןיבייח
|
פ
א
פ
םיבייח
.
ד הנשמ
|
ר
א
ק
ד
ג הנשמ
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
וא
| '
פ
ש
י
א
ד
רמוא
ר
א
ק
מוא
'
.
אלמ
|
י
א
אולמ
.
ןיה
|
א
ןייה
א
ג
ןיא
י
א
ןיא
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
ב
מ
םימכחו
.
ת
ו
·
ע
מוא
'
.
ת
ו
ביח
ת
ע
ב
ו
בייח
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ולידגהשמ
.
ב
מ
·
ו
תודמה
.
ב
מ
םימכח ורמא
.
ב
מ
·
ו
חמק םיעבר
.
ב
מ
·
ו
הלחב ןיבייח
.
ב
מ
·
ו
יסוי
.
ב
מ
וא
'
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
ת
ע
מוא
'
.
ד
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ א
"
א
וט תבש ילבב
.

הווקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ
'מוא
ימשו ובר ןושלכ 'מול
בייח םדאש
הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
םיבק תעשת
ינש ואבש דע אלא הז ירבדכ אלו
םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג
ןוילטבאו הייעמש םשמ ודיעהו
תוליבקמ
. גול רשע םינש לש ןיבואש םימ
ע·
ו
. םיבואש
. םילסופ
ו·
מ ע·
ו . הוקמה ב
.()
ת
ו
ב
ו
ב
ע·
ו
ת
ת
ו·
מ . םדא בייחש
. רמול
ו·
מ . ןושלב
ו·
מ ע . יאמש ב ת יימש
. 'וא
םישש לש ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ
ע
. גול הששו < םישלש|
ת>
. העשת
. ןיבק
. םימכחו
. 'וא
.()
. ואבש השעמ
ב
מ
ב
ב
ו
ת
מ ו
ב ת
ע·
ו
ת
ו·
מ
ב
ו·
מ
ב
מ ו
ב ת
מ ו
ב ת
ו·
מ
ע·
ו
. ןיידרג
. הפשאה
. םילשוריבש
ב
ת
ו
ת
ו
ב
ו
ב
ו·
מ ע . םושמ ב ת םשב
ו·
מ ע·
ו .
היעמש ב
ו
ת
ת
4
. יאמשו
15
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| ןיבואש םימ
. 'ימ
ד | םימ
א
. 'יבואש
מ םיבואש א פ | ןיבואש
. 'ילסופ
מ | ןילסופ
א
. 'וקמה
מ הוקמה ד י ק א ר פ | הווקמה
ד
| ובר ןושלכ רמול בייח םדאש
. םדאש אלא ד | םדאש
. 'דא
'ייחש
מ | בייח םדאש
א
א
. רמול ד י ש ק א ר פ | 'מול
. ןושלב ד ר 'ושלכ
מ פ | ןושלכ
א
יימשו ק יאמש מ י ש א ר פ | ימשו
א א
. 'וא
מ פ רמוא ד י ש ר פ | 'מוא
| ןיבק תעשת
. 'עשת
מ העשת ד ר פ | תעשת
א . ןיבק מ י ש א ר | םיבק
א
. 'ימכחו
ק םימכחו ד י ש א ר | 'מכחו
. ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ד מ פ | 'מוא
. 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
. 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
א . 'לא
מ () י ש | אלא
| ואבש דע
. 'יידרג
'ר
מ ןיידרג א ר | םיידרג
. 'ופשאה
מ | תופשאה
. םילשוריבש ד 'לשוריבש
מ | םלשוריבש
. איעמש
ד
היעמש
. םושמ
א
ד מ י ק
א
א
מ י ש ק א ר פ פ
| םשמ
| הייעמש
12
13
14
15
16
17

ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש
ה' :
ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה תא
ללהו ימש ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו
אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל ןלטבל
םלועה תובא ירהש ורבד לע דמוע םדא
ו . השלשש ב
. םימכח ומייקו
ו·
מ
תשלשש
תוליבקמ
. ןיגול
מ
ב
ב
ע·
ו
ת
ו·
מ ע·
ו
ת
ו . םילסופ ב
. הוקמה ב
ב 'מכח
ומייקו
ו·
מ .
םהירבד ב
ו·
מ ע·
ו
ת
ע
ת
ע·
ו
ת
5
'שלשש
20
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
א
מ תשלשש י ש ק ר פ פ | תשולשש
. תשלש ד
א . 'יגול
מ ןיגול י ש ק א ר פ | םיגול
. םימ לש פ | םימ
. 'יבואש
ד () מ םיבואש ק | ןיבואש
. 'סופ
מ | ןילסופ
א
א
. 'וקמה
מ הוקמה ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | הווקמה
. 'ימכח
ומייקו ד 'מכח
ומייקו מ | ומייקו
א . םהירבד ד מ י ש ק א פ | ןהירבד
. ד הנשמ ד ק א ר | ה הנשמ
. ש"
ב
מ
יאמש
ד
. 'מלו
מ | המלו
. 'יריכזמ
מ | ןיריכזמ
א .() מ י ש א ר פ | תא
א
י ש א ר יימש ק פ | ימש
. ה"
בו מ לליהו פ | ללהו
. 'לטבל
מ | ןלטבל
. 'מלל
ד מ | דמלל
. 'ורוהל
מ | תורודל
א . ןיאבה מ י ש א | םיאבה
. 'הי
מ | אהי
. 'דא
מ | םדא
. 'מוע
מ | דמוע
. וירבד ד מ א ר פ | ורבד
. 'ובא
מ | תובא
. 'לועה
מ | םלועה
18
19
20
21
22

ילבב
:
ןיריכזמ המלו ו' ןהירבד לע ודמע אל
י
ןיאו ליאוה ןיבורמה ן ב דיחי ירבד תא
הארי םאש ןיבורמה
ירבדכ אלא הכלה
וילע ךומסיו דיחיה ירבד תא ןיד תיב
ירבד תא לטבל לוכי ןיד תיב ןיאש
654321ו
. ןיא ב
654321ו
.() ב
65321מ
ב
תוליבקמ
. ד"
ב
4
32
. ט"
לה ב"
פ ז"
ע ד"
לה א"
פ תבש
1ו
רי
1ל
רי
65321מ
ב
65321מ
421ו
421ל
ב רי רי
6
. 'הירבד
מ
25
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'מע
מ | ודמע
א
א
םהירבד ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | ןהירבד
. ה הנשמ ד ק א ר | ו הנשמ
. 'מלו
מ | המלו
. 'יכזמ
מ | ןיריכזמ
. 'יחי
( 27 'רוש)
1
. 'ומסיו
מ
א .() ד מ י ש א ר | תא
א
א
דיחיה ד ק י ש א ר פ פ | דיחי
א א
. םיבורמה י ש פ | ןיבורמה
. 'יאוה
מ | ליאוה
. 'כלה
מ | הכלה
. 'לא
מ | אלא
א א . םיבורמה י פ | ןיבורמה
. 'ארי
מ | הארי
א . ד"
ב מ י ר פ | ןיד תיב
ןיד תיב ןיאש ... דיחיה ירבד תא
. תומודה י"
ע טמשוה () מ |
ג א
ךמוס א ר ךומסי ק א פ | ךומסיו
ד
| ןיאש
. ד"
ב א ר פ | ןיד תיב
א .() ד מ פ פ | תא
. 'בד
מ | ירבד
א"
לה א"
פ תיעיבש ימלשורי " ןיינימבו ... ןיד תיב ןיאש"
56 4
43 2 1
.
ול ז"
ע ( מב
רסח ) : ול ןיטיג : ג ק"
ומ . ב הלגמ
23
24
25
26
27
ו

63מ
543ו
ב כ"
א אלא ב
ונממ לודג אהיש דע וריבח ןיד תיב
המכחב ונממ לודג היה ןיינימבו המכחב
המכחב אל לבא ןינימב ןיינימב אל
אהיש דע ורבד תא לטבל לוכי וניא
'ר
'מא
ז' :
ןיינימבו המכחב ונממ לודג
521מ
ב
654321ו
.
ןינמבו ב
תוליבקמ
. ד"
ב
. ורבח
621ו
3ו
ןכ םא אלא ב
. כ"
א 'לא
65321מ
ב
43
ו
ב
רי
6543ו
. ונמיה ב
. 'מכחב
65321מ
ןיינמבו
5מ
ב
3ל
רי
53מ
ב
53מ
ב
4ו
ב רי
7
.()
. ןיינמבו ש ק א ר
. ןינמב
. ןינמב
מ
ד מ
29
לבא
1
. ד"
ב
. 'יבח
מ ורבח
. כ"
אא מ כ"
א אלא
ד מ
א
י
א
תוידע לש י"
תכ
מ א ר פ
| ןיד תיב
| וריבח
| אהיש דע
ד ש
פ
. היהיש ד | אהיש
. 'ודג
מ | לודג
| ונממ
. 'מכחב
מ | המכחב
א ןינמבו ד מ י פ | ןיינימבו
. 'ודג
ונממ מ | ונממ לודג
. 'מכחב
מ | המכחב
ןיינמב
ןיינמב
י
. אלו פ | אל לבא
א
פ | ןיינימב
א
פ | ןינימב
. 'מכחב
מ | המכחב
ש ק א ר פ
ש ק א ר פ
. 'יא
מ | וניא
. 'וכי
ד מ | לוכי
.() ד מ פ | תא
. וירבד ד פ | ורבד
| ןיינימבו המכחב
ונממ לודג אהיש דע
. היהיש ד | אהיש
א . ןינמבו ד י
M
ןיינמבו ש ק א ר פ | ג ןיינימבו
. ו הנשמ ד ק א ר | ז הנשמ
. ר"
א מ | 'ר
'מא
א . רמא ד י ק א ר | 'מא
28
29
30
1
2

ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המל ןכ םא הדוהי
םאש ןלטבל ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה
ול ורמאו לבוקמ ינא ךכ םדא רמאי
תיב ח' :
התעמש 'לפ
שיא ירבדמ
םימצעה ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ימש
. שיא יבר
ו
רי
תוליבקמ
. ורמאי
. ירבדכ
שיא 'ר
. תעמש
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
רי
רי
ל
רי
ו·
ל
רי
ו מ
. א"
שב ב ש"
ב ב
ו
מ
. תומצע
ב 'ומצע
ב
מ . ןימצעה ב
8
מ
5
.() ד מ
. 'לבוקמ
מ ינא לבוקמ
א רמאי ד י ש ורמאי ק א ר
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'דוהי
מ פ | הדוהי
א . כ"
א מ י | ןכ םא
. 'מל
מ | המל
. 'יכזמ
מ | ןיריכזמ
א
M
י ש א ר פ ג | תא
M . 'יחי
מ ג | דיחיה
.() מ | ןיבורמה ןיב
א . םיבורמה ק א פ | ןיבורמה
. 'לטבל
מ | ןלטבל
. 'מאי
מ | רמאי
. 'דא
מ | םדא
ר | לבוקמ ינא
א M
פ ג | ורמאו
. 'מאי
א
א
. [] פ ירבדכ ד מ י ש ק א ר פ | ירבדמ
.() מ | שיא
א M
. ינולפ ד ש ק א ינלפ ר 'ולפ
מ פ | ג 'לפ
א
M
. תעמש ד מ י ש ק ר | ג התעמש
. ז הנשמ ד ק א ר | ח הנשמ
. ש"
ב מ ר | ימש תיב
. 'ומצע
א
M
. יאמש ד י ש א פ יימש ק ג | ימש
א א M
. ןירמוא ש 'מוא
ד י ק א ר פ ג | 'וא
א
א
מ תומצע ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | תומצעה
. ןיב ר פ | ןמ
M
. 'ימצעה
מ ןימצעה ג | םימצעה
. א"
לה א"
פ תיעיבש ימלשורי " ... םדא רמאי םאש"
.(
הרעשה פ"
ע חותנהו תולהא אתפסותו הנשמה לש הבכרה)
: בנ ריזנ ילבב
א
פ
ז
ח
3
4
5
6
7

9
ןיב
םינשמ
ןיב
השולשמ
ללה תיבו
וא
'
עבור
תומצעה
ןמ
וגה
ו
אי
בורמ
10
ש ןיינימה בורמ וא ןייניבה
מוא ימ
'
וליפא
םצעמ
דחא
:
ט'
ינשרכ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
8
ןיב
|
םינשמ
|
מ
ינשמ
'
.
ןיב
2
|
ש
י
א
ןיבו
.
השולשמ
|
ג
M
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
השלשמ
מ
שלשמ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
ב
"
ה
מ
בו
"
ה
.
תיבו
|
ג
M
פ
א
ש
י
א
תיב
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
9
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
י
א
מוא
'
א
רמוא
'
ק
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
תומצעה עבור
|
תומצעה
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
תומצע
מ
ד
ומצע
'
.
וגה
ו
אי
|
ג
M
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
הייוגה
פ
ק
ש
ד
היוגה
מ
יוגה
'
.
וא ןייניבה בורמ
|
מ
.()
10
ןייניבה
ג
M
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש
ןיינבה
ק
י
א
ד
ןינבה
.
ןיינימה
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
ןיינמה
י
א
מ
ד
ינמה
ן
.
ימש
|
ג
M
יימש
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יאמש
.
מוא
| '
פ
א
פ
מ
וא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
11
וליפא
|
פ
ר
א
ק
י
א
מ
יפא
'
.
דחא םצעמ
|
ט הנשמ
|
ר
א
ק
ד
ח הנשמ
.
ינשרכ
|
פ
ר
א
מ
ד
ינישרכ
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
·
ו
וא
.
ב
מ
ינשמ
'
.
ב
מ
·
ו
וא
.
ב
מ
שלשמ
'
ב
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ב
מ
()
.
ב
ו
.()
ב
מ
·
ו
היוגה
.
ב
מ
ןיינבה
ב
ו
ןינב
.
ב
מ
ןיינמה
ב
ו
ןינמ
.
ב
מ
·
ו
יאמש
.
ב
מ
וא
'
.
ב
מ
יפא
'
.
ב
מ
ןמ דחא םצע
ה
רדש
'
ןמ וא
ה
תלגלג
ב
ו
ןמ םצע
תלוגלוגה ןמ וא הרדשה
.
ר
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ינישרכ
.
ט
עמ הנשמ
"
פ ש
"
מ ב
"
ד
פ ימלשורי
"
לה ב
"
ד
.

10
המורת
תיב
ימש
וא
'
םיפשו םירוש
הרהטב
תיבו האמוטב ןיליכאמו
ללה
וא
'
םירוש
הרהטב
םיפשו
ןיליכאמו
15
האמוטב
ימש
וא
'
ולכאי
דירצ
יc
ר
'
ביקע
'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
12
המורת
|
מ
מורת
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
M
ק
יימש
פ
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
וא
| '
ג
M
פ
א
א
י
א
מוא
'
פ
ר
ש
ןירמוא
ק
מוא
יר
'
ד
םירמוא
.
םירוש
|
ג
M
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןירוש
.
םיפשו
|
ג
M
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןיפשו
.
13
הרהטב
|
מ
רהטב
'
.
האמוטב ןיליכאמו
|
ר
.()
ןיליכאמו
|
מ
יליכאמו
'
.
האמוטב
|
ג
M
האמטב
מ
מוטב
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
.
תיבו
|
ג
M
פ
ג
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תיב
.
ללה
...
האמוטב
|
ק
()
ה
ע טמשו
"
תומודה י
.
14
וא
| '
ג
M
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
םירוש
|
ג
M
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןירוש
מ
ירוש
'
.
הרהטב
|
מ
רהטב
'
.
םיפשו
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןיפשו
מ
יפשו
'
.
ןיליכאמו
|
מ
יכאמו
'
ד
םיליכאמו
.
15
האמוטב
|
ג
M
האמטב
מ
מוטב
'
.
ימש
|
ג
M
ק
יימש
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
מש
יא
.
וא
| '
ג
M
ר
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ד
רמוא
.
ולכאי
|
דירצ
|
מ
ןיידע ןיידע
ד
רירצ
.
ר
| '
פ
א
רו
'
ק
יברו
.
ביקע
| '
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
י
א
הביקע
א
ד
אביקע
מ
יקע
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
מורת
'
.
ר
מ
רי
ו
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ר
()
ק
פ
א
ש
רי
ל
מוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
פ
א
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ןירוש
ר
םירש
.
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ןיפשו
.
מ
רהטב
'
.
וק
םיליכאמו
.
ק
האמטב
.
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
.
וק
ו
תיב
ש
תיב
.
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ירמוא
ן
ד
םירמוא
.
פ
א
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ןירוש
.
מ
רהטב
'
.
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ןיפשו
ת
ו
ןיפטו
ת
ע
ןיפש
.
ק
האמטב
.
ר
ש
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
ש
מוא
'
ד
רמוא
.
פ
א
ולכאיי
מ
כאי
ל
'
.
ק
רו
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
רי
ל
·
ו
הביקע
ד
אביקע
מ
יקע
'
.
י
עמ הנשמ
"
פ ש
"
מ ב
"
ילבב ח
1
אי ןישודיק
:
32
ב
"
המ מ
.
4
נ תורוכב
) :
32
ב תטיש דע
"
ה
41
דע
"
ינש רשעמ
("
ימלשורי
1
עמ
"
פ ש
"
לה ב
"
ח
32
פ
"
לה ב
"
ח
")
ינש רשעמלש תועממ עלס טרופה
.("

11
וא
'
ןהישעמ לכ
האמוטב
:
י'
טרופה
לש תועממ עלס
םלשוריב יניש רשעמ
ימש תיב
וא
'
לכ
עלסה
תועמ
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
לקש
ףסכ
לקשו
תועמ
ר
'
ריאמ
וא
'
20
ןיא
ןיללחמ
ףסכ
תורפו
לע
ףסכה
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
16
וא
| '
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
ישעמ
ןה
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
םהישעמ
מ
הישעמ
'
.
האמוטב
|
ג
M
האמטב
מ
מוטב
'
.
י הנשמ
|
פ
א
·
ג
ןוילגב הבותכ הנשמה לכ
פ
ק
מ
הנשמה לכ רסח
ר
א
ד
ט הנשמ
.
טרופה
|
17
עלס
|
תועממ
|
לש
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
.()
רשעמ
|
יניש
|
פ
א
·
ג
ש
י
א
ד
ינש
.
םלשוריב
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
()
.
18
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
M
יימש
פ
א
·
ג
ש
ד
יאמש
.
וא
| '
ג
M
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
לכ
ג
M
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
לכב
.
עלסה
|
תועמ
|
ללה תיבו
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
בו
"
ה
.
19
וא
| '
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
לקש
ג
M
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
לקשב
ד
לקשמב
.
ףסכ
|
לקשו
ג
M
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
לקשבו
.
תועמ
|
ר
| '
ר
יברו
א
ו'
ר
'
.
ריאמ
|
ג
M
אמ
'
.
וא
| '
ג
M
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ד
רמוא
.
20
תורפו
|
ג
M
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
תוריפו
פ
א
·
ג
תועמו
.
ףסכה
|
תוליבקמ
וק
ש
מוא
'
ק
ד
רמוא
.
וק
ק
מ
םהישעמ
.
ק
רופה
טי
ב
מ
2
ופה
ד
'
.
ב
מ
3
לס
'
.
מ
ב
מ
321
ועממ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
321
רי
ו
321
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
4321
.()
ר
ב
מ
32
שעמ
'
.
וק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ו
321
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
4321
ינש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
32
()
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
32
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
32
יאמש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
מוא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
32
לכב
.
ב
מ
32
לסה
'
.
ב
מ
32
ועמ
'
.
וק
ו
תיב
ללה
ר
ב
"
ה
מ
ב
מ
32
בו
"
ה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ד
רי
ל
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ירמוא
ן
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
32
לקשב
ב
מ
3
קשב
'
.
ב
מ
32
סכ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
לקשבו
ב
מ
32
קשב
'
ב
ו
32
לקשב
.
ב
מ
32
ועמ
'
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מוא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
תוריפו
ד
וריפו
'
.
ק
ש
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
ףסכ
.
אי
עמ הנשמ
"
פ ש
"
מ ב
"
ימלשורי ט
ינש רשעמ
פ
"
לה ב
"
ט
.
ב ילבב
"
המ מ
.
)
ב תטיש דע
"
ה
(

12
מכחו
'
ןיריתמ
:
י
'
א'
טרופה
עלס
לש
יניש רשעמ
םלשוריב
תיב
ימש
וא
'
מוא ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכב
'
לקש
ףסכ
לקשו
תועמ
םינדה
ינפל
מכח
'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
21
מכחו
| '
ר
א
ש
ד
םימכחו
.
ןיריתמ
|
אי הנשמ
|
ר
ט הנשמ ךשמה
א
ד
י הנשמ
ק
ט הנשמ
.
טרופה
|
עלס
|
א
תועממ עלס
.
22
לש
רשעמ
|
פ
א
י ש
א
ש
רשעמל
ר
לש
-
רשעמ
.
רשעמ
|
מ
שעמ
'
.
יניש
|
פ
א
פ
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ינש
.
יב
םלשור
|
מ
לשוריב
'
ד
םילשוריב
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
23
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
לכב
|
עלסה
|
מ
לס
'
.
תועמ
|
מ
ועמ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
א
ב
"
ה
מ
בו
"
ה
.
תיבו
|
ג
M
תיב
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ק
()
ש
ןירמוא
ד
ירמוא
'
.
לקש
|
ג
M
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
לקשב
.
24
ףסכ
|
לקשו
|
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
לקשבו
מ
קשב
'
.
תועמ
|
מ
ועמ
'
.
םינדה
|
ר
א
מ
ןינדה
.
מכח
| '
פ
א
ק
ש
ד
םימכח
ר
מ
ימכח
'
.
תוליבקמ
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
ש
ד
םימכחו
.
ק
יריתמ
'
.
ק
טירופה
.
וק
פ
א
רי ר ש
ל
רשעמלש
.
ב
מ
שעמ
'
.
וק
ק
מ
ד
רי
ו
ב
מ
·
ו
ינש
.
ב
מ
לשוריב
'
ב
ו
םילשוריב
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
מוא
'
.
ק
ד
לכ
.
ב
מ
ועמ
'
.
וק
ו
ב
ללה תי
ר
ב
"
ה
מ
ב
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ק
ירמוא
'
מ
ב
מ
וא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
·
ו
לקשב
.
ב
מ
סכ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
לקשבו
ב
מ
קשב
'
מ
ב
ו
לקשב
.
ב
מ
ועמ
'
.
ק
ןינדהו
ש
ד
ןינדה
.
פ
א
ש
םימכח
ר
ק
ד
ימכח
'
.

13
25
וא
'
השלשב
ןירניד
ףסכ
רנידבו
תועמ
רו
'
וא הביקע
'
ףסכ ןירניד השלשב
תיעבירבו
ףסכ
תיעיברבו
תועמ
רו
'
ןופרט
וא
'
תעברא
ירפסא
ףסכ
ימש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
25
וא
| '
פ
א
מוא
ןיר
ר
()
א
ק
מוא
'
ש
י
א
ורמא
ד
םירמוא
.
השלשב
|
ג
M
השולשב
פ
השלש
מ
שלשב
'
.
ןירניד
|
פ
[]
ש
י
א
םירניד
מ
ניד
'
ד
ירניד
'
.
תועמ רנידבו
...
ףסכ ןירניד השלשב
)
רוש
'
26
(
|
ק
מ
.()
רנידבו
|
פ
א
פ
רנידו
.
תועמ
|
פ
ועמ
'
.
26
רו
'
הביקע
|
י
א
ר
"
ע
.
רו
| '
פ
ר
א
ש
ד
ר
'
.
הביקע
|
פ
יקע
'
א
ד
אביקע
.
וא
| '
ר
א
י
א
ד
מוא
'
ש
רמוא
.
השלשב
|
פ
השלש
ד
שלשב
'
.
ןירניד
|
פ
ירניד
'
ש
י
א
ד
םירניד
.
27
ףסכ תיעבירבו
|
תיעבירבו
|
פ
א
תעברו
פ
יעיברו
'
ר
א
תיעיברבו
ק
תעיברו
ש
י
א
תעברבו
מ
יעיברבו
'
.
תועמ תיעיברבו ףסכ
|
תיעיברבו
|
פ
א
תעברו
פ
תיעיברו
ק
תעיברו
ש
י
א
תעברבו
מ
יעיברבו
'
ד
תעבירבו
.
תועמ
|
מ
ועמ
'
.
28
רו
| '
פ
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ר
'
.
ןופרט
|
ר
מ
ופרט
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
תעברא
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
העברא
מ
עברא
'
.
ירפסא
|
ףסכ
|
מ
.()
ימש
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ק
ר
רי
ל
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
ירמוא
'
.
מ
שלש
'
.
וק
פ
א
םירניד
ק
ירניד
'
מ
רניד
'
ד
רניד
רי
ל
ניד
'
רי
ו
ירניד
.
ד
רנידו
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש
ק
מ
ד
רי
ל
ר
'
רי
ו
יבר
.
ק
ביקע
'
מ
יקע
'
ד
אביקע
.
פ
א
רמוא
ר
ק
ש
ד
מוא
'
.
ד
השלש
.
וק
םירניד
ק
מ
ירניד
'
ד
םירניד
.
ד
.()
וק
תעברו
פ
א
ר
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
תיעיברבו
ק
תעיברבו
ש
תעברבו
.
רי
ו
.()
וק
פ
א
ש
תעברבו
ר
תיעיברבו
ק
תעיברבו
מ
יעיברבו
'
ד
תויעיברו
.
וק
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
ר
'
פ
א
רי
ו
יבר
.
ר
ק
ש
ד
מוא
'
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
העברא
ד
רי
ו
עברא
רי
ל
עברא
.
מ
ירטצא
רי
ל
·
ו
ורפסא
.
ר
ש
מ
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.

14
וא
'
הניחיני
חב
תונ
לכאויו
הדגנכ
:
30
י'
ב'
ויופח ולטינש הלכלש אסכ
ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב
מוא ימש
'
אמט אסכלש ןיבלמ ףא
אסכ
ועבקש
הבירעב
תיב
ימש
ןימטמ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
וא
| '
פ
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ר
ש
ד
רמוא
.
הניחיני
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הנחיני
מ
חיני
'
.
תונחב
|
מ
ונחב
'
.
לכאויו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לכאיו
מ
כאיו
'
.
הדגנכ
|
מ
דגנכ
'
.
30
בי הנשמ
|
ר
ק
י הנשמ
א
ד
אי הנשמ
.
הלכלש
|
פ
א
ק
ד
הלכ לש
מ
לש
'
לכ
'
.
ולטינש
|
פ
לטינש
ר
ש
י
א
ד
ולטנש
.
ויופח
|
א
יופח
וי
ש
[]
מ
וינפד
ד
ויפוח
.
1
ימש תיב
|
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
תיב
|
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ר
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ןימטמ
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
אמטמ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ןירהטמ
|
מ
הטמ
'
.
2
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יאמש
.
מוא
| '
פ
א
ר
מ
וא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
ןיבלמ
|
ג
M
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןבלמ
.
אסכלש
ג
M
|
פ
לש
-
אסכ
א
ק
ש
ד
אסכ לש
מ
סכ לש
'
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
3
אסכ
|
מ
סכ
'
.
ועבקש
|
מ
עקבש
'
.
הבירעב
|
מ
בירעב
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
א
()
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ןימטמ
|
ג
M
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
מטמ
'
.
תוליבקמ
ר
ק
ש
ד
א
מו
'
.
וק
פ
א
ש
מ
ד
רי
ו
הנחיני
ר
ק
ונחיני
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
לכאיו
.
ר
ןדגנכ
.
ק
מ
ג
ד
הלכ לש
.
ד
לטנש
.
וק
ר
ק
ד
וייופח
ר
ח
י
וייופ
מ
ג
ויפיח
.
מ
ג
ב
"
ש
.
ד
יב
'
.
ר
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
ר
ד
ןיאמטמ
ק
םיאמטמ
מ
ג
מטמ
'
.
וק
ו
ללה תיב
מ
ג
בו
"
ה
.
ק
םירהטמ
.
ר
מ
ג
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
וא
'
רמוא
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ג
ד
ןבלמ
.
ק
מ
ג
ד
אסכ לש
.
ד
סכ
'
.
ד
בירעב
'
.
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ר
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
ר
מ
ד
ןיאמטמ
ק
םימטמ
.
בי
כפ םילכ הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
ד
.

321ו
ב
31מ
ע
ב ת
'ביתת
יושעה ףא 'וא
ימש ןירהטמ ללה תיבו
תיב ורזחש ןירבד ולא ג' י' :
הב
השאה ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה
ילעב תמ הרמאו םיה תנידממ תאבש
ללה תיבו םביתית ילעב תמ אשנית
מ
ע
ו
ת ה"
ב מ ר ללה תיב ב
. יימש
31ו
. הרמאש ב
םביתת
ו·
ל
321ו
. אשנת ב
ו·
ל
רי
רי ד ש ק
תוליבקמ
מ
. ה"
בו
ק יאמש
. 'מוא
.()
ד מ ר
ד ר ק וק
מ
'רמאו
ו·
ל . הלעב
31מ
ב
31מ
ב ד מ
. לעב
א
ד ש ק ר פ
. םבייתת
א
פ לליה תיב
. לליה תיבו
מ
רי
ש ר
ו
רי
וק
וק
15
מ
. 'ירבד
א . ה"
בו מ י ר
. יאמש
. רמוא
. בי הנשמ ד א
מ
תורוהל
םירבד
א
ד י
5
תוידע לש י"
תכ
פ | ללה תיבו
. 'הטמ
מ | ןירהטמ
א ר ק פ
לליה תיב
יימש | ימש
'מוא
מ ק א ר | 'וא
| ףא
. יושעש מ | הב יושעה
א
ד מ י ש
א
ד י ש
א
ד י ש
אי הנשמ
. ה"
ב
ק ר
. וליא ד ק
א
ק א ר פ פ
א
מ י א ר
| גי הנשמ
M
א ג | ולא
M
ג | ןירבד
| ללה תיב
. לליה פ | ללה
א M
ש ק א ר פ פ ג | תודוהל
. 'ורוהל
. 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
M
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ ג | ימש
. 'שאה
מ | השאה
. 'אבש
מ האבש
. 'נידממ
מ פ תונידממ
. 'רמאו
א
ד י
M
ג
מ
| תאבש
| תנידממ
| הרמאו
| ילעב
א
M
. 'שנת
מ אשנת ד י ש ק א ר פ | ג אשנית
| ילעב
א
םביתת ר ימש תיב 'בד
םביתת פ | םביתית
. ש"
ב ירבד
א
א M
'בייתת
מ םביתת
י ש ק א ר פ פ ג | םביתית
. םבייתת ד
א
M
י ר לליה תיב פ ללה תיב ג | ללה תיבו
. ה"
ב מ א ה"
בו
ב"
לה-א"
לה ו"
טפ ימלשורי ( םיעטק קר)
ו"
מ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות ב"
מ-א"
מ ו"
טפ תומבי הנשמ
3
21 2 1
.(" ...
םירמוא
ללה תיבו")
. זטק תומבי (" םביתת ... ילעב תמ הרמאו"
) : דיק : גצ תומבי ילבב
גי
4
5
6
7
8

16
וא
'
אל
ונעמש
אלא
האבב
ןמ
ריצקה
10
תיב ןהל ורמא דבלב
ימש
תחא
האבה
ןיתיזה ןמ האבה תחאו ריצקה ןמ
תחאו
האבה
תנידממ
םיה
אל
ורביד
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
9
וא
| '
ג
M
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
רמוא
ש
ןירמוא
ד
ירמוא
ם
.
אלא
|
ג
M
אליא
מ
לא
'
.
האבב
|
מ
אבב
'
.
ריצקה
|
מ
יצקה
'
.
10
דבלב
|
מ
.()
ימש תיב ןהל ורמא
|
מ
ב
"
וא ש
'
.
ורמא
|
ר
י
א
מא
'
.
ןהל
|
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ד
םהל
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
M
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
תחא
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
מ
דחא
.
האבה
|
מ
אב
'
.
האבה תחא
..
.
םיה תנידממ
)
רוש
'
12
(
|
פ
ןמ האב תחאו םיתזה ןמ האב תחא
יימש תיב םהל ורמא דבלב ריצקה
מ
מ
ב
או םיה תניד
ח
א
האב ת
.
11
ריצקה
|
מ
יצקה
'
.
תחאו
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
מ
דחאו
.
האבה
|
מ
אב
'
.
ןיתיזה
ג
M
|
ג
ת
פ
א
א
ש
ק
םיתיזה
ר
י
א
ד
םיתזה
מ
יתזה
'
.
12
תחאו
|
תחאו
|
ג
M
דחא
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
דחאו
מ
חאו
'
.
האבה
|
מ
אב
'
.
םיה תנידממ
|
תנידממ
|
מ
ידממ
'
.
אל
|
ורביד
ג
ת
|
ג
M
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ורבד
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
מ
לא
'
.
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
האובב
מ
אבב
'
ת
ע
אבה
.
מ
יצקה
'
.
מ
בלב
'
ב
ו
היהש השעמכו הנידמ התואבו
.
ק
ו
פ
א
ש
ד
ב
ו
םהל
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
וק
פ
א
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
דחא
.
מ
אבה
'
ד
האב
.
מ
יצקה
'
.
וק
ןמ דחאו
פ
א
רי
ל
דחאו
מ
חאו
'
רי
ו
החאו
.
מ
אבה
'
ד
האב
.
וק
פ
א
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
םיתיזה
ר
ק
םיתזה
מ
יתזה
'
.
ב
ו
תחאו ריצבה ןמ האבה תחאו
.
וק
פ
א
רי
ל
·
ו
דחאו
מ
חאו
'
.
מ
אבה
'
ד
האב
.
ב
ו
הנידמל הנידממ
.
מ
נידממ
'
.
ר
אלו
.
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
ורבד
ב
ו
םימכח ורבד
.

17
ללה תיב ורזח הווהב אלא ריצקב
ל
'
ה'
תודוהל
ירבדכ
תיב
ימש
:
י
'
ד'
תיב
15
מוא ימש
'
תיבו הבותכ לוטיתו אשנית
ללה
וא
'
אשנית
אלו
טית
לו
הבותכ
ורמא
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
13
ריצקב
|
מ
יצקב
'
.
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
הווהב
|
י
א
הוהב
.
ורזח
|
מ
ורזחו
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
14
תודוהל
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תורוהל
מ
ודוהל
'
.
ירבדכ
|
ג
ת
מ
בדכ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
M
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
מ
ש
די הנ
|
ר
ךשמה
י הנשמ
א
א
גי הנשמ
ק
בי הנשמ
ד
בי הנשמ ךשמה
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
15
ימש
|
ג
M
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
מוא
| '
ג
ת
פ
מ
וא
'
פ
א
וא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
ירמוא
'
.
לוטיתו אשנית
ג
ת
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
אשנת
לוטתו
מ
שנת
'
לוטתו
.
הבותכ
|
פ
מ
בותכ
'
.
תיבו
ללה
|
ג
M
ג
ת
ללה תיב
פ
ר
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
16
וא
| '
ג
M
ר
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
אשנית
|
ק
אשנת אל
.
אשנית
|
ג
M
פ
ר
ק א
ש
י
א
ד
אשנת
ג
ת
שנית
'
מ
שנת
'
.
לוטית
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
לוטת
.
הבותכ
|
ק
()
מ
בותכ
'
.
ורמא
|
ג
ת
פ
ר
י
א
מ
מא
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
יצקב
'
.
מ
לא
'
.
ד
הוהב
.
מ
ורזחו
.
וק
לליה תיב
ר
מ
ב
"
ה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ב
ו
תורוהל
מ
ודוהל
'
.
וק
ב
ו
.()
וק
ימש תיבכ
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
ב
ו
יאמש תיבכ
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ספ
וי
ב
ו
יאמש
.
וק
מ
וא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
ר
ש
ד
ב
ו
לוטתו אשנת
מ
שנת
'
לוטתו
.
ר
בותכ
'
ב
ו
תכ
התבו
.
וק
ה תיב
י
לל
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ק
ש
ב
ו
ללה תיב
.
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
1
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
ר
ש
ד
ב
ו
אשנת
מ
שנת
'
.
ר
ש
ד
ב
ו
לוטת
מ
וטת
'
.
מ
בותכ
'
ב
ו
התבותכ
.
ר
רמא
'
.
די
טפ תומבי הנשמ
"
מ ו
"
ג
ימלשורי
1
טפ תומבי
"
לה ו
"
ג
)
32
"
בתוכ אוהש
...
ףוסה דע
(
2
טפ תומבי
"
לה ו
"
ג
3
ותכ
פ תוב
"
לה ד
"
ח
זטק ילבב
.

18
ןהל
תיב
ימש
םתרתיה
תא
היירעה
ה
לקה ןוממה תא וריתת אלו הרומח
ורמא
ןהל
תיב
ללה
וניצמ
ןיאש
םיחאה
20
הלחנב םיסנכינ
לע
היפ
ורמא
ןהל
תיב
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
17
ןהל
|
ג
ת
()
פ
א
פ
ק
ד
םהל
.
ימש תיב
|
ג
ת
ללה תיבל ימש תיב
ש
תיב
ללה תיבל יאמש
י
א
ב
"
בל ש
"
ה
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
M
פ
ש
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
םתרתיה
ג
ת
|
ג
M
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םתרתה
מ
תרתה
'
.
תא
|
פ
.()
היירעה
|
פ
א
הירעה
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הורעה
מ
ורעה
'
.
18
הרומחה
|
מ
רומח
'
.
אלו
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
אל
.
וריתת
|
תא
|
ד
.()
ןוממה
|
מ
וממה
'
.
19
ורמא
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
י
א
מ
מא
'
.
ןהל
|
א
ק
י
א
ד
םהל
ש
[]
מ
הל
'
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
ןהב
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
וניצמ
|
ג
M
ונאצמ
מ
יצמ
'
.
םיחאה
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
ר
א
ש
ד
ןיחאה
מ
יחאה
'
.
20
םיסנכינ
|
ג
M
ג
ת
ר
א
ש
ד
ןיסנכנ
פ
א
ק
י
א
םיסנכנ
פ
ןיסנכינ
מ
נכנ
'
.
הלחנב
|
ג
M
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הלחנל
פ
לחנב
'
מ
לחנל
'
.
היפ
|
ד
םהיפ
.
ורמא
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
י
א
מ
מא
'
.
ןהל
|
פ
א
א
ק
ד
םהל
מ
הל
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
תוליבקמ
וק
פ
א
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
םהל
רי
ו
והל
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
םתרתה
.
ב
ו
.()
וק
ר
ק
מ ש
ד
רי
ל
1
רי
ו
הורעה
ב
ו
הורע
.
מ
רומחה
'
ד
ב
ו
הרומח
.
פ
א
ש ר
אל
.
ב
ו
ריתנ
.
ב
ו
.()
מ
וממה
'
ב
ו
ןוממ
.
ר
מא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ש
ד
ב
ו
םהל
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
וק
ונאיצמ
ק
ת
ו
ונאצמ
.
ק
מ
ת
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיחאה
ת
ו
ץרא
.
וק
ר
ק
ש
מ
ת
ו
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיסנכנ
פ
א
ד
ת
ע
םיסנכנ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
הלחנל
מ
לחנל
'
.
ר
ת
ו
מא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ש
ד
ב
ו
םהל
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.

19
אוהש דמלנ התבותכ רפסמ אלהו ימש
אשנת םאש הל בתוכ
רחאל
ילטית
תודהל ללה תיב ורזח ךיל בותכש המ
ירבדכ
תיב
ימש
:
י'
ה'
ימ
ויצחש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
21
ימש
|
ג
M
ק
יימש
פ
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
אלהו
|
מ
להו
'
.
רפסמ
|
מ
פסמ
'
.
התבותכ
|
פ
הבותכ
מ
תבותכ
'
.
דמלנ
|
פ
דמלינ
ר
א
ד
דומלנ
.
הל בתוכ אוהש
|
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
22
בתוכ
|
מ
תוכ
'
.
הל
|
אשנת םאש
|
אשנת
|
ג
M
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יאשנת
פ
א
יאשנית
.
ילטית
ג
ת
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ילטת
.
23
בותכש
|
ךיל
|
ר
ךיתבותכב
א
ךיתבותכב ךיל
י
א
יכיל
מ
יכיל
)
ה ןמ הלעמלו בתכב יכילש
'
ש
'
הגומ
"
בותכש
"
הו
'
ש
'
וקב קחמנ
.(
ורזח
|
מ
ורזחו
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
תודהל
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תורוהל
פ
מ
ודוהל
'
.
24
ירבדכ
|
פ
א
מ
בדכ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ש
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
הי הנשמ
|
פ
א
וט הנשמ
ר
בי הנשמ
א
הנשמ
די
ק
ד
גי הנשמ
.
תוליבקמ
ק
ת
ו
יימש
ש
ד
ת
ע
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
ת
ע
.()
מ
תבותכ
'
ת
ו
תכ
'
ב
ו
הבותכ
.
פ
א
דמלינ
ר
ק
ת
ע
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ב
ו
דומלנ
מ
מלמ
'
רי
ו
3
דמלמ
.
ת
ו
תכש
'
ת
ע
הב בותכש
.
וק
איהש
מ
והש
'
ד
ךכש
.
מ
()
ת
ו
יאשנתשכל
ת
ע
אשניתו יסיפתתשכל
.
וק
פ
א
ק
רי
ל
321
רי
ו
321
יאשנית
ר
ש
מ
ב
ו
יאשנת
.
פ
א
ש
מ
ד
ת
ו
ב
ו
ילטת
ת
ע
ילוט
.
ק
מ
ותכש
'
ת
ו
תכש
'
.
ר
מ
רי
ל
3
רי
ו
3
ב
ו
יכיל
ת
ו
ךיתבותכב יכיל
ת
ע
ךיתבותכב
.
פ
א
ד
ת
ע
ב
ו
ורזחו
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ת
ע
רי
ל
3
רי
ו
3
ב
ו
תורוהל
מ
ת
ו
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
תודוהל
.
מ
.()
ר
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
מ
בכ
"
ש
.
ק
ת
ו
יימש
ש
ד
ת
ע
רי
ו
321
יאמש
.
וט
פ ןיטיג הנשמ
"
מ ד
"
ה
פ ימלשורי
"
לה ד
"
ה
.
ילבב
1
אמ ןיטיג
.
2
חפ םיחספ
:
3
ב הגיגח
.
4
ב
"
גי ב
.
5
ןיכרע
ב
:
)
4
דע
..."
םירוח ןב ותוא השועו
("

54321ו
. ןירוח ב
. ירבדב ד ירבד
. ה"
ב
םוי ובר תא דבוע םירוח ןב ויצחו דבע
תיב ירבדכ דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא
תאו ובר תא םתנקית 'מוא
ימש תיב ללה
וניא החפש אשיל םתנקית אל ומצע
5432מ
ב
54321ו
ב
54
53ו
. יאמש תיב םהל ורמא ב
. 'תנקת
ו·
ל
מ
ב מ ר
רי
תוליבקמ
ד מ ש ק ר
. 'בע
א
מ
פ וק
. 'בוע
. 'חא
. 'חא
ו·
ל
רי מ 'בד
32מ
לליה תיב
5432מ
ב
מ
מ
4מ
ב
א
פ
ב וק
5מ
ד ש"
ב ןהל ורמא ב
4 . ש"
ב
32ו
32מ
. יאמש ב ב ד ש יימש
2מ
4מ
.() ב 'וא
ב מ ןירמוא
4321ו
5432מ
ו
. םתנקת ב ב רי ד מ ש
. תא
4מ
4321ו
ב םתנקת ב
5432מ
ו
ב רי ד
ר
מ
ב מ
ק
ש
ר
4ו
ב
מ ש ר
. 'שיל
. 'חפש
.
רשפא יא
4מ
ב מ
54מ
ב מ
1ו
ב
20
א
י
25
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| דבע
א . ןירוח ד מ י ק א ר פ | םירוח
. 'בוע
מ | דבוע
ש | דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא םוי ובר תא
. דחא םוי ובר תאו דחא םוי ומצע תא
. 'תנקת
. 'תנקת
1
דחא
. 'חא
מ |
. 'מצע
מ | ומצע
2
. 'חא
מ | דחא
.() מ | ללה תיב ירבדכ
א . 'בד
פ | ירבדכ
א . ה"
ב י א ר | ללה תיב
. לליה פ | ללה
. ש"
ב 'הל
'מא
מ | 'מוא
ימש תיב
א . ש"
ב י א ר | ימש תיב
M
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ ג | ימש
ת
. 'רמוא
ד ןירמוא ש 'וא
ג | 'מוא
א
ת
םתנקת ד י ש ק א ר | ג םתנקית
| תאו
מ
מ
םתנקת
ד
א
. 'מצע
מ | ומצע
ת | ג םתנקית
. 'שיל
מ | אשיל
. 'חפש
מ | החפש
| לוכי וניא
. 'יא
מ | וניא
י ש ק א ר
25
26
27
28

21
לוכי
ב
יc
ת
וניא םירוח
לוכי
לטבי
אלהו
1
ארבינ אל
םלועה
אלא
הייריפל
הייבירו
נש
'
הארב והות אל
אלא הרצי תבשל
ינפמ
ןוקית
םלועה
ןיפוכ
תא
ובר
השועו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
לוכי
|
לוכי
|
מ
וכי
'
.
תב
|
ג
ת
תב שיל
.
תב
|
םירוח
|
ג
ת
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןירוח
מ
ירוח
'
.
לוכי וניא
|
וניא
|
מ
יא
'
.
לוכי
|
לטבי
|
ג
ת
ד
לטביל
פ
לטביי
ר
לטבל
א
'ל
י
לטב
מ
י
טב
'
.
אלהו
|
מ
להו
'
.
1
ארבינ
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ארבנ
מ
רבנ
'
.
םלועה
|
מ
לועה
'
.
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
הייריפל
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הירפל
פ
היירפל
מ
ירפל
'
.
הייבירו
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
היברו
פ
מ
יברו
'
.
2
נש
| '
פ
אנש
'
ד
רמאנש
.
נש
| '
והות
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
מ
והת
.
הארב
|
מ
ארב
'
.
תבשל
|
מ
בשל
'
.
הרצי
|
מ
רצי
'
.
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
3
םלועה ןוקית ינפמ
|
ןוקית
|
פ
ר
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןוקת
.
םלועה
|
מ
לועה
'
.
ןיפוכ
|
מ
יפוכ
'
.
ובר תא
|
השועו
|
מ
שועו
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
3
לוכי
ובש תוריח דצ ינפמ
ב
מ
4
לוכי
ושמ
'
תב
ירוח
'
ובש
ב
ו
21
יצח רבכש לוכי
ןירוח ןב ו
.
ב
מ
4
וכי
'
.
מ
שיל
'
תב
ב
מ
4
שילו
'
תב
ב
ו
41
תב אשיל
.
ק
תבו
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
532
ב
ו
54321
ןירוח
מ
ב
מ
4
ירוח
'
.
ב
ו
1
רשפא יא
.
מ
יא
'
.
ב
מ
43
ינפמ לוכי
>
ב
מ
4
|
ושמ
'
<
תודבע דצ
>
ב
מ
4
|
ודבע
'
<
ובש
ב
ו
21
רבכש לוכי
>
ב
ו
2
ןיידעש
<
דבע ויצח
.
ר
ב
מ
4
ב
ו
3
לטביל
ש
ירפמ לטבי
היברו ה
ב
מ
5
.()
ב
מ
4
לועה לכ אלהו
'
ולכ
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
532
ב
ו
54321
ארבנ
ב
מ
4
רבנ
'
.
מ
ב
מ
5
לועה
'
.
מ
לא
'
.
ר
ק
ש
ד
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
54321
הירפל
מ
ב
מ
54
ירפל
'
ב
מ
3
היירפל
.
פ
א
ק
רי
ל
·
ו
הייברו
ר
ש
ד
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
54321
היברו
מ
ב
מ
54
יברו
'
.
ד
ב
ו
54321
רמאנש
ב
מ
5
רמאנש
י יי רמא הכ
אוהו השועו ץראה רצו
הננוכ
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
רי
ו
ב
מ
5432
ב
ו
432
והת
.
מ
ב
מ
4
ארב
'
.
מ
ב
מ
4
רצי
'
.
ר
ב
מ
4
ב
ו
4
.()
ש
מ
ד
ב
מ
532
ןוקת
.
מ
לועה
'
.
ב
מ
4
יפוכ
'
.
ב
מ
4
לועה ןוקת ינפמ ותוא
'
.
מ
ב
מ
5
שועו
'
.

22
ותוא
ןב
םירוח
בתוכו
רטש
לע
יצח
5
ודוהל ללה תיב ורזח וימד
תיב ירבדכ ת
ימש
:
י
'
ו'
לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ
ירבדכ
תיב
ללה
תיב
ימש
וא
'
וניא
ליצמ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
4
ותוא
|
פ
א
א
ותא
.
םירוח
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ןירוח
ד
ןירווח
מ
ירוח
'
.
בתוכו
|
מ
תוכו
'
.
רטש
|
מ
טש
'
.
לע
|
ר
.()
5
ורזח
|
מ
זחו
'
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
תודוהל
|
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תורוהל
מ
ורוהל
'
.
ירבדכ
|
פ
ירבדל
מ
בדכ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
תיב
|
ר
יב
'
.
6
ימש
|
פ
ר
ש
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
וי הנשמ
|
ר
גי הנשמ
א
וט הנשמ
ק
ד
הנשמ
די
.
סרח
ג
ת
|
פ
א
ר
ק
שרח
מ
רח
'
.
לע
|
ק
תא
.
7
ירבדכ
|
מ
בדכ
'
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
תיב
|
ד
תיבו
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
וניא
|
מ
יא
'
.
ליצמ
|
מ
יצמ
'
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ותא
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
532
ב
ו
54321
וח
ןיר
.
מ
תוכו
'
ב
ו
3
ול בתוכו
ב
ו
4
ןיבתוכו
ב
מ
2
השועו
.
מ
ב
מ
532
ב
ו
54321
ורזחו
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
5
ב
"
ה
.
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
2
לליה
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
54321
תורוהל
מ
ודוהל
'
.
מ
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
2
.()
ר
ב
מ
5
ב
"
ש
מ
בכ
"
ש
ב
מ
2
יבכ
'
יאמש
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
2
תיבכ
יאמש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
32
יאמש
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ירבד
.
ב
מ
לליה
.
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
.
ב
מ
יאמש
.
וי
"
סרח ילכ
...
ולו ךל
)
וש
'
16
"(
בכ הגיגח ילבב
.

ילכ לעו םיקשמה לעו םילכאה לע אלא
המ ינפמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא סרח
אוהש ינפמ ימש תיב תיב ןהל ורמא
אמט ילכ ןיאו ץראה םע בג לע אמט
םתרהיט אלה ללה תיב ןהל ורמא ץצוח
תוליבקמ
ו
מ
. םילכוא ב ןילכואה ב
מ . ןיקשמה ב
מ . וכותבש סרח ב
. םהל
ו·
. ש"
בל ה"
ב
ו
ב
מ
. לכה לע ליצמ
וניא המ ינפמ ב
.()
ו
ב
םהל
. ש"
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ .() ב
מ . אמטמש ב
. םהל
. ה"
ב
ו·
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ .
םתרהט ב
23
א ןילכואה ד י ר
א
מ ןיקשמה ד י
. 'תרהט
10
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'לא
מ | אלא
ת
ןילכאה פ םילכא ג | םילכאה
. 'כואה
מ םילכואה א
ת
ש ר פ םיקשמ ג | םיקשמה
. 'יקשמה
. 'הל
מ
| סרח
א . שרח ק ר פ | סרח
. 'מא
מ פ | ורמא
א א םהל ד י ש ק א פ | ןהל
א . ה"
ב מ י ר | ללה תיב
. לליה פ | ללה
| המ ינפמ
א א . 'מא
מ י פ פ | ורמא
א א
. 'הל
מ םהל ד י ש ק א פ | ןהל
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ | ימש
. 'והש
מ פ | אוהש
ד מ
. 'מט
מ | אמט
. ימע יבג פ | םע בג
. 'ראה
מ | ץראה
. 'מט
מ | אמט
. 'צוח
מ | ץצוח
א . ל"
א י | ןהל ורמא
א
. 'רמא
ד 'מא
מ פ פ | ורמא
א
. 'הל
מ םהל ד ש ק א פ | ןהל
א . ה"
ב מ י ר פ | ללה תיב
. 'להו
מ | אלהו
א םתרהט י ש א ר פ | םתרהיט
8
9
10
11
12

24
תיב ןהל ורמא וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכא
ימש
ונרהיטשכ
םילכא
םיקשמו
ש
'
ה'
15
ש
הc
וכותב
ל
ומצע
התרהיטשכ לבא ונרהיט
תא
התרהיט ילכה
ולו ךל
ורזח
תיב
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
13
םילכא
|
פ
א
ק
םילכוא
פ
ר
י
א
ד
ןילכוא
ש
ןילכא
מ
ילכוא
'
.
ןיקשמו
|
פ
א
א
ק
םיקשמו
מ
יקשמ
'
.
וכותבש
|
מ
ותבש
'
הב
'
ן
.
ןהל ורמא
|
י
א
א
"
ל
.
ורמא
|
פ
א
פ
ד
מ
מא
'
.
ןהל
|
פ
א
א
ק
ש
ד
םהל
מ
הל
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
14
ימש
|
פ
ש
ד
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
ונרהיטשכ
|
פ
ר
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ונרהטשכ
א
ונרהטישכ
.
םיקשמו םילכא
וכותבש
|
םילכא
|
פ
א
םילכוא
פ
ר
א
י
א
ןילכוא
ש
ןילכא
מ
ד
ילכוא
'
.
םיקשמו
|
פ
א
ש
י
א
ד
ןיקשמו
ר
מ
יקשמו
'
.
15
ל
ומצע
|
פ
ןמצעל
ק
ד
ומצע
מ
מצע
'
אל
.
ונרהיט
|
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ונרהט
.
לבא
|
מ
לא
'
.
התרהיטשכ
|
פ
התרהטשכ
ר
ש
י
א
ד
תרהטשכ
א
טישכ
י
התרה
מ
תרהטשכ
'
.
16
ילכה
|
ד
לכה
.
התרהיט
|
פ
א
ותרהיט
פ
התרהט
ר
ש
י
א
ד
תרהט
מ
תרהט
'
.
ולו ךל
|
מ
ולוכל
.
ורזח
|
מ
ורזחו
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
·
ו
ןילכוא
.
ב
מ
סרח ילכו ןיקשמו
.
ב
מ
מא
'
.
ב
ו
םהל
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ב
"
ש
.
ב
מ
ונרהטשכ
.
ב
מ
.()
ב
ו
ןילכוא
.
ב
ו
ןיקשמו
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ונרהט
.
ב
מ
·
ו
רהטנ
.
ב
מ
ש
ונרהט
ב
ו
ותרהטש
.

. 'יסומש
:
ימש תיב ירבידכ תודוהל ללה
ו' י' ל' ה ב ' ר' פ
העברא דיעה םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
וענמינ אל םינהכ לש םהימימ םירבד
דלווב אמטינש רשבה תא ףורשלמ
באב אמטינש רשבה םע האמוטה
האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא האמוטה
תוליבקמ
ו
א
. אנינח ב מ הנינח ד ש פ
. 'הימימ
מ ןהימימ
ל
. 'ינהכ
לש מ םינהכלש
ו ו·
ל . וענמנ ב
ו
מ ןיפיסומש ב
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
רי ש ר
רי ד מ ש ק ר
. אמטנש
. דלוב
. אמטנש
. י"
פעא
רי ד ש ר
ד
א
רי ש
א
פ
א
פ וק
א
פ וק
. 'ורשלמ
מ
ו
ב ד מ ש ק ר
ד מ ש ר
. 'אמוטה
רשב ל .
ר
רי
ו
א
ב ד מ ש ר פ
פ"
עא
ןיפיסומ
פ
. 'אמ
ו
ט
ל
רי מ ר
ש
וק
.()
האמוט
מ
ו
ב
וק
25
. 'ורוהל
. 'בדכ
מ
מ
20
א תורוהל
ירבדכ
. ש"
ב
. יאמש
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ד י ש ק א ר
א
ד י ש ק א
א
מ י א ר
ד ש
. לליה פ | ללה
א
פ | תודוהל
א
ר פ פ | ירבידכ
| ימש תיב
יימש ק פ | ימש
. יבר א | 'ר
א
. 'נינח
מ הנינח ד י ש | היננח
. 'ינהכה
מ | םינהכה
. 'עברא
מ 'ד
פ | העברא
. 'ירבד
מ | םירבד
א
. 'הימימ
מ ןהימימ א פ פ | םהימימ
א א
. 'ינהכ
לש מ םינהכלש י ש ר פ | םינהכ לש
א
א
. וענמנ ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ | וענמינ
מ
פ
.
ז"
לה א"
פ ימלשורי
אמטנש
. 'מטנש
ד
. י"
פעא
ןיפיסומש
מ
א
י ש ר
| ףורשלמ
. 'שבה
מ | רשבה
א אמטנש ד י ש ר | אמטינש
א . דלוב ד מ י ש פ | דלווב
פ"
עא
. 'מוטה
'מטינש
פ
ד מ
א
א
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ
מ | האמוטה
| רשבה
| אמטינש
. 'מטנש
. 'מוטה
מ | האמוטה
א
י א ר פ | יפ לע ףא
| ןיפיסומ
ש
. ןיפיסומ
.() ד | ול
. 'מוט
מ | האמוט
. די םיחספ ילבב ז"
מ א"
פ םיחספ הנשמ
17
19
20
21
22
23
א

26
לע
ותאמוט
:
ב'
ףיסוה
ר
'
הביקע
25
םינהכלש םהימימ
אל
וענמינ
קילדהלמ
לספינש ןמשה תא
רנב םוי לובטיב
אמטב אמטינש
תמ
ףא
לע
יפ
ןיפיסומ
ול
האמוט
לע
ותאמוט
:
ג
'
מא
'
ר
'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
24
ב הנשמ
|
פ
לוכ
ףדה ידיצב ףסונ ו
ר
ד
א הנשמ ךשמה
.
ףיסוה
|
ר
ףיסוהו
מ
יסוה
'
.
ר
| '
ש
יבר
.
הביקע
|
מ
יקע
'
או
'
.
הביקע
|
א
ד
אביקע
מ
יקע
'
.
25
םהימימ
|
פ
ג
ק
ןהימימ
מ
הימימ
'
.
םינהכלש
|
ר
לש
-
םינהכ
א
ק
ד
םינהכ לש
מ
ינהכ לש
'
.
וענמינ
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
וענמנ
מ
ענמנ
'
.
מ
קילדהל
|
מ
מ
ילדהל
'
.
26
ןמשה
|
לספינש
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
ש
י
א
לספנש
מ
ספנש
'
ד
ולספנש
.
לובטיב
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לובטב
מ
ובטב
'
.
27
אמטינש
ג
ת
|
פ
ג
ר
ש
י
א
ד
אמטנש
מ
מטנש
'
.
אמטב
|
מ
מטב
'
.
יפ לע ףא
|
ג
ת
יפלעפא
פ
ג
ר
א
י
א
מ
עא
"
פ
.
ןיפיסומ
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ןיפיסומש
מ
יסומש
'
.
28
ול
|
האמוט
|
מ
מוט
'
.
ותאמוט
|
פ
ג
אמוט
'
.
ג הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ב הנשמ
.
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
א
ק
י
ב
ד
רמא
.
תוליבקמ
מ
מאו אביקע
'
ב
ו
רמאו אביקע
.
פ
א
ביקע
'
מ
ד
ספ
ב
מ
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
אביקע
.
וק
ש
רי
ל
·
ו
ספ
ב
ו
ןהימימ
.
ק
מ
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
םינהכ לש
ד
ינהכ לש
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
וענמנ
.
פ
א
משה
ן
°
רנב
°
מ
משה
'
.
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
לספנש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
לובטב
.
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
אמטנש
.
ר
מ
רי
ל
עא
"
פ
ד
פעא
"
י
.
וק
ש
ןיפיסומ
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיפיסומש
.
ב
ו
.()
וק
האמוט
.
מ
א
"
ר
.
ק
ד
רמא
.
ב
פ םיחספ הנשמ
"
מ א
"
פ םיחספ ימלשורי ח
"
לה א
"
ז
.
די םיחספ ילבב
.
ג
פ םיחבז הנשמ
י
"
מ ב
"
ו
גק םיחבז ילבב
:

27
היננח
ןגס
םינהכה
יימימ
אל
יתיאר
1
מא הפירשה תיבל אצוי רוע
'
ר
'
הביקע
רוכבה תא שיטפמהש ונדמל וירבדמ
ש הפירט אצמינו
י
נהכה ותוא
ורועב םי
מכחו
'
מוא
'
ןה
אל
וניאר
היאר
אלא
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
היננח
|
פ
ש
הנינח
מ
נינח
'
ד
איננח
.
םינהכה
|
מ
ינהכה
'
.
יימימ
|
פ
א
יימיימ
ג
J4
ג
ת
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ימימ
.
יתיאר
|
מ
יאר
'
.
1
אצוי
|
פ
א
()
מ
צוי
'
.
תיבל
|
מ
יבל
'
.
הפירשה
|
מ
פירשה
'
.
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
ק
י
ב
ד
רמא
.
ר
| '
ק
יבר
.
הביקע
|
ג
ת
פ
מ
יקע
'
א
ד
אביקע
.
2
וירבדמ
|
מ
ירבדמ
'
.
ונדמל
|
י
ב
ונעמש
מ
דמל
'
.
שיטפמהש
|
ג
J4
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
טישפמהש
מ
טישפהשמ
.
רוכבה
|
מ
וכבה
'
.
3
אצמינו
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
אצמנו
מ
צמנו
'
ד
תאצמנו
.
הפירט
ג
ת
|
ג
J4
פ
א
ק
ש
הפרט
מ
פירט
'
.
ותואיש
|
ג
ת
ותואייש
י
ב
ותאיש
.
םינהכה
|
מ
ינהכה
'
.
ורועב
|
4
מכחו
| '
ג
J4
כחו
'
פ
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
.
מוא
| '
ג
J4
ד
םירמוא
פ
א
פ
מ
וא
'
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
.
ןה
ג
ת
|
ג
J4
א
ש
י
ב
ןיא
פ
א
ןי
ר
מ
()
ק
ןא
.
וניאר
|
ג
J4
ש
י
ב
יתיאר
.
היאר
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
הייאר
מ
יאר
'
.
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
ב
ו
אנינח
ד
הנינח
.
מ
ינהכה
'
.
ק
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
ימימ
.
ד
אצי
ב
ו
אצויש
.
מ
א
"
ר
.
ק
ד
רמא
.
פ
א
ר
ביקע
'
מ
יקע
'
ד
ב
ו
אביקע
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש ק
מ
ד
ב
ו
טישפמהש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
אצמנו
.
פ
א
ש
ד מ
הפרט
.
ק
ותואייש
מ
ותואי
.
ב
ו
|
הרועב
.
ר
ד ש
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
.
וק
מ
וא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
וק
()
ר
ק
ש
מ
ב
ו
ןיא
.
ר
ק
ש
מ
יתיאר
.
וק
פ
א
הייאר
.

:
אוה ףא ד' הפירשה תיבל אצי
'שורי
דצב היהש ןטק רפכ לע דיעה
ינב
לכל הוולמ היהו דחא ןקז וב היהו
ןימתוח ןירחאו ודי בתכב בתוכו רפכה
ךכרד יפל וריתיהו ןימכח ינפל השעמ אבו
. 'צוי
ו . םילשורי ב
ד
תוליבקמ
אצוי
ר וק
. הפרשה
. 'וה
. 'והש
'לשורי
ק
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ . הב ב
. הולמ
ו·
מ
. םירחאו
. םימתוח
ב
ו·
מ
ב
ו
ב
ו . םימכח ב
ו . והורישכהו ב
28
. 'צוי
מ
. הפרשה
ב םילשורי ד י
5
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ב א ת J4
אצוי ד י ש ק פ ג ג | אצי
. 'יבל
מ | תיבל
ד ש 'פירשה
מ פ | הפירשה
. ג הנשמ ד ר | ד הנשמ
. 'וה
מ | אוה
םלשורי
. תומודה י"
ע טמשוה
. 'ירחאו
מ
. הולמ
םירחאו
. 'ימתוח
ב
א
ד י ש ק א ר 'ימכח
פ 'כח
פ
. וריתהו
. ונדמל וכרד יפלו
("
ןימתוח ןירחאו"
דע מב)
: כ ןיטיג ילבב
א
ש ק א ר פ פ
. 'יעה
מ | דיעה
| היהש
ת | ג 'שורי
. 'לשורי
מ
() ד | דחא ןקז וב היהו
. 'יהו
מ | היהו
. הב ק | וב
. 'חא
מ | דחא
. 'ולמו
מ | הוולמ היהו
ת | ג הוולמ
ב
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ
. רפכ מ | רפכה
. 'תוכו
מ | בתוכו
. 'תכב
מ | בתכב
. וידי ק פ | ודי
| ןירחאו
םימתוח ד ק | ןימתוח
ב
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ
מ
. 'שעמ
מ | השעמ
ת 'מכח
מ ג | ןימכח
. םימכח
| וריתיהו
| דמל התא ךכרד יפל
ב
א ת
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ ג
מ
" וריתיהו ... אוה ףא"
ד
5
6
7
8
9

29
10
הטיג תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל התא
בתוכ שיאהו
םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא
טגה
אלא
וימתוחב
לעו
טחמה
מינש
'
ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמינש
םידייהו
תורוהט
רשבהו
אמט
םאו
תאצמינ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
10
השאהש
|
מ
שאהש
'
.
תבתוכ
|
מ
בתוכ
'
.
תא
|
ג
ת
פ
.()
הטיג
|
ר
י
ב
ד
הטג
מ
טיג
'
.
11
שיאהו
|
ר
אהו
י
ש
ה"
.
בתוכ
|
מ
תוכ
'
.
תא
|
פ
.()
ורבוש
|
מ
בוש
'
.
םויק
|
פ
א
םוייק
מ
ויק
'
.
12
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
וימתוחב
|
פ
א
וימתוחמ
פ
ומתוחב
.
טחמה
|
ד
טחמ
.
13
תאצמינש
|
ג
ת
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
תאצמנש
פ
צמנש
'
מ
אצמנש
'
.
רשבב
|
מ
שבב
'
.
ןיכסהש
|
םידייהו
|
ג
J4
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
הו
םידי
מ
ידיהו
'
.
14
תורוהט
|
ר
מ
ורוהט
'
.
רשבהו
|
ג
ת
רשבה
מ
שבהו
'
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
םאו
|
ג
ת
פ
מ
םא
.
תאצמינ
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
תאצמנ
מ
אצמנ
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
ב
מ
2
)
ש
(
שאה
'
ב
ו
2
השא
.
מ
ב
מ
2
בתוכ
'
.
ר
ש
ד
הטג
מ
ב
מ
2
טיג
'
.
מ
ב
מ
2
תוכ
'
.
ש
.()
ד
ורבש
.
ש
םוייק
מ
ויק
'
.
מ
ב
מ
2
לא
'
.
ב
מ
·
ו
טחמ
.
ב
מ
·
ו
תאצמנש
.
ב
מ
ןיכסה
.
ב
מ
·
ו
םידיהו
.
ב
מ
רשבה
.
ב
מ
·
ו
.()
ב
מ
·
ו
תאצמנ
.
ד
)"
ש
(
השאה
...
וימתוחב
:
פ ןיטיג הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
פ ימלשורי ה
"
לה ב
"
ה
.
ןיטיג ילבב
1
בכ
:
2
אכ
.
"
טחמה לעו
"...
טי םיחספ ילבב
.

30
15
שרפב
לכה
רוהט
:
ה
'
שלש
ה
ןירבד
מא
'
ר
'
אעמשי
'
ינפל
מכח
'
םרכב
הנבויב
יבג לע הנותנ אוהש הפורט הציב לע
רוביח איהש המורתלש קרי
' '
םאו
התיה
ןימכ
עבוכ
הניאו
רוביח
לעו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
15
שרפב
|
ר
סרפב
מ
שרפב
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
ה הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ד הנשמ
.
השלש
|
מ
שלש
'
.
ןירבד
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
16
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
ר
י
ב
ד
רמא
.
ר
| '
ר
יבר
.
אעמשי
| '
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ק
ר
לאעמשי
ד
לאמשי
מ
עמשי
'
.
מכח
| '
פ
ימכח
'
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכח
.
םרכב
|
ק
ןרקב
.
הנבויב
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
הנביב
מ
נביב
.
17
לע
|
מ
.()
הציב
|
ד
תציב
מ
ציב
'
.
הפורט
|
מ
פירט
'
.
אוהש
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש ק
י
ב
ד
איהש
מ
יהש
'
.
הנותנ
|
מ
נותנ
'
.
18
המורתלש
ג
ת
|
פ
ק
ד
המורת לש
א
()
מ
לש
מורת
'
.
איהש
|
פ
איה
ק
אהיש
מ
יהש
'
.
רוביח
|
ר
א
י
ב
מ
ד
רובח
.
םאו
|
ג
ת
פ
מ
םא
.
19
התיה
|
מ
תיה
'
ד
תייה
.
ןימכ
|
ד
ןמכ
.
הניאו
|
ג
ת
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
הניא
מ
ניא
'
.
רוביח
|
ש ר
י
ב
מ
רובח
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
ב
[ ]
ש
ד
היה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
הניא
.
ר
ד
רובח
.
ה
"
התיה םאו
...
רוביח
"
פ םוי לובט הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
ב
.

. תלבש
המקל עיגמ השארו
ריצקבש תלובש
לעב לש ירה המקה םע תרצקנ םא
לעו ' ' םיינעלש ירה ואל םאו תיבה
םא סירע תפקומ איהש הנטק
הנג
אולמ ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ הב שי
ד
תלוביש
ו·
ל
רי ק
תוליבקמ
תלביש
. השאמ
וק
מ
. המקב ש ק
. ןמ
ו·
ל . איה ירה רי
ל א . לעבלש רי ש פ וק לעב-לש
. ב"
לה ה"
פ ימלשורי
. איה ירה
. םיינע לש
ו·
ל
רי
ק
ה ד ר וק
ר
ה ד ר וק
ו
רי ה ד מ ק
. לע
. אלמ
. ולס
. אולמו
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
רי
רי
רי
רי
31
'וש)
ב
י
. 'לובש
ד מ
20
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א ת תלוביש א פ ג | תלובש
. 'יצקבש
מ | ריצקבש
. 'שארו
מ | השארו
. תעגמ ד 'יגמ
מ | עיגמ
. 'מקל
מ | המקל
ת
. 'רצקנ
מ [ תרצ]
קינ ג | תרצקנ
| םע
. 'מק
מ | המקה
ערזית ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ ... ירה
. ערזת וז ירה מ | ( 25
איה
ב ת
. ירה א איה ירה ד י ק פ ג | ירה
ב א . לעבלש י ש ר פ | לעב לש
. איה ירה
. םיינע לש
ת . ויל ג | ואל
| ירה
| םיינעלש
| לעו
ב ת
י ש ק פ ג
ד ש ק א פ
. הניג א ר הניגה פ | הנג
. הנטקה פ | הנטק
. תיפקומ פ | תפקומ
| אולמ
| ולסו
ב . ןאכמ ד י ןאכימ ש | ןכימ
א
אולמכו פ אלמו ד א ר פ | אולמ
. אולמו
ב
א
. אלמכ ד אולמכ י ש פ אלמ ק א פ
ש
אלמ
גפר אקסיפ םירבד ירפס ב"
מ ה"
פ האפ הנשמ
" ריצקבש תלובש"
.
א"
לה ו"
פ םיאלכ ימלשורי " הנטק הנג לעו"
ק
20
21
22
23
24
ה

32
25
רצוב
ןכימ ולסו
אל ואל םאו ערזית
ערזית
:
ו
'
השלש
ןירבד
ורמא
ינפל
ר
'
אעמשי
'
רמא אלו
וc'
רתהו רוסא ןהב
הייתמ ןב עשוהי ןשרפו
שפימה
מ
'
הסרומ
תבשב
םא
תושעל
הל
הפ
בייח
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
25
ולסו
|
פ
וליסו
ק
.()
ןכימ
|
ש
ןאכימ
י
ב
ד
ןאכמ
.
ערזית
|
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ערזת
.
26
ערזית
ג
ת
|
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ערזת
.
ו הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ה הנשמ
.
השלש
|
מ
שלש
'
.
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רבד
םי
מ
ירבד
'
.
27
ר
| '
י
א
יבר
.
אעמשי
| '
פ
א
מ
עמשי
'
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לאעמשי
.
רמא
|
פ
א
ר
א
מא
'
מ
א
'
.
ןהב
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
םהב
מ
הב
'
.
רוסא
|
פ
א
פ
רוסיא
ר
א
ק
ד
רוסיא אל
ש
י
א
אל
רוסא
מ
וסא
'
.
רתהו
|
ר
רתיה אלו
א
ק
ש
י
א
רתה אלו
ד
רתיהו
מ
תיהו
'
.
28
ןשרפו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ןשריפו
.
עשוהי
|
ר
ש
ד
ר
'
עשוהי
י
א
ר
יב
עשוהי
.
עשוהי
|
פ
מ
שוהי
'
.
הייתמ
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
היתמ
מ
יתתמ
'
.
שפימה
|
פ
א
פ
ר
שיפמה
א
ש
י
א
ד
סיפמה
מ
יפמה
'
.
29
הסרומ
|
פ
א
פ
א
ד
אסרומ
מ
סרומ
'
.
תבשב
|
מ
.()
תושעל
|
פ
מ
ושעל
'
.
הל
|
ק
הב
.
הפ
|
בייח
|
מ
ייח
'
.
תוליבקמ
רי
ל
·
ו
ולס
.
ת
ו
ג
'
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םירבד
.
ת
ו
·
ע
לאעמשי
.
ת
ו
דחא
ת
ע
מא
'
.
ת
ע
ןהל
.
ת
ו
·
ע
רוסיא
.
ת
ו
·
ע
רתיהו
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ןשריפו
.
ת
ו
ר
'
עשוהי
.
ת
ו
·
ע
איתמ
.
ת
ו
שיפמה
ת
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
סיפימה
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
321
סיפמה
.
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
321
אסרומ
.
ת
ו
תושעלו הפלוקל
ת
ע
פלוקל
תושעל וא ה
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ןיאפורהש ךרדכ הפ
)
ת
ע
|
םיאפורהש
(
ןישוע
.
ו
"
םירבד שלש
...
הייתמ
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ א
"
ט
.
"
הסרומ שפימה
"...
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ א
"
יפ תבש ימלשורי ט
"
לה א
"
ב
.
תבש ילבב
1
זק
.
2
זק
:
)
ב
מ
ןוילגב
(
3
ו תובותכ
:

33
1
םאו
הל
נממ איצוהל
ה
טפ החל
רו
אלש קסעתמכ םא תבשב שחנ דצה
בייח האופרל םאו רוטפ וניכשיי
תוינורא םיספל לעו
ןהש
תורוהט
פ
א
1
*
]
להאב
תמה
תואמטו
אשמב
בזה
ר
'
רזעל
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
1
םאו
|
פ
מ
םא
.
איצוהל
|
מ
יצוהל
'
.
נממ
ה
|
מ
נממ
'
.
החל
|
ר
א
החיל
מ
חל
'
.
רוטפ
|
מ
וטפ
'
.
2
דצה
|
ש
י
א
דצהו
ד
דצה לעו
.
תבשב
|
מ
בשב
'
.
קסעתמכ
|
מ
יוכתמב
'
ד
קסעתמ
.
3
וניכשיי
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ונכשי
.
רוטפ
|
מ
וטפ
'
.
םאו
|
פ
םא
.
האופרל
|
מ
אופרל
'
.
בייח
|
מ
ייח
'
.
4
לעו
|
פ
()
ק
לאו
.
םיספל
|
פ
םיספלה
ר
א
ןיספליא
ק
םיספלא
ש
י
א
ןיספל
מ
יספלא
'
.
תוינורא
|
פ
א
ש
י
א
תוינרא
פ
תוינוראה
ר
תוינרוא
א
תוינריח
ק
תוינריע
מ
וינרא
'
.
ןהש
|
ד
םהש
.
פ
א
1
תורוהט
|
מ
ורוהט
'
.
להאב
|
א
ואב
'
לה
מ
האב
'
.
תואמטו
|
מ
ואמטו
'
.
אשמב
|
מ
שמב
'
.
בזה
|
מ
בז
.
ר
'
רזעלא
...
בזה אשמב ףא
|
מ
.()
ר
| '
י
א
בר
י
.
רזעל
|
פ
זעילא
'
ר
א
ש
י
א
רזעלא
ד
רזעילא
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
21
םא
.
ב
מ
3
נממ
'
.
רי
ל
·
ו
החילה
ב
ו
3
החיל
.
ב
מ
1
קסעתמ
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
וב קסעתמ
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ונכשי
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
21
םא
.
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
לע
.
ב
מ
ןיספליא
ב
ו
ןיספלא
.
רי
ל
1
תוינריע
רי
ל
1
ג
ס
"
ינורא א
תו
ב
מ
תוינריח
ב
ו
תוינרח
.
ב
מ
.()
ב
מ
·
ו
רזעילא
.
"
שחנ דצהו
"...
יפ תבש ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
ב
.
תבש ילבב
1
זק
.
2
זק
:
"
םיספל לעו
"...
ימלשורי
1
יפ תבש
"
לה א
"
ב
2
פ הציב
"
לה ד
"
ג
)
1
..."
בזה אשמב תואמטו
("
הציב ילבב
בל
.
*
הזה עטקה לכ
")
ינפמ
...
תורוהט
("
כב טמשוה
"
ןמפוק י
ע
"
י
תומודה
.

*
[ תורוהט בזה אשמב ףא 'וא
קודצ 'רב
ז' :
ןתכאלמ הרמגינ אלש ינפמ
הדוה אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש
תולילמהו רשובהו םושה הביקע 'ר
ול
לאעמשי 'רש
םוי דועבמ ןקסירש
תוליבקמ
מ 2ו
. ר"
ב ב 'ר
יב רי 'ריב
. 'וא
. בזה אשמב תורוהט ףא
מ . רסובה ב
. הרמגנ
2ל
רי
מ 2ל
ב רי
ו·
מ
ב
ו מ . יפל ב ימל
ב
ו·
מ 2ו
ב רי
2ל
רי
ו ו·
ל רסובהו ב רי
. תוליימהו
ע·
ו
. ןקסרש
. תבש ברעמ
ו
ו
ל מ
. יבר ב יבר היהש רי 'ר
היהש רי 'ר
ב
. ב"
לה ד"
יפ ימלשורי
ת
ו
ת
ו
ב
מ
ב
ע·
ו
ת
34
. 'מגנ
. 'עמשי
מ
מ
2א
פ
5
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א . יבריב י | 'רב
א . רמוא ד י ש 'מוא
ק א ר פ | 'וא
| תורוהט בזה אשמב ףא
J5 . בז ש ק ג | בזה
. 'ורוהט
מ | תורוהט
| ינפמ
הרמגנ
א
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ
. ו הנשמ
ד ר
| הרמגינ
| ז הנשמ
. 'שלש
מ | השלש
. 'ירבד
מ | םירבד
. ר"
א מ | 'ר
'מא
ב . רמא ד י | 'מא
.() ד | 'ר
ול הדוה אלו 'אעמשי
ב
א
לאעמשי י ש ק א ר פ פ | 'אעמשי
. 'דוה
מ | הדוה
J5
. 'ביקע
מ אביקע ד א פ ג | הביקע
. 'סובהו
'ולילמהו
מ | תולילמהו רשובהו
א
. רצובהו ק רסובהו ד מ ש א ר פ פ | רשובהו
. 'ולילמהו
מ תולולמהו ר | תולילמהו
ב . ןקסרש י ר | ןקסירש
| םוי דועבמ
. 'ועבמ
מ | דועבמ
. 'ומגי
םא םוי מ | םוי
. יברש ר | 'רש
א . 'עמשי
מ פ | לאעמשי
. טי תבש ילבב ט"
מ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות "... רשובהו םושה"
.
תומודה י"
ע ןמפוק י"
כב טמשוה (" תורוהט ... ינפמ")
הזה עטקה לכ
2א
פ
ז
*
5
6
7
8

4
'מוא
הביקע 'רו
ךשחתשמ רומגי
'וא
ורמא ןירבד השלש ח' :
רומגי אל
רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש הביקע 'ר
ינפל
'ר
םשמ םינש עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו
יחירפמו בהז לש ריעב השא אָצ
וי רזעילא
2ו
. איה אצוי רי
תוליבקמ
. 'מוא
ו . יבר רי 'ר
ו·
. אביקע
. 'וא
. 'עילא
2ל
רי
ע
ת
מ ל
ב רי
מ ע·
ו
ב
ת
ל ו
רי ת
. 'ג
ע·
ו . םירבד
. אביקע
.()
ע
ת
ו
ת
ע·
ו
ת
ת
ו
ת
ע . םושמ ת
רזעיל
. 'מאו
ו
ת
ו
ת
ע . םושמ ת
2ו
. םשב רי
. רזעיל
האצוי
2ו
רי
1ו
רי
2ל
רי
2ל
רי
1ל
רי
21ל
. בהזלש רי
35
. 'ירבד
מ
10
. רמוא
. אביקע
. רמוא
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ב
ד י ש ק
ד א
ב
ד י ש ר
'מוא
א ר | 'וא
. 'ומגי
מ | רומגי
. 'ר
פ | 'רו
'יקע
מ פ | הביקע
א 'וא
מ פ פ | 'מוא
. ז הנשמ ד ר | ח הנשמ
. 'שלש
מ | השלש
ב
א
םירבד ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | ןירבד
א
. אביקע ד א 'ביקע
פ 'יקע
מ פ
() מ | ( 12 'וש)
. 'ושמ
| הביקע
| םינש
עשוהי 'ר
... םשמ םינש
. תומודה י"
ע טמשוה
ב . םושמ ד י ק א ר םשממ פ | םשמ
. יבר ר | 'ר
א
פ | רזעילא
| דחאו
. רזעיל ק 'זעילא
פ 'עילא
ב ג . םושמ ד י ק א ר
ב
מ םושמ ד י ש ק ר
םשממ
. 'ינש
.
םשממ
פ
מ
פ
| םשמ
| םינש
| םשמ
א
. רזעיל ק 'עילא
מ פ פ | רזעילא
ב
. תאצוי ד האצוי י ש ר 'אצוי
מ פ | אצוי
. 'שא
מ | השא
ב א
. בהז מ בהזלש י ש ר פ | בהז לש
. 'ירפמו
מ יחירפמ ש | יחירפמו
. י"
מ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות " עשוהי 'ר
םשמ ... השלש"
2
1
. ט"
לה א"
פ ה"
ר א"
לה ו"
פ תבש ימלשורי " בהז לש ריעב השא האצוי א"
ר םשמ םינש"
3
2
1
ו"
לה ג"
פ ןירדהנס ט"
לה א"
פ ה"
ר א"
לה ו"
פ תבש ימלשורי
" תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי יחירפמו"
.
ד"
לה ז"
פ תועובש
9
10
11
12
13
ח

. 'מורת
לש
םשמ דחאו תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי
תכלהמו הדלוחה יפב ץרשה עשוהי 'ר
עגנ קפס המורתלש תורכיכ יבג לע
השלש
ט' :
רוהט וקיפס עגנ אל קפס
ול ודוה םינש לע הביקע 'ר
'מא
םירבד
. הדלוח
ו·
. תכלהמ הדלוחו
ו . םירככ ת תורככ
ו המורת לש ב
מ
ב מ
:
ט ןילוח ילבב
תוליבקמ
4ו
. תודעל רי
4ל
רי
ע ו . דחא ת 'מא
ת
ו·
מ ע
ב ת
מ ע·
ו
ב
ת
. ץרש
הדלחה
תכלמהו
ו·
מ
ב
ו
ת
מ
ו·
מ ע
א
ב ת ד מ ק ר פ וק
ע·
ו
ת
ד ק
'מורתלש
. וקפס
ר
ד
36
. 'ושמ
15
. 'ילוספ
מ םילוספ
. תודעל
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'ינוי
מ | םינוי
| ןילוספ
| תודעה ןמ
. 'ודעה
מ | תודעה
. דחא מ | דחאו
ג םשממ פ | םשמ
א
ש ק א פ פ
ב א
ד י ש א ר פ
ב
מ םושמ ד י ש ק א ר
. 'שוהי
. הדלוח ד 'דלוחה
מ הדלחה
הדלוחהו פ תכלהמ איהו
. 'כלהמו
מ תכלהמ
. 'ורככ
'מורתלש
מ
ר
. 'יקע
תורככ
המורת לש
.() ק | 'ר
| עשוהי
| ץרשה
| הדלוחה
| תכלהמו
תכלהמ
א
מ פ
ב
י א
א
פ
ש
. בג מ | יבג
| תורכיכ
א פ | המורתלש
. 'מורת
לש מ
. 'פס
מ | קפס
ב
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ
ד ק
. 'פס
מ | קפס
. וקפס מ הקיפס פ | וקיפס
. ח הנשמ ד ר | ט הנשמ
. 'שלש
מ | השלש
מ אביקע ד א
. 'ירבד
מ | םירבד
. ר"
א מ | 'ר
'מא
ב . רמא ד י א | 'מא
'ביקע
פ | הביקע
. 'ינש
מ | םינש
. י"
מ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות " עגנ אל קפס ... עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו"
ב"
ימ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות ב"
מ ד"
פ תורהט הנשמ "... יפב ץרשה"
14
15
16
17
18
ח

37
לדנס
לעו
דחא
אל
ודוה
לע ול
¨
.
לש
ןידיס
אוהש
20
העברא רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט
ויהש
מוא
'
השלש
ו
ודוה
ול
לעו
דחא
לע ול ודוה אל
אסכ
םינש ולטינש
מ
'
ח'
ב הז ויופחמ
יc
רש הז דצ
'
הביקע
מטמ
א
מכחו
'
ןירהטמ
:
י
'
אוה
היה
וא
'
באה
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
19
דחא
|
מ
חא
'
ד
תחא
.
לע
|
מ
()
ד
אסכלע
.
לדנס
|
מ
דנס
'
.
לש
ןידיס
|
פ
א
ר
ש
י
ב
ןידייסלש
פ
ןידייס לש
א
לש
-
ןידייס
ק
ד
םידייס לש
מ
ייס לש
ר
ןי
.
אוהש
|
א
()
מ
והש
'
.
20
אמט
|
פ
אמטמ
מ
מט
'
.
רונת
|
מ
ונת
'
.
העברא
|
מ
עברא
'
.
21
מוא
| '
פ
ירמוא
'
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
מ
וא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
השלש
|
מ
שלש
'
.
לעו
|
פ
לע
.
דחא
|
מ
חא
'
.
22
אסכ
|
מ
סכ
'
.
ולטינש
|
ש
י
ב
ד
ולטנש
.
םינש
|
ק
()
מ
ינש
'
.
23
ויופחמ
|
ק
וייופח
ש
וייופחמ
מ
וינפחמ
.
הביקע
|
פ
א
ביקע
'
פ
א
ד
אביקע
מ
יקע
'
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
24
מכחו
| '
פ
ר
א
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ק
כחו
'
ש
ןימכחו
.
ןירהטמ
|
פ
ירהטמ
'
.
י הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ט הנשמ
.
וא
| '
ר
א
י
ב
מוא
'
ק
ש
רמוא
.
תוליבקמ
ד
ולטנש
.
וק
ק
וייופחמ
ר
וייופיחמ
מ
ויפוחמ
.
מ
יקע
'
ד
ביקע
'
.
מ
מ
מט
'
.
פ
א
כחו
'
ר
םימכחו
ק
ד
ימכחו
'
.
ק
םירהטמ
.
ט
"
אסכ לע
"...
פ םילכ הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
ז
.
י
"
באה
...
םינשבו
"
פ ןישודיק ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
ז
.

38
25
המכחבו רשועבו חוכבו יאונב ןבל הכז
אוה וינפל תורודה רפסמבו םינשבו
ץקה
נש
'
ארוק
תורודה
שארמ
לע ףא
נש יפ
'
תואמ עברא םתוא וניעו םודבעו
נו הנש
'
רודו
יעיבר
ובושי
הנה
:
י
'
א'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
25
הכז
|
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
הכוז
מ
כוז
'
.
ןבל
|
מ
ונבל
.
יאונב
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ד
יונב
מ
.()
חוכבו
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ד
חכבו
פ
מ
חכב
ש
חוכב
.
רשועבו
|
פ
ש
מ
רשועב
.
המכחבו
|
פ
ש
המכחב
מ
מכחבו
'
.
26
םינשבו
|
מ
ינשבו
'
.
רפסמבו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
רפסמ
מ
פסמבו
'
ד
רפסמו
.
תורודה
|
פ
ש
י
ב
תורוד
מ
ורודה
'
.
וינפל
|
ר
א
ק
וינפלש
מ
.()
אוה
|
ד
אוהו
.
27
נש
| '
פ
אנש
'
מ
()
ד
רמאנש
.
ארוק
|
מ
רוק
'
.
תורודה
|
מ
ורודה
'
.
רמ
שא
|
י
ב
ארמ
'
.
יפ לע ףא
|
פ
א
"
יפע
ר
א
י
ב
מ
עא
"
פ
.
28
נש
| '
פ
אנש
'
א
מאנש
'
ד
רמאנש
.
םודבעו
|
ש
דבעו
'
מ
ודבעו
'
.
וניעו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ונעו
.
םתוא
|
ש
י
ב
מ
תוא
'
.
תואמ עברא
הנש
|
פ
.()
תואמ עברא
|
י
ב
רא
'
אמ
'
מ
ברא
'
ואמ
'
.
29
הנש
|
מ
נש
'
.
נו
| '
פ
א
נש
'
פ
אנו
'
ר
רמאנ
א
מאנ
'
ק
רמואו
ש
י
ב
רמא
מ
()
ד
רמאנו
.
יעיבר
|
מ
יבר
'
.
ובושי
|
ק
ובשי
.
הנה
|
פ
()
מ
נה
'
לש אל יכ
'
דע ירמאה ןוע
הנה
.
אי הנשמ
|
ר
ד
י הנשמ
.
תוליבקמ
רי
ל
·
ו
יונב
.
רי
ל
·
ו
חכב
.
רי
ל
·
ו
רשועב
.

םינש לש ןירבד השמח 'מוא
אוה ףא
םינש לובמה רוד טפשמ שדוח
רשע
םינש בויא טפשמ שדוח רשע
םינש םירצמה טפשמ שדוח רשע
דיתעל גוג טפשמ שדוח רשע
תוליבקמ
39
1
5
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'וה
מ היה אוה א ר | אוה
ב
א
. רמוא ד רמא י ש ק 'מא
מ פ | 'מוא
. 'שמח
מ פ | השמח
ב
א
. 'ירבד
מ םירבד ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | ןירבד
ב
א
לש מ םינשלש י ר םינש-לש
פ | םינש לש
. 'ינש
רשע םינש םינש לש ש פ | רשע םינשלש
רשע םינשלש ר רשע םינש םינשלש
. רשע םינש
ב
י
. שדח
. 'דח
מ () א שדח
רחאל אצמנ הז עטק לכ
א
םירצמ
.()
.(
ש"
ייע . זי ה"
ר)
: גל תבש ילבב
ד
פ
| שדוח
. 'ובמה
מ | לובמה
. 'ינש
מ | םינש
ב
ד מ י ק א ר פ
. 'שע
מ | רשע
| שדוח
| בויא טפשמ
. גוג טפשמ
. 'ינש
מ | םינש
ב א
ד י ק ר פ פ
א ר
. 'שע
מ פ | רשע
ב . 'דח
מ שדח ד י ק א ר פ | שדוח
. 'פשמ
מ | טפשמ
א
םיירצמה ד ש ק פ | םירצמה
י
. 'ירצמה
מ ם ירצמה
. 'שע
'ינש
מ ב"
י א | רשע םינש
ב . 'דח
מ שדח ד י ק א ר פ | שדוח
| שדוח רשע םינש ... גוג טפשמ
. 'פשמ
מ | טפשמ
. 'יתעל
מ | דיתעל
" שדוח ... םיעשר טפשמ"
אי
1
2
3
4
5

40
אובל
םינש
רשע
שדוח
טפשמ
םיעשר
םניהיגב
םינש
רשע
שדוח
נש
'
היהו
חב שדוח ידמ
וc
ר ושד
'
וא ירונ ןב ןנחוי
'
ןמ
חספה
דע
תרצע
10
נש
'
ותבשב תבש ידמו
:
פ
ר'
ג
'
ה
ל'
י
'
א'
םימטימה לכ
להאב
וקלחנש
ןסינכהו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
6
אובל
|
א
אבל
מ
)
.(
רשע םינש
|
מ
ינש
'
שע
'
.
שדוח
|
פ
ר
א
ק
י
ב
שדח
מ
דח
'
.
םיעשר טפשמ
...
הנשמה ףוס
|
מ
נש
'
היהו
דח ידמ
'
וגו
'
.
7
םיעשר
|
פ
יעשר
'
.
םניהיגב
|
פ
א
א
םנהיגב
פ
נהגב
'
ק
ד
םניהגב
ש
י
ב
םנהגב
.
רשע םינש
|
א
י
"
ב
.
שדוח
|
פ
ר
א
ק
י
ב
ד
שדח
.
8
נש
| '
פ
אנש
'
ד
רמאנש
.
מ
יד
|
ק
ידימ
.
שדוח
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
י
ב
ד
שדח
.
9
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
רמוא
ר
א
מוא
'
.
דע
|
פ
א
פ
ק
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
דעו
.
תרצע
|
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
תרצעה
.
10
נש
| '
פ
א
ד
רמאנש
פ
אנש
'
.
ידמו
|
פ
א
פ
ק
ידמ
א
.()
12
םימטימה
ג
J2
|
פ
א
ןימטימה
פ
םימטמה
ר
א
םיאמטמה
ק
ןיאמטימה
ש
י
ב
ד
ןיאמטמה
מ
יאמטימה
'
.
להאב
|
מ
להאב
'
.
ןסינכהו
|
ג
J2
ןסינכיהו
י
ב
ןסינכה
מ
ינכהו
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
םניהגב
ב
ו
םנהיגב
.
ב
מ
·
ו
שדח
.
וק
מה
י
ןימט
פ
א
ןימטימה
ר
מ
ד
ב
מ
·
ו
ןיאמטמה
ק
םיאמטמה
.
וק
ו
ןסינכה
ד
םסינכהו
.
א
פ תולהא הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
א
.
"
םימטימה לכ
...
מכחו
'
ןיאמטמ
"
דכק ןילוח ילבב
:

41
תיבה ךותל
ר
'
הסוד
א'
ו'
סניכרא ןב
רהטמ
מכחו
'
ןיאמטמ
דציכ
עגונה
15
ינשכב
יאצח
ןיתיז
ןמ
הליבנה
וא
ןאשונ
תמבו
עגונה
יצחכב
תיז
ליהאמו
לע
יצחכ
תיז
וא
עגונ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
13
ךותל
|
מ
ותב
'
.
תיבה
|
מ
יבה
'
.
הסוד
|
ג
J2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
אסוד
מ
סוד
'
.
סניכרא
|
פ
סוניקרה
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
סניכרה
מ
ניכרא
'
.
14
רהטמ
|
מ
הטמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
פ
א
כחו
'
ק
ימכחו
'
.
ןיאמטמ
|
ג
J2
םימטמ
פ
א
טמ
ןימ
פ
מ
אמטמ
'
.
דציכ
|
פ
דצ הזיאכ
מ
ציכ
'
.
עגונה
|
ג
J2
עיגונה
מ
גונה
'
.
15
ינשכב
|
ר
ינשיכב
ד
יצחכב
.
יאצח
|
ג
J2
פ
ש
י
ב
ייצח
.
ןיתיז
|
ג
J2
פ
א
א
ש
י
ב
םיתיז
פ
ר
ק
ד
םיתז
מ
יתז
'
.
הליבנה
|
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
הלבנה
מ
לבנה
'
.
16
ןאשונ
|
ג
J2
מ
ןאשנ
.
תמבו
|
מ
תמכו
.
עגונה
|
ג
J2
עיגונה
.
יצחכב
|
ד
יצחככ
.
17
תיז
|
מ
יתז
'
.
ליהאמו
|
פ
מ
להאמו
.
ליהאמו
...
תיז יצחכב
)
הרוש
18
(
|
ד
()
ע טמשוה
"
תומודה י
.
יצחכ
|
תיז יצחכב עגונ וא
|
ב
ר
ףסונ
יצחכב עגונ וא
תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז
.
עגונ
|
ג
J2
עיגונ
מ
גונ
'
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
ב
מ
·
ו
אסוד
.
וק
ר
ק
מ
ד
ב
מ
·
ו
סניכרה
.
ב
מ
וא
'
רוהט
.
פ
א
כחו
'
ק
ד
ימכחו
'
.
וק
פ
א
ןימטמ
ק
יאמטמ
'
ב
ו
םיאמטמ
.
וק
ד
ייצח
ק
ייאצח
.
וק
פ
א
מ
םיתיז
ר
ק
םיתז
ד
יתז
'
.
ק
מ
ד
הלבנה
.
מ
עגונהו
.
מ
להאמו
.
ב
ו
יצח
.
וק
ב
מ
·
ו
.()
א
]"
תמבו
[
יצחכב עגונה
)
וש
'
16
... (
אמ
וילע ליה
)
וש
'
18
"(
הכק ןילוח ילבב
.

42
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכב
ליהאמו
לע
ינשכ
יאצח
םיתיז
20
דע ליהאמו
תיז יצחו תייז יצחכ
ר וילע ליהאמ
'
סניכרא ןב אסוד
רהטמ
מכחו
'
ןיאמטמ
:
ב
'
לבא
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
18
יצחכב
|
א
יצחו
מ
יצחבכ
.
יצחכו
|
פ
א ר
יצחו
.
תיז
2
|
מ
יז
'
.
ליהאמ
|
פ
מ
להאמ
.
19
ינשכ לע ליהאמו
...
וילע ליהאמ
)
וש
'
21
(
|
מ
()
ע טמשוה
"
תומודה י
.
ליהאמו
|
פ
להאמו
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ליהאמ
.
לע
|
ק
לכ לע
.
יאצח ינשכ
|
פ
ג
כ
ינש
יצח
.
ינשכ
|
א
ינשיכ
.
אצח
י
|
ג
J2
הייצח
פ
יצח
ש
י
ב
ייצח
.
םיתיז
|
פ
א
·
ג
ר
א
ק
ד
םיתז
פ
תיז
.
20
ליהאמו
|
פ
א
·
ג
ק
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
ליהאמ
פ
להאמו
.
דע
|
ג
J2
פ
א
·
ג
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
לע
.
תייז
|
ג
J2
יז
י
ת
פ
א
·
ג
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
תיז
.
יצחו
|
ג
J2
פ
א
·
ג
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
יצחכו
.
תיז
|
ג
J2
תייז
.
21
ליהאמ
|
פ
להאמ
.
אסוד
|
מ
סוד
'
.
סניכרא
|
פ
סוניכרא
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
סניכרה
מ
ניכרא
'
.
22
רהטמ
|
מ
טמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
.
ןיאמטמ
|
ג
J2
םימטמ
פ
א
ןימטמ
מ
טמ
'
.
ב הנשמ
|
ר
א הנשמ ךשמה
ד
לכ טמשוה
הנשמה
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
·
ו
יצח וא
.
מ
להאמ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ד
ליהאמ
מ
להאמ וא
.
וק
פ
א
ד
ייצח
ר
םיאצח
ק
ייאצח
.
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
םיתז
ד
יתז
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ד
ליהאמ
מ
ליהאמ וא
.
וק
פ
א
ק
מ
ד
לע
ר
.()
וק
פ
א
ר
מ ק
ד
תיז
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
יצחכו
.
וק
הסוד
.
וק
ר
ק
מ
ד
סניכרה
.
פ
א
כחו
'
ר
ק
מ
ימכחו
'
ד
םימכחו
.
וק
פ
א
ןימטמ
ק
םיאמטמ
.
ב
פ תולהא הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
ב
.
"
עיגונה לבא
...
רוהט
)
וש
'
26
(
ןילוח ילבב
)
הכק
.
-
(
הכק
:

43
ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכב עיגונה
וילע
לע
יצחכ
תיז
וא
ליהאמ
''
לע
25
יצחכ
תיז
רבדו
רחא
ליהאמ
וילע
מא רוהט תיז יצחכ לע
'
ר
'
ףא ריאמ
הזב
ר
'
הסוד
ןב
סניכרא
רהטמ
מכחו
'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
23
עיגונה
ג
J2
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
עגונה
מ
גונה
'
.
יצחכב
|
מ
יצחב
.
תיז
|
ג
J2
תייז
מ
יז
'
יז יצחכ לע להאמ וא
'
.
רחא רבדו
|
ג
J2
ירחא רבדו
מ
ד
"
א
.
ליהאמ
|
פ
מ
להאמ
.
24
לע
ג
J2
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
לעו
.
יצחכ
|
תיז
|
מ
יז
'
.
וא
...
תיז יצחכ
)
וש
'
26
(
|
ר
.()
ליהאמ
|
מ
להאמ
.
לע
2
...
ליהאמ
)
וש
'
25
(
|
לע
2
|
מ
ןכ לע
.
25
תיז
|
ג
J2
תייז
מ
יז
'
.
רחא רבדו
|
מ
ד
"
א
.
ליהאמ
|
מ
להאמ
.
וילע
|
מ
ילע
'
.
26
לע
ג
J2
|
פ
א
פ
א
ש
י
ב
מ
לעו
.
תיז
|
ג
J2
תייז
מ
יז
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
מא
| '
ג
J2
י
ב
רמא
.
ר
| '
ג
J2
יבר
.
ריאמ
|
מ
יאמ
'
.
27
הסוד
|
ג
J2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
אסוד
מ
סוד
'
.
סניכרא
|
פ
א
ר
א
ש
י
ב
סניכרה
פ
סוניכרא
מ
ניכרא
'
.
רהטמ
|
מ
טמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
ןימכחו
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
םימכחו
פ
ימכחו
'
מ
כחו
'
.
תוליבקמ
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
עגונה
ב
מ
עגונ
.
ב
מ
דו
"
א
.
ר
ק
ש
מ
ב
מ
·
ו
לעו
.
ב
מ
יצח
.
ב ר
מ
·
ו
.()
מ
להאמ
.
ק
.()
ד
בדו
'
רחא
.
וק
ו
לע
ק
ש
מ
לעו
.
וק
רחא תיז
.
מ
א
"
ר
.
ש
ד
רמא
.
ר
יאמ
'
.
ר
ש
ד
אסוד
מ
סוד
'
.
וק
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
סניכרה
.
פ
א
ש
ד
םימכחו
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
.

44
לכה ןיאמטמ
אמט
ץוח
עגמה ןמ
אשמהו
אשמהו
םע
להא
הז
ה
ללכ
1
לכ
אוהש
םשמ
דחא
אמט
ינשמ
תומש
רוהט
:
ג'
לכוא
דורפ
וניא
צמ
ףרט
בד
'
ר
'
אסוד
כחו
'
מוא
'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
28
ןיאמטמ
|
ג
J2
ימטמ
ן
ם
פ
א
ןימטמ
מ
טמ
'
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
ןמ
|
ר
.()
עגמה
|
ג
J2
אשמהו עגמה
פ
א
ר
ק א
ש
י
ב
עגמה
אשמה םע
פ
עגמה
שמה םע
'
מ
ה
ונ
ג
'
םע
שמה
א
.
29
אשמהו
|
מ
שמהו
'
.
להא
|
ג
J2
ליהא
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
להאה
.
1
אוהש
|
מ
'
.
םשמ
|
מ
ושמ
'
.
דחא
|
מ
חא
'
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
ינשמ
|
2
תומש
|
מ
ומש
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
ג הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ב הנשמ
.
לכוא
|
דורפ
|
פ
ק
רורפ
מ
פ
.[ ]
וניא
|
מ
יא
'
.
M
ףרטצמ
...
כחו
'
מוא
'
)
הרוש
3
(
|
מ
.()
ףרטצמ
|
ג
J2
ףרטצימ
.
בד
| '
ג
J2
פ
ר
א
ק
י
ב
ש
ד
ירבד
.
ר
| '
ש
יבר
.
אסוד
|
פ
א
מ
ד
א
ו
י
ס
ר
ה
אסוד
|
ד
סניכרה ןב אסוד
.
כחו
'
מוא
'
ןיללחמ ףרטצמ
לע ינש רשעמ
ר ירבד ןומיסא
'
אסוד
)
הרוש
4
(
|
פ
)
.(
כחו
| '
ג
J2
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
פ
א
מכחו
'
.
מוא
| '
ר
ק
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
תוליבקמ
וק
מטמ
'
פ
א
ןימטמ
ק
םיאמטמ
.
וק
אשמה ןמו עגמה
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
אשמה םע עגמה
.
מ
שמהו
'
.
וק
ה
להא
פ
א
ה
להא
ק
ש
מ
ד
להאה
.
ב
מ
ושמ
'
םש
.
ב
מ
ףרטצמ
ב
ו
אמטו ףרטצמ
.
ר
ש
מ
ינשמו
.
וק
תומיש
ב
מ
ומש
'
.
ב
מ
ןיפרטצמ ןיא
.
פ
א
לכואה
.
ר
דוריפ
ד
רורפ
.
וק
ףרטצימ
.
ב
"
ללכה הז
"...
הכק ןילוח ילבב
.
ג
"
ףרטצמ וניא דורפ לכוא
"
פ תורהט הנשמ
"
מ ח
"
ט
.

45
ףרטצמ
ןיללחמ
ינש רשעמ
לע
מיסא
'
ןומיסא
ירבד
ר
'
אסוד
מכחו
'
ןירסוא
5
בטמ
י
בד תאטחל םיידי ןיל
'
ר
'
אסוד
מכחו
'
מוא
'
םא
ואמטינ
וידי
אמטינ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
3
ןיללחמ
|
ג
J2
םיללחמ
מ
יללחמ
'
ד
ןיא
ןיללחמ
.
רשעמ
|
מ
שעמ
'
.
ינש
|
ג
J2
ר
יניש
.
4
ןומיסא
|
ג
J2
ןומיסח
.
ירבד
|
פ
א
מ
בד
'
.
אסוד
|
מ
סוד
'
.
מכחו
'
ןירסוא
...
בד
'
ר
'
אסוד
)
הרוש
5
(
|
ד
.()
מכחו
| '
פ
ק
ימכחו
'
ר
א
ש
י
ב
םימכחו
.
ןירסוא
|
ק
מ
ירסוא
'
.
5
ןיליבטמ
|
ג
J2
ק
םיליבטמ
פ
יליבטמו
ם
מ
יליבטמ
'
.
םיידי
ג
J2
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
םידי
מ
ידי
'
.
תאטחל
|
מ
אטחל
'
.
בד
| '
ג
J2
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ירבד
.
אסוד
|
מ
סוד
'
.
6
מכחו
| '
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
םא
|
פ
א
ר
א
.()
ואמטינ
|
ג
J2
פ
א
ר
ק
ומטינ
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ואמטנ
.
אמטינ
ג
J2
|
ש
י
ב
ד
אמטנ
מ
מטנ
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
יללחמ
'
.
ב
מ
שעמ
'
.
רי
ל
יניש
.
ב
מ
מיסא
'
.
ב
מ
סוד
'
.
ב
מ
וא
'
ןיללחמ ןיא
ב
ו
ןיללחמ ןיא םירמוא
.
ג
"
ןיללחמ
..
מכחו
'
ןירסוא
"
ב ילבב
"
זמ מ
:
פ ינש רשעמ ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
ב
.

תבונקו חיטבא יעמ ד' :
ופוג
םירזל ריתמ אסוד 'ר
המורתלש קרי
תוליחר שמח ה ' :
םירסוא 'מכחו
תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג
'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
'רבד
זגה תישארב
תוליבקמ
ע
ו
. יעמו חיטבא יפילק ת יעמו חיטבא יפלק ת
ע . תבינקו ת
ו . המורת לש רי
. ןירסוא
ע·
ו
ת
ו . םימכחו ת
ו·
ל
1מב
ןב אסוד 'ר
ספ שמח 'וא
'ניכרה
ןב 'סוד
'ר
וב
21ו
. 'וכו
רמוא סניכרה ןב אסוד 'ר
ספ ב סניכרה
2מ
ע
21ו
ו
. 'ולחר
ב םילחר
ת תולחר ב ת ד מ ש ק ר
. 'נמ
2מ
'נמ
ב
רי
ע·
ו
2מ
ו
. 'וזזוג
ב תוזוזג ת ד 'וזוזג
ו אנמ יפמ ת 'נמ
הנמ הנמ מ אנמ אנמ
. 'ובייח
2מ
ב
תובייחו
ת
2מ
ב
. 'ישארב
.()
21ו
2 .() ב
ע·
ו 'בד
א
. יר[
] ד ירבד ת מ ש ק ר פ 'בד
ו הסוד א . הסוי ת פ הסוד
2מ
ו
. 'כחו
ב 'ימכחו
ק םימכחו ת ד ש
2מ
ו
. םירמוא ד 'וא
ב ת מ ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
2
.
נק ב"
ב ילבב
וק
מ
וק
ר
2מ
ב
ר
מ
ב
וק
וק
ר
ק
46
ד ק א 'מורתלש
ש 'ימכחו
ד
. 'בינקו
ב
מ 'רסוא
פ ןירסוא ד י
ךשמה
. 'כחו
ד
ר
. 'ולחר
. 'בד
10
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. ופוג לכ מ | ופוג
ד ר
. ג הנשמ
מ
. 'יטבא
תבינקו
מ
ד פ
| 'ד
הנשמ
| יעמ
| חיטבא
| תבונקו
ר 'מורת
לש פ | המורתלש
. 'ורת
לש מ המורת לש
J2 . 'סוד
מ הסוד ג | אסוד
ב
J2
פ םימכחו י ק א ר ג | 'מכחו
. 'כחו
מ ןימכחו
א
ש ק א ר פ | םירסוא
. 'ירסוא
ד הנשמ ךשמה ק | ה הנשמ
. ג הנשמ
| שמח
מ תולחר ד ש ק א ר פ
. 'נמ
| תוליחר
. תווזג ד 'וזזוג
מ | תוזזוג
'נמ
מ אנמ הנמ פ | הנמ הנמ
. 'ובייח
מ
| תובייח
J2
. 'ישארב
מ 'שארב
ג | תישארב
| זגה
| אסוד 'ר
'רבד
ג·
א
ב
J2
מ פ ירבד ד י ש א ר ק פ ג | 'רבד
. 'סוד
מ | אסוד
ב
מ םימכחו ד י ש א 'ימכחו
ק פ | 'מכחו
ב . ןירמוא י םירמוא ד ק 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
. ד"
לה א"
יפ תומורת ימלשורי ב"
מ י"
פ תומורת אתפסות
1
. הלק ןילוח ילבב ז"
טמ א"
פ תיודע אתפסות ב"
מ א"
יפ ןילוח הנשמ
7
8
9
10
11
ד
ה

47
שמח
תוליחר
תוזזוג
לכ
ןהש
ו'
תולצוחה לכ
תואמט
אמט
תמ
ירבד
ר
'
אסוד
מכחו
'
מוא
'
סרדמ
לכ
תועילקה
15
לשמ ץוח תורוהט
רבד ןוליגליג
'
ר
'
ד'
אסוד
מכחו
'
וא
'
םלוכ
תואמט
ץוח
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
12
שמח
|
מ
מח
'
.
תוליחר
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
תולחר
מ
ולחר
'
.
תוזזוג
|
ר
()
.
ו הנשמ
|
ק
ה הנשמ
ר
ד
ד הנשמ
.
13
תולצוחה
|
מ
ולצוחה
'
.
תואמט
|
מ
ואמט
'
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
ירבד
|
פ
א
מ
בד
'
.
14
אסוד
|
פ
א
הסוד
מ
סוד
'
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ק
ימכחו
'
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
מ
כחו
'
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
סרדמ
|
תועילקה
|
מ
לקה
ועי
'
.
15
תורוהט
|
מ
ורוהט
'
.
ץוח
|
מ
וח
'
.
לשמ
ןוליגליג
|
פ
א
ןילגלגלשמ
פ
ןילגלוגשמ
ר
לשמ
-
ןוליגלג
א
ןוליגלגשמ
ק
לשמ
ןוילגלג
ש
ןוליגלג לשמ
י
ב
ןוליגלגלשמ
מ
וליגניג לשמ
'
ד
ןוליגל גלשמ
.
רבד
| '
פ
א
מ
בד
'
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
ירבד
.
16
אסוד
|
פ
א
הסוד
מ
סוד
'
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
מ
כחו
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
מוא
'
א
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
םלוכ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
י
ב
ןלוכ
מ
ןלכ
.
תואמט
|
פ
א
ט
ט
ה
מ
א
ו
ר
ו
ו
ת
ת
ר
א
ןיאמט
מ
ואמט
'
.
ץוח
|
מ
וח
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
2
מח
'
.
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
ת
ו
ב
ו
21
תולחר
ב
מ
2
ולחר
'
.
מ
ת
ו
תוזוזג
ד
תווזוג
ב
מ
2
וזזוג
'
.
ב
מ
תואמטמ
ב
ו
ןיאמטמ
.
ב
מ
םימכחו
.
ב
מ
סרדמ אמט
.
ו
"
תולצוחה לכ
...
סרדמ
"
כ הכוס ילבב
.

48
לשמ
םירמצ
:
ז'
לש עלקה
תיב
לוביק
הלש
גירא
רועלשו האמט
ר
'
אסוד
ןב
סניכרא
רהטמ
מכחו
'
םימטמ
20
קספינ
תיב
עבצא
הלש
הרוהט
תיבו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
17
לשמ
םירמצ
|
פ
א
י
א
םירמצלשמ
פ
מ
לשמ
ירמצ
'
ר
ןירמצלשמ
א
ןירמצ לשמ
.
ז הנשמ
|
ק
ו הנשמ
ר
ד
ה הנשמ
.
עלקה
|
מ
עלק
.
תיב לש
|
פ
א
תיבבש
פ
ש
תיב
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
תיבש
.
18
תיב
|
מ
יב
'
.
לוביק
|
ש
מ
ד
לובק
.
הלש
|
מ
לש
'
.
גירא
|
פ
מ
ד
א
גור
.
האמט
|
מ
אמט
'
.
רועלשו
|
פ
א
ק
ד
רוע לשו
מ
רוע לש
.
19
ר
| '
י
א
יבר
.
סניכרא
|
פ
סוניקרא
ר
א
ש
י
א
סניכרה
מ
ניכרה
'
.
רהטמ
|
מ
הטמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ר
א
ימכחו
'
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םימכחו
מ
כחו
'
.
םימטמ
|
פ
א
ןימטמ
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
מטמ
'
.
20
קספינ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
קספנ
מ
ספנ
'
.
תיב
|
מ
יב
'
.
עבצא
|
מ
בצא
'
.
הלש
|
מ
לש
'
.
הרוהט
|
פ
א
מט
א ב
ה
מ
רוהט
'
.
תיבו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תיב
מ
יב
'
.
תוליבקמ

היובשה ח' :
האמט הלש עוקפה
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד המורתב תלכוא
היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי 'מוא
הרמאש השאה דציכ תלכוא הניאש
2ו
. הייובש ב
2
תוליבקמ
1ו
היובש ב
. 'לכוא
. 'מורתב
. 'סוד
1
21מ
ב
2מ
ב
2מ
ב
2מ
ב
49
ד
ש
. עיקפ
א
פ
עיקפה
. ו הנשמ
. 'לש
'יובשה
ר
'ימכחו
א
ד י 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
מ
דצ הזיאכ
פ
ק
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| עוקפה
. 'לש
מ | הלש
. 'אמט
מ | האמט
א
א הרוהט
פ | האמט
ז הנשמ ק | ח הנשמ
הייובשה ק | היובשה
א
J2
ד י ש ק א ר ג
ד ר
מ
. 'לכוא
מ | תלכוא
. 'מורתב
מ | המורתב
א . 'בד
מ פ | ירבד
א . יבר י ר | 'ר
א . 'סוד
מ הסוד פ | אסוד
J2
פ ןימכחו ג | 'מכחו
. םימכחו
J2
מ פ ןירמוא ש ג | 'מוא
. םירמוא
. 'יובש
מ הייובש ק | היובש
. 'לכוא
מ | תלכוא
. 'יובש
מ הייובש ק | היובש
. 'ניאש
מ | הניאש
. 'לכוא
מ | תלכוא
דציכ J2
( רחא די בתכ)
ג | דציכ
. 'ציכ
א . 'שאה
מ () פ | ש השאה
. 'רמאש
מ | הרמאש
. אפ ןיטיג . ול תובתכ ילבב . ב"
לה ג"
פ תובותכ ימלשורי " אסוד ... היובשה"
. ו"
לה ב"
פ תובותכ ימלשורי ז"
ימ א"
פ תוידע אתפסות ו"
מ ב"
פ תובותכ הנשמ "... הרמאש השאה"
.
בכ תובותכ ילבב
21
22
23
24
ח

50
25
שי םא תלכוא ינא הרוהטו יתבשינ
םידע
תבשינש
איהו
תרמוא
הרוהט
תלכוא הניא ינא
:
ט'
א
העבר
תוקיפס
ר
'
מכחו אמטמ עשוהי
'
דציכ ןירהטמ
אמטה
דמוע
רוהטהו
רבוע
רוהטה
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
25
יתבשינ
|
ג
J2
יתיבשינ
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
י
א
ד
יתיבשנ
ש
מ
יתבשנ
.
הרוהטו
|
מ
רוהטו
'
.
תלכוא
...
ינא
)
רוש
'
27
(
|
מ
.()
תלכוא
|
ד
אוה רסאש הפהש תלכוא
הפה
ריתהש
.
םא
|
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
םאו
.
26
םידע
|
תבשינש
ג
J2
|
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
ד
תיבשנש
פ
[]
ש
תבשנש
.
27
הניא
|
מ
ניא
'
.
תלכוא
|
מ
לכוא
'
מורתב
'
.
ט הנשמ
|
ק
ח הנשמ
ר
ד
ז הנשמ
.
העברא
|
מ
ברא
'
.
תוקיפס
|
ש
תוקפס
מ
וקיפס
'
.
28
ר
| '
ג
J2
י
א
יבר
.
עשוהי
|
ג
J2
עושוהי
פ
א
מ
שוהי
'
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
פ
א
ש
י
א
ד
םימכחו
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
מ
כחו
'
.
ןירהטמ
|
ג
J2
פ
םירהטמ
מ
ירהטמ
'
.
דציכ
|
מ
ציכ
'
.
29
אמטה
|
מ
מטה
'
.
דמוע
|
מ
מוע
'
.
רוהטהו
|
מ
והטהו
'
.
רבוע אמטהו דמוע רוהטה
|
ד
רבוע רוהטה
דמוע אמטהו
.
רוהטה
|
מ
והטה
'
.
תוליבקמ
וק
ר
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
ספ
י
ל
רי
ו
ספ
י
ו
ב
ו
יתיבשנ
פ
א
יתיבשינ
ק
יתיבישנ
ש
מ
יתבשנ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
רסאש הפהש תנמאנ
>
מ
|
סאש
'
<
ריתהש הפה אוה
>
וק
|
ריתיהש
<
ת
ע
תלכוא וז ירה
ת
ו
תלכוא
המורתב
.
ש
מ
ת
ו
ב
ו
םאו
.
ד
ידע
'
.
וק
תיבשינש
ר
מ
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
תיבשנש
ש
תבשנש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
תנמאנ
.
ת
ו
ד
'
ת
ע
עברא
.
ד
תוקפס
.
ר
שוהי
'
.
ר
מטמ
'
.
ר
ת
ו
םימכחו
ק
כחו
'
.
ת
ו
·
ע
.()
ד
מוע
'
.
ר
.()
ט
פ תורהט הנשמ
"
מ ו
"
פ תוידע אתפסות ב
"
ימ א
"
ח
.

51
דמוע
אמטהו
רבוע
האמוט
תושרב
1
רהט םיברה תושרב הרהטו דיחיה
ה
םיברה תושרב האמוטו דיחיה תושרב
קפס
עגנ
עגנ אל קפס
קפס
ליהאה
קפס
אל
ליהאה
קפס
טיסיה
קפסו
אל
טיסיה
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
30
דמוע
|
מ
מוע
'
.
אמטהו
|
מ
מטהו
'
.
רבוע
|
מ
בוע
'
.
האמוט
|
ג
J2
האמט
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
האמוטה
מ
מוטה
'
.
דיחיה תושרב
|
מ
הרב
"
י
.
1
הרהטו דיחיה
|
פ
א
דיחיה
:
האמטו
:
הרהטו
.
הרהטו
|
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
הרהטהו
מ
רהטהו
'
.
םיברה תושרב
|
מ
רב
"
ה
.
הרהט
...
םיברה תושרב
)
רוש
'
2
(
|
מ
.()
הרהט
|
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
הרהטה
.
2
האמוטו
|
ר
א
ש
י
א
האמוטהו
ק
האמטהו
ד
האמטו
.
םיברה תושרב
|
םיברה
|
3
קפס
2
|
מ
פס
'
.
קפס
3
|
מ
פס
'
.
ליהאה
|
מ
יהאה
'
.
קפס
4
|
מ
פס
'
.
4
ליהאה
|
מ
יהאה
'
.
קפס
|
מ
פס
'
.
טיסיה
ג
J2
|
פ
טיסוה
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
טיסה
.
קפסו
|
ג
J2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
קפס
מ
פס
'
.
טיסיה
ג
J2
|
פ
טיסוה
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
טיסה
מ
יסה
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
מטהו
'
ת
ע
רוהטהו
.
וק
ק
וטה
האמ
ד
האמטה
ת
ו
האמט
.
וק
ק
הרהטהו
ת
ו
הרהט
.
ת
ו
ושרב
'
םיברה
.
ר
.()
וק
הטה
ו
הר
ק
ד
הרהטה
.
וק
ק
האמוטהו
ד
האמטהו
ת
ו
האמט
.
ת
ע
שרב
'
ברה
'
.
ד
יברה
'
.
ד
פס
'
.
וק
ר
ק
מ
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
טיסה
פ
א
טסה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
קפס
.
וק
ר
ק
מ
ד
ת
ו
·
ע
טיסה
פ
א
טסה
.

52
5
ר
'
עשוהי
אמטמ
מכחו
'
ןירהטמ
:
י
'
ר ןירבד השלש
'
םימכחו אמטמ קודצ
ןירהטמ
רמסמ
ינחלושלש
ןוראו
תוסורגלש
רמסמו
לש
ןבא
תועש
ר
'
קודצ
אמטמ
מכחו
'
ןירהטמ
:
י
'
א'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
5
ר
| '
ג
J2
ק
י
א
יבר
.
עשוהי
|
ג
J2
עושוהי
פ
א
מ
שוהי
'
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םימכחו
פ
א
כחו
'
.
ןירהטמ
|
ג
J2
פ
םירהטמ
מ
הטמ
'
.
י הנשמ
|
ק
ט הנשמ
ר
ד
ב ח הנשמ
מ
ופלחוה
אי הנשמו י הנשמ ןאכ
.
6
השלש
|
ג
J2
השולש
מ
שלש
'
.
ןירבד
|
ג
J2
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
י
ב
ש
ד
םירבד
מ
בד
'
.
ר
| '
ג
J2
יבר
.
קודצ
|
מ
ודצ
'
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
םימכחו
|
פ
א
פ
ג
מכחו
'
ר
ימכחו
'
מ
כחו
'
.
7
ןירהטמ
|
ג
J2
םירהטמ
מ
הטמ
'
.
ינחלושלש
|
ג
J2
ינחלושה
פ
ג
לש
-
ינחלש
א
ק
ינחלוש לש
ש
ינחלשלש
מ
ןחלש לש
י
ב
ד
ינחלשה
.
8
תוסורגלש
|
פ
ג
לש
-
תוסורג
א
ש ק
לש
תוסורג
מ
וסורג לש
'
ד
תוסרג לש
.
רמסמו
|
מ
.()
לש
ןבא
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
ש
י
ב
ןבאלש
.
תועש
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
תועשה
מ
ועשה
'
.
9
ר
| '
ד
יבר
.
קודצ
|
מ
ודצ
'
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J2
ר
א
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
פ
א
מ
כחו
'
ש
ןימכחו
.
ןירהטמ
|
ג
J2
םירהטמ
מ
הטמ
'
.
אי הנשמ
|
ק
י הנשמ
ד ר
נשמ
ט ה
.
תוליבקמ
מ
שוהי
'
.
ר
ימכחו
'
ק
כחו
'
ד
ת
ו
םימכחו
.
ק
םירהטמ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
םירבד
.
מ
מטמ
'
.
וק
פ
א
מכחו
'
ק
כחו
'
מ
ימכחו
'
.
ק
םירהטמ
.
וק
ינחלשלש
ר
לש
-
ינחלוש
ק
ד
ינחלש לש
מ
ינחלושה
.
וק
לש
-
תוסורג
ק
תוסורג לש
מ
וסורג לש
'
ד
לש
תוסירג
.
ר וק
ןבאלש
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ד
תועשה
מ
ועשה
'
.
מ
מטמ
'
.
וק
כחו
'
פ
א
ר
ד
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
.
י
םילכ הנשמ
פ
י
"
מ ב
"
ז
.

53
10
אילמג ןבר ןירבד העברא
'
כחו אמטמ
'
ילעבלשו תכתמלש ינט יוסכ ןירהטמ
תוכתמ ילכ ימלוגו תודרגמה יולתו םיתב
ש הלבטו
ה c
כח םידומ םינשל הקלחנ
'
ןברל
לאילמג
הלבטב
ש
הc
הקלחנ
ל
'
ש'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
10
העברא
|
מ
ברא
'
.
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
אילמג ןבר
| '
מ
ר
"
ג
.
אילמג
| '
פ
א
למג
'
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
לאילמג
.
אמטמ
|
פ
מ
מטמ
'
ד
.()
כחו
| '
ג
J2
ש
ןימכחו
פ
ר
א
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
.
11
ןירהטמ
|
פ
מ
ירהטמ
'
.
יוסכ
|
ק
יוסיכ
.
ינט
|
י
ב
אנט
מ
בט
'
י
.
תכתמלש
|
פ
א
ק
תכתמ לש
ד
תוכתמ לש
מ
לש
וכתמ
'
.
ילעבלשו
|
ר
ש
י
ב
ילעבלש
ק
ילעב לשו
פ
א
ד
ילעב לש
מ
עב לש
'
.
12
םיתב
|
מ
יתב
'
.
יולתו
|
י
ב
ֵיולתו
י
.
תודרגמה
ג
J2
|
ר
א
ק
תודירגמה
מ
וררגמה
'
ד
תוררגמה
.
ימלוגו
|
י
ב
ימלגו
.
תוכתמ
|
מ
וכתמ
'
.
13
הלבטו
|
פ
מ
לבטו
'
.
הקלחנש
|
פ
הקלחנהש
מ
קלחנש
'
.
םינשל
...
הקלחנש
)
וש
'
14
(
|
ר
מ
()
.
םינשל
|
ד
םיתשל
.
םידומ
|
פ
ידומ
'
א
ק
י
ב
ד
םידומו
ש
.[]
כח
| '
ג
J2
פ
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכח
פ
א
מכח
'
.
14
ןברל
לאילמג
|
לאילמג
|
פ
א
למג
'
.
הלבטב
|
ד
אלבטב
.
הקלחנש
|
פ
הקלחנהש
.
תוליבקמ
מ
עברא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
םירבד
.
מ
ר
"
ג
.
וק
ר
ק
ד
לאילמג
פ
א
למג
'
.
מ
מטמ
'
.
פ
א
מכחו
'
ר
ד
םימכחו
.
ק
םירהטמ
.
ק
מ
תכתמ לש
ד
תוכתמ לש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ילעבלש
ק
מ
ד
ילעב לש
.
ד
יתב
'
.
וק
רגמה
י
וד
ת
ר
תודירגמה
מ
וררגמה
'
.
מ
ימלגו
.
מ
וכתמ
'
.
מ
לבטו
'
הז
.
מ
קלחנש
'
.
וק
ו
םידומ
פ
א
םידומו
ר
ןידומו
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ד
םימכח
מ
מכח
'
.
מ
רל
"
ג
.
וק
אילמג
'
.
אי
יב םילכ הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
ח
.

לודגה ןטק דחאו לודג דחא םינשל
השלש
ב' י' :
רוהט ןטקהו אמט
תיב ירבדכ רימחמ לאילמג ןבר ןירבד
םוימ םימחה תא ןינמוט ןיא ימש
הרונמה תא ןיפקוז ןיאו תבשל בוט
מב
ו . םירבד ספ ב
ו·
ל
רי
תוליבקמ
. ןוטק
. לודגהש
. 'מט
. ןוטקהו
א
פ
מ
א
פ
א
ד מ ש ק ר פ וק
. ג"
ר
. 'בר
. 'אילמג
מב
ספ
. ירבדב ד ()
. ש"
בכ מ ש"
ב
. יאמש
ו . ןימחה ב
ו
רי ד ש
ו·
ל
מ
ו
ב ר
יימש
. םינמוט
רי
מ ק ר
. השולש
ק
וק
א
ד מ ש ר פ
ו
. בוט םויב הלחתכל ב
מב
. ןיא ספ ק
הרנמה
וק
וק
וק
ר
:
אכ הציב ילבב
54
ןימחה
. 'בד
פ
מ
ב
א
םירבד ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | ןירבד
. ג"
ר מ | לאילמג ןבר
| ןבר
א . 'ילמג
פ | לאילמג
. 'ימחמ
מ | רימחמ
. ירבדב ד 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
. ש"
ב מ ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש
ןימחה
. 'ודגה
. י הנשמ ד ר
ב
ד י ש א
J2 יימש ק פ | ג ימש
. 'ינמוט
מ פ | ןינמוט
| םימחה
. 'וגו
. ט"
ימ מ | בוט םוימ
| תבשל בוט םוימ
ב
א
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ
. 'רונמה
15
מ
מ
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'ינשל
מ | םינשל
. 'חא
מ | דחא
. 'ודג
מ | לודג
. 'חאו
מ | דחאו
. ןוטק ש | ןטק
ב לודגהש י ש | לודגה
. 'מט
מ | אמט
. ןוטקהו ש | ןטקהו
אי הנשמ ק | בי הנשמ
. 'שלש
מ | השלש
| ןיאו
. 'יפקוז
מ | ןיפקוז
הרנמה
ר | הרונמה
. ז"
לה ב"
פ ימלשורי ו"
מ ב"
פ הציב הנשמ
בי
15
16
17
18
19

55
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
20
בוט םויב
|
מ
יב
"
ט
.
ןיפוא
|
מ
יפוא
'
.
ןתיפ
|
ש
ןתיפ תא
י
ב
ןתפ תא
.
ןתיפ
|
מ
ןיתיפ
י
ב
ד
ןתפ
.
תוצירג
|
ר
תוסירג
מ
יסירג
'
ד
ןיצירג
.
21
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
םיקיקר
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
ק
ש
ד
ןיקיקר
מ
יקיקר
'
.
מא
| '
ר
א
י
ב
ד
רמא
מ
א
'
.
ןבר
|
לאילמג
|
פ
א
ילמג
'
.
מימ
םהי
|
פ
א
פ
ג
א
ק
י
ב
ד
ןהימימ
מ
הימימ
'
.
אבא
|
מ
בא
'
.
ןיפוא
|
פ
א
םיפוא
מ
יפוא
'
.
תא
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
מ
ד
.()
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
םיקיקר
|
פ
א
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
ןיקיקר
פ
ג
[]
מ
יקיקר
'
.
ורמא
|
פ
א
מא
'
ד
רמא
'
.
המ
|
ד
המו
.
24
השענ
|
מ
שענ
'
.
םהל
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ןהל
ק
()
מ
ובכל
'
.
תיבל
|
מ
יב
'
.
ןירימחמ ויהש
|
מ
ירימחמש
'
.
ויהש
|
י
ב
ןהש
.
ןירימחמ
|
פ
ג
ןירמחמ
.
ש
םתפ תא
.
וק
תפ
ן
ש
םתפ
ספ
ב
מ
ןיתיפ
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
ןיתפ
.
מ
רג
תוצו
ספ
ב
מ
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
ןיצירג
.
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ספ
ב
ו
ןיקיקר
.
וק
אילמג
'
.
ר
ק
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןהימימ
מ
ימימ
'
.
פ
א
לש
-
תיב
ק
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
תיב לש
מ
לש
תיב
.
מ
יפוא
'
.
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
.()
ד וק
ןתפ
ש
םתפ
ב
ו
ןיתפ
.
מ
תוצורג
ב
ו
ןיצירג
.
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיקיקר
.
ר
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
()
ק
ש
ןהל
.
20
תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא ןיאו בוט םויב
מא םיקיקר אלא
'
םהימימ לאילמג ןבר
ןתיפ תא ןיפוא ויה אל אבא תיבלש
המ ול ורמא םיקיקר אלא תוצירג
השענ
םהל
תיבל
ךיבא
ויהש
ןירימחמ
לאילמג ןבר
|
מ
ר
"
ג
.
22
תיבלש
|
א
ק
ד
תיב לש
מ
יב לש
'
.
ןתיפ
|
מ
יתיפ
'
ד
ןתפ
.
23
תוצירג
|
ר
ק
תוסירג
מ
יסירג
'
ד
ןיצירג
.
תוליבקמ
מ
וט םויב
'
.
ק
ד
רמא
.
וק
בר
'
.
ק
הבא
.
ש
מ
ןהש
.
וק
םירימחמ
.

56
25
ארשי לכ לע םילקמו ןמצע לע
'
תויהל
ןיפוא
ןתיפ
תוצירג
ירחו
:
י'
ג'
אוה ףא
א
ו
מ
'
ןיב ןידבכמ לקהל ןירבד השלש
תוטימה
םיחינמו
תא
רמגימה
םויב
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
25
לע
ןמצע
|
מ
מצעל
'
ד
ןמצע
.
םילקמו
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
ןיליקמו
פ
ג
[]
מ
יליקמו
'
.
לכ לע
|
מ
לכל
ד
()
לכ
.
ארשי
| '
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
לארשי
מ
רשי
'
.
תויהל
|
מ
ויהל
'
.
26
ןיפוא
|
מ
יפוא
'
.
ןתיפ
|
פ
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ןתיפ תא
מ
יתיפ
'
ד
ןתפ
.
תוצירג
|
ר
ק
תוסירג
מ
יסירג
'
ד
ןיצירג
.
ירחו
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ירוחו
מ
ןירירחו
.
גי הנשמ
|
ר
ד
אי הנשמ
.
ףא
|
אוה
|
מ
וה
'
.
27
א
ו
מ
| '
פ
א
ר
ש
ד
רמא
מ
וא
'
א
מא
'
ק
י
ב
רמוא
.
השלש
|
מ
שלש
'
.
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
ןיב
|
ק
תא
.
28
תוטימה
|
ר
ש
י
ב
ד
תוטמה
מ
וטימה
'
.
םיחינמו
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
ןיחינמו
מ
ינמו
'
.
רמגימה
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ק
י
ב
ד
רמגמה
ש
רמגומה
מ
מגומה
'
.
בוט םויב
|
מ
יב
"
ט
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיליקמו
ק
ןילקמו
.
מ
ב
ו
לכל
.
וק
שי
'
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
לארשי
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ןתיפ תא
ש
תא
םתפ
מ
ןתפ
ב
ו
ןיתפ
.
פ
א
מ
תוצורג
ב
ו
ןיצירג
.
ק
ש
ירוחו
מ
ב
ו
ןיררחו
.
ספ
ב
מ
ףאו
.
וק
ק
ב ש
ו
רמא
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
·
ו
ספ
ב
מ
מא
'
מ
וא
'
ד
רמוא
.
וק
השולש
מ
שלש
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש ק
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
םירבד
.
ק
תא
מ
ב
ו
תיב
.
ר
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
תוטמה
.
פ
א
ר
מ ש ק
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ןיחינמו
.
וק
פ
א
ק
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
רמגמה
ר
ש
מ
ב
ו
רמגומה
.
ןידבכמ
|
ק
םידבכמ
מ
ידבכמ
'
.
גי
פ הציב הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
ז
פ ימלשורי
"
לה ב
"
ח
בכ הציב ילבב
:

57
םיחספ ילילב סלוקמ ידג ןישועו בוט
מכחו
'
ןירסוא
:
י'
ד'
השלש
ןירבד
1
ר
'
מכחו ריתמ הירזע ןב רזעל
'
ןירסוא
וי ותרפ
ָצ
א
העוצרב
הינרק ןיבש
ןידרקמו
תא
המהבה
םויב
בוט
ו
ש'
ו'
ח'
סלוקמ
|
מ
לוקמ
'
.
30
מכחו
| '
פ
ג
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
.
די הנשמ
|
ר
י הנשמ
ב
ק
גי הנשמ
.
השלש
...
ןירסוא
)
רוש
'
1
(
|
מ
()
טמשוה
ע
"
תמדוקה הנשמ ףוסמ תומודה י
.
השלש
|
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םירבד
.
1
ר
| '
ש
יבר
.
רזעל
|
פ
זעלא
'
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
ב
רזעלא
ד
רזעילא
.
הירזע
|
מכחו
| '
פ
ימכחו
'
פ
ג
ר
א
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
ש
ןימכחו
.
ןירסוא
|
פ
ירסוא
'
פ
ג
ןירסוא
.
2
ותרפ
|
מ
רפ
'
.
אצוי
|
פ
א
ר
ש
י
ב
ד
האצוי
מ
אצוי
'
פ
ג
.[]
3
ןידרקמו
|
מ
ידרקמו
'
.
המהבה
|
מ
מהבה
'
.
מ
וט
'
.
פ
א
םישועו
.
רי
ל
ב
'
יברע
'
ילילב
)
ספ
י
ל
|
ילילב
.(
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
בוט
|
ןישועו
|
מ
ישועו
'
.
ילילב
|
מ
רעב
'
.
םיחספ
|
מ
יחספ
'
.
ןירסוא
|
ק
מ
ירסוא
'
.
העוצרב
|
מ
עוצרב
'
.
הינרק
|
מ
ינרק
'
.
בוט םויב
|
מ
יב
"
ט
.
תוליבקמ
ר
ש
מ
ד
םימכחו
ק
כחו
'
.
וק
השולש
מ
שלש
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ספ
ב
מ
ב
ו
םירבד
.
ר
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
רזעלא
מ
זעלא
'
.
מ
ירזע
'
.
ר
ש
ד מ
רי
ל
םימכחו
ק
ימכחו
'
.
פ
א
ד
ב
ו
םירסוא
מ
ירסוא
'
.
ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
האצוי
.
מ
עוצרב
'
.
וק
פ
א
םידרקמו
.
די
פ הציב הנשמ
"
מ ב
"
פ ימלשורי ח
"
לה ב
"
ט
גכ הציב ילבב
.

58
בוט םויב
|
ר
()
מ
יב
"
ט
.
7
הרובח
|
מ
רובח
'
.
מכחו
'
...
ןיפצרקמ אל ףא
)
וש
'
8
(
|
ר
.()
מכחו
| '
פ
א
א
י
ב
ד
םימכחו
פ
ג
[]
ק
ימכחו
'
ש
ןימכחו
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ד
םירמוא
פ
ג
א
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
י
ב
ןירמוא
.
אל ףא
|
מ
ןיא ףאו
.
ןיפצרקמ
|
פ
א
םיפצרקמ
פ
ג
[]
א
ןיפסרקמ
.
תוליבקמ
וק
פ
א
םיקחושו
.
ש
.()
וק
ק
םילפלפה
ר
ד
ב
ו
ןילפלפה
ש
םילפלפ
מ
ילפלפה
'
.
וק
פ
א
ד
י
ר
ל
·
ו
םיחירב
ר
()
ק
ש
מ
ב
ו
םיחרב
.
וק
פ
א
ק
מ
ד
םהלש
.
מ
רו
'
.
פ
א
מ
דוהי
'
ק
הדוי
.
וק
ר
ק
ש
ד
מוא
'
.
ב
מ
2
אל לבא בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמ
ןיפצרקמ
.
וק
םידרקמ
ב
ו
2
ןירדקמ
.
ב
ו
2
.()
מ
יב
"
ט
רי
ל
·
ו
.()
ב
ו
1
.()
ב
ו
1
השועש
.
ר
ש
ד
ב
מ
2
םימכחו
ק
מ
ימכחו
'
.
וק
פ
א
רי
ל
מוא
'
ר
רמוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
רי
ו
א ·
ןי
·
רי
ו
.()
וק
פ
א
םידרקמ
ב
ו
2
ןירדקמ
.
רי
ל
א
א
ף
ב
ל
רי
ו
אל לבא
.
די
ר
'
הדוהי
...
ןיפצרקמ אל ףא
"
ילבב
1
גכ הציב
.
2
אי םיחספ
:
ןיקחושו
תא
ןילפליפה
םייחירב
ןהלש
5
ר
'
וא הדוהי
'
ןיא
תא ןידרקמ
השוע אוהש ינפמ בוט םויב המהבה
מכחו ןיפצרקמ לבא הרובח
'
וא
'
ןיא
ןידרקמ
ףא
אל
ןיפצרקמ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
4
ןיקחושו
|
מ
ינחוטו
'
.
תא
|
ש
י
ב
.()
ןילפליפה
|
פ
א
ר
א
ד
ןילפלפה
פ
ג
פה
י
ןיפל
ק
םילפלפה
ש
י
ב
ןילפלפ
מ
ילפלפה
'
יב
"
ט
.
םייחירב
|
מ
יחרב
'
.
םייחירב
|
פ
ג
ק
םיחירב
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
םיחרב
מ
יחרב
'
.
ןהלש
|
פ
ר
א
ש
םהלש
מ
הלש
'
ד
ןה לש
.
5
ר
| '
הדוהי
|
פ
א
מ
דוהי
'
פ
ג
.[]
וא
| '
פ
ג
ר
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
רמוא
.
יא
ןידרקמ ן
...
ןיפצרקמ לבא
|
ןידרקמ
|
ר
ןיברקמ
מ
ידרקמ
'
.
תא
|
6
המהבה
|
מ
מהבה
'
.
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
השוע
|
מ
שוע
'
.
ןיפצרקמ
|
מ
יפצרקמ
'
.
ןיא
|
8
ןידרקמ
|
ק
ןידקרמ
מ
ידרקמ
'
.
וק
םיפצרקמ
.
וק
םיפצרקמ
.

. 'וא
2מ
ב
ו . יימש ת ה
2
. יאמש
םירמוא ד 'ירמוא
יאמש
21ו
ב
2מ
ו . ש"
ב ב רי
יימש
ןירמוא ש
ד מ ש
מ
ו·
ל . לכאית רי
. ה"
בו
.
לליה
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא
ו·
ל . לכאית רי
וב
. ש"
ב
ספ
21ו
ב
וב
21ו
. תיזכב ספ ב
מב
ספ
2ו
רי
2מ
ב
ג2ל
רי
. ןירמוא
2מ
ב
21ו
. תבתוכב ד תבתוככב ב
1
די'
ל' ה ד ' ר' פ
ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ולא
תיב בוט םויב הדלונש הציב ללה תיב
לכאת אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו לכאת 'מוא
ימש
תבתוככ ץמחו תיזכ רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב
תוליבקמ
. 'דלונש
ע
1ו
א
א
פ
2מ
ב
א
ר
ק
פ
וק
ר
ש ר
פ וק
.()
רי
ע
ת
ג2ל
רי
ק
מ ר
ד ש
ש
. ראש
'יזכב
2ו
. ץמח
ת
2מ
ב
ע
מ
מ וק
ו
ת
מ
ב
ת מ ר
59
. 'ירבד
'ירמוא
מ
. וליא א | ולא
ב
א
םירבד ד י ש ק א ר פ פ | ןירבד
. ש"
ב מ ר פ | ימש תיב
ב . יאמש ד י ש א יימש ק | ימש
. 'מוחמו
מ | ירמוחמו
. יאמש
ןירמוא
. ה"
ב ד מ ר פ | ללה תיב
. 'ציב
מ | הציב
. 'דלונש
מ | הדלונש
. ט"
יב מ | בוט םויב
. ש"
ב מ ר | ימש תיב
ב
ד י ש א
. ה"
בו
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
יימש ק פ | ימש
'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
. םירמוא
. 'כאת
מ | לכאת
| ללה תיבו
. לליה פ | ללה
ק 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
| לכאת
מ א ר
| 'מוא
ימש תיב
. ש"
ב מ ר | ימש תיב
ב
ג
. ללה ד יאמש י ש א יימש ק פ | ימש
ג
ד 'וא
מ ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק ר () פ | 'מוא
. םירמוא
. ראש
א | רואש
א
. 'יזכב
מ תיזכב ד א ר פ | תיזכ
. ץמח ד 'מחו
מ | ץמחו
א
ד 'בתוככב
מ תבתוככב ר פ | תבתוככ
. תבתוכב
: ו . ב הציב ילבב א"
לה א"
פ הציב ימלשורי א"
מ א"
פ הציב הנשמ " ... הדלונש הציב"
1
א"
פ הציב ימלשורי אלק אקסיפ םירבד ירפס ד"
מ א"
פ הציב אתפסות "... רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב"
2 1
( ש"
ב תטיש קר):
טע אמוי . ב הציב ילבב
2
. ד"
לה ה"
פ םיחספ א"
לה
ד
ק
10
ש
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ר
10
11
12
13
א

1ו
. תיזכב ב
. ללה תיב
. ןירמוא
21ו
רי
טחושה ב' :
תייזכ הזו הז 'וא
ללה תיבו
'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח
'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי
רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי אל
רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ ןכומ
ו
ת ק
21ל
רי
ש
ה"
בו
'מוא
מ ר
21ל
רי
תוליבקמ
לליה תיב
ע·
ו
ת
ע
ת
וק
א
ד מ ק ר פ וק
ע
ו
א
ת מ תיזכ ת ה ד ש ק ר פ וק
60
ד
. ה"
בו מ ללה תיב
ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
. 'יזכב
ק
ק
ב ג
מ תיזכ י ש ק א פ
15
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ג ה"
ב א ר פ | ללה תיבו
ב ג א 'מוא
י א פ פ | 'וא
. םירמוא
א תיזכב ד ר פ | תייזכ
איהש םידומ לכה בוט םויב הדלונש המהב'
: הנשמה ףוסב
הפסוה ק הציב תכסמ ד א ר תוידע תכסמ
איה הפסוהה דב
`.
רוסא אוהש םידומ לכה < הצבה ד>
הציבה ןמ < אצויה ק>
אציש חורפאו תרתומ
. המצע ינפב הנשמ איה הציבב קבו
האבה הנשמ תליחתב
. ןידומו
2מ
. םירמוא ד 'וא
ב מ
. ללה תיב
ו·
ל
רי
ד ר
21ו
. רקדב ב
ש ק
2מ
. ףועו הייח המהב ב
. הייח
2מ
. ט"
יב
2ו
2מ
ו . ש"
ב ב ב
1ו
. יאמש ב ד ש יימש
'ירמוא
ק ןירמוא
2מ
ב
ו·
ל
רי
וק
ב מ
רי מ ר
ק
ש וק
א
ד מ ש ר פ וק
2מ
ה"
בו ב מ ר לליה תיבו
2מ
. ןירמוא ש 'וא
וק
ב מ וק
. כ"
א אלא
. 'פע
21ו
. םוי דועבמ ןכומ ב
וב
1ו
מב
א ו
םידומו ספ ב ספ מ פ םידומ
2
(" ןכומ רפע"
דע)
: ט
2מ
ב
2מ
ב
מ
מ
וק
1
. ב הציב ילבב
. 'וחשי
מ | טחושה
| ףועו היח
| היח
א . ט"
יב מ י | בוט םויב
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ | ימש
. םירמוא ד 'וא
מ ןירמוא ש | 'מוא
. רקדב ד מ
. ה"
בו
מ
. 'ופחי
מ | רופחי
א ג א
י ש א ר פ פ | לקדב
. 'סכיו
מ | הסכיו
ג ה"
ב פ | ללה תיבו
. םירמוא ד 'וא
מ | 'מוא
א
מ י ר
א
. םוי 'ועבמ
ןכומ מ םוי דועבמ ןכומ פ | ןכומ
א א
ןידומ ק ןידומו ר םידומו ד י ש א פ | םידומ
. 'ידומו
מ
. 'ופחיש
מ | רופחיש
. ב"
לה א"
פ ימלשורי
. 'חושה
ףועו הייח טוחשי ק | טוחשי
. כ"
אא מ | ןכ םא אלא
|
רפע
ב"
מ א"
פ הציב הנשמ
14
15
16
17
18
ב

2ו
רי
2ל
רי
רקפה

'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו םיבק תעברא
ד' :
החכש 'וא
ללה תיבו החכש וניא
שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה
'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו םילכלו רקבלו
ה' :
החכש 'מוא
ללה
תיבו החכש וניא
תוליבקמ
ו·
ל . ןיבק רי ד מ ש ר
ו ל . וב וחכשו רי רי ד מ ש
. ש"
ב
. יאמש ד ש יימש
ל
. רמוא ד ןירמוא
ש 'מוא
וניא ל . רי
א
פ
א
ר פ
ו
רי מ ר
ק
רי ק ר וק
וניא
ק
ג·
א
. ה"
בו מ ר ללה תיב
ל א
. ןירמוא
ש 'מוא
רי ד ק ר פ
ל . החכש וניא רי ק החכש וניא
32ו
. הפגל רי
. יאמש
32ל
רי
1ו
רי
.()
ד ש ק ר
פ
ו
וק
. 'והש
א
וק
א
פ
ד
פ וק
. ש"
ב
יימש
ןירמוא
. 'חכש
ד ש
מ ר
ק
ש
מ
ו
וק
ש
. ה"
בו מ ר ללה תיב
.
'וא
מ ןירמוא
32
.(" וחכשו"
דע )
. ר'ש דגלו
. רקבל
. םיליכלו
מ
מ
ד ק
וק
62
. םירמוא
25
. 'יבק
מ ןיבק
. וחכשו ד מ
. ש"
ב
. יאמש
ןירמוא ש 'מוא
ד
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
י ש א ר פ | םיבק
א א
י ש ק פ פ
א
ד מ י א ר פ
ש
א
| וחיכשו
| ימש תיב
יימש ק | ימש
א
פ | 'וא
י ק א ר
. 'ניא
מ | וניא
. 'חכש
מ | החכש
א . ה"
בו מ י א ר לליה תיב פ | ללה
תיבו
א א
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר פ | 'וא
. 'חכש
מ | החכש
םושמ)
הנשמה לכ טמשוה מ | ד הנשמ
.( תמדוקה הנשמ ףוסב תומודה
. םירמוא
ד
א
א
. הפגל ד י ש א ר פ פ
| אוהש
| אפגל
| שידגלו
א . רקבל ק פ פ | רקבלו
| םילכלו
. וחיכשו א | וחכשו
א . ש"
ב י ר פ | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש א יימש ק | ימש
ןירמוא ש 'רמוא
א 'וא
פ | 'מוא
1
| החכש
א . ה"
בו י א ר פ | ללה תיבו
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'וא
פ | 'מוא
א
. ד הנשמ ךשמה פ | ה הנשמ
. א"
מ ו"
פ ימלשורי א"
מ ו"
פ האפ הנשמ "... הדשה ירמוע לכ"
3
1,2
א"
לה ח"
פ תובותכ ב"
לה ו"
פ ימלשורי ב"
מ ו"
פ האפ הנשמ
24
25
26
27
28
ג
ד

מ 21 2 1
ה"
בו ב מ ר ה"
ב ר
1
1
ןירמוא ד ןירמוא
ש 'ירמוא
2 . םירמוא ד
2 2 1
2ו
ש ק ר םיינעהו רי
.()
. יעיבר
ו·
מ 1ו
21 .
ש"
ב ב רי מ
2ו
21 21 . יאמש רי ד ש יימש
21 מ 21
. ןירמוא
ש 'וא
ב
2 . ןיא וק ןיא
2 . רועב ד רוע
ו 2 ללה תיב וק לליה תיב
21 . ללה תיב ש
2 1 מ 21
ד ק 'וא
ב מ
1ו
. רמוא רי
. רועיב ול שיו שמוח ול שי
ו·
מ . ש"
ב ב
21
ק
2
מ וק
ו 1
וק
י 1 ב ר
ו 1
וק
2א
2
פ וק
מ
ב
2
21ו
21
. יימש ק יאמש רי ד
1 1
1 מ 21
ןירמוא ד ש 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ב מ
2 ו
. שי וק שי
1 . תללוע
2ל
רי
. ה"
בו
2
1
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא
ש
: דנ ןישודיק ילבב
שמוח ול ןיא 'מוא
ימש תיב יעבר םרכ
תיב ול שי 'מוא
ללה תיבו רועיב ול ןיאו
תוללוע ול שיו טרפ ול שי 'מוא
ימש
'מוא
ללה תיבו ןמצעל ןידופ םיונעו
21 21 1
ד מ ש
1
ק
2
ר
21
1-א
פ
21
מ ר
21
ש
1
ק
2
וק
1
וק
2
מ וק
.()
21-א
ו·
מ
ב
21
פ וק
1ו
1ל
. םיינעו רי רי
. םידופ
. םמצעל
21
ו
ר ללה תיב
1 . 'יבו
ד ללה תיב
1 מ 21
'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ב
מ 21
ב מ
תוליבקמ
2
מ
1
ק
21
ר
2
ק
1
ד
21
וק
21
ש
2
מ וק
63
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| יעבר םרכ
. יעיבר ד | יעבר
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
. יימש ק יאמש ד ש פ | ימש
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
.() פ | ול ןיאו שמוח
. 'מוח
מ | שמוח
א . ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א ר
| ןיאו
. 'ועיב
מ | רועיב
לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
ד ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק ר 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
. םירמוא
י"
ע טמשוה () מ | ( 2 'רוש)
'מוא
... ול שי
. תומודה
. רועיב ול שי ד | ול שי
א . ש"
ב י ר | ימש תיב
מ
םיינעו
פ
. יאמש ד ש א יימש ק פ | ימש
א
. ןירמוא ש 'וא
ד פ פ | 'מוא
| ול שיו
. 'וללוע
מ תולילוע ק | תוללוע
| ןמצעל ןידופ םיונעו
א
ג·
א
םיינעהו ד י ש א ר פ | םיונעו
. םינעהו ק 'יינעו
. םידופ ד 'ידופ
מ | ןידופ
. 'מצעל
מ | ןמצעל
לליה תיב
פ | ללה תיבו
| תיבו
פ | 'מוא
א . ה"
בו מ י א ר
. םירמוא ד () מ 'ירמוא
ש 'וא
2
1
2
1
. ג"
מ ה"
פ ש"
עמ ו"
מ ז"
פ האפ ימלשורי ג"
מ ה"
פ ש"
עמ ז"
מ ז"
פ האפ
1
הנשמ
29
ה
1
2
3

64
תגל ולוכ
:
ו'
תיבח
לש
םיתיז
םילגלוגמ
5
וא ימש תיב
'
וניא
ךירצ
בקנל
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
ךירצ
בקנל
םידומו
םאש
הבקינ
אהומתסו
םירמש
איהש
הרוהט
4
ולוכ
|
ר
()
מ
ד
ולכ
.
נשמ
ו ה
|
פ
א
ה הנשמ
'
.
תיבח
|
מ
יבח
'
.
םיתיז לש
|
פ
א
ש
םיתיזלש
פ
א
ק
ד
םיתז לש
ר
י
א
םיתזלש
מ
ןיי לש
.
םילגלוגמ
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ןילגלוגמ
.
5
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ש
א
ד
יאמש
.
וא
| '
פ
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
וניא
|
מ
ןיא
.
ךירצ
|
מ
כירצ
'
.
בקנל
|
ד
בקניל
.
וא ללה תיבו
'
בקנל ךירצ
|
ק
()
ע טמשוה
"
י
תומודה
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
ב
"
ה
א
ללה תיב
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
6
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
ךירצ
|
מ
כירצ
'
.
םידומו
|
פ
םידומ
ר
ןידומו
מ
ידומו
'
.
הבקינ
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הבקנ
מ
בקינ
'
.
7
אהומתסו
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הומתסו
מ
מותסו
'
.
תוליבקמ
וק
21
ולכ
.
ב
מ
םיתז לש
.
ב
מ
ןילגלוגמ
.
ב
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ב
ו
יאמש
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ןיא
.
ב
מ
הל ךירצ
ב
ו
הכירצ
.
ב
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ב
מ
·
ו
הכירצ
.
ב
מ
·
ו
הומתסו
.
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
בקנל
|
מ
()
ד
בקניל
.
םירמש
|
מ
ירמש
'
.
איהש
|
מ
יהש
'
.
הרוהט
|
מ
רוהט
'
.
ו
"
תיבח
...
הרוהט
)
וש
'
7
(
וט תומבי ילבב
:

ו .(
ת
ו
לבטו דרי אמטינו רוהט ןמש ךסה
רוהט ףטנמ יפ לע ףא 'מוא
ימש תיב
םא ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'וא
ללה תיבו
ימש תיב ותליחתמ אמט ןמש היה
'וא
ללה תיבו ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
. אמטנ
ו·
ל
רי
אמטנו
. דרי
ע
ת
ע
ת
ו ע . יאמש רי ת
. פ"
עא
. דרויו תתושש
ל
רי
ע
ת
ע
ע
. לליה תיבו ת ללה תיב ת
ב רסח עטקה בור)
ב"
לה ב"
פ
תוליבקמ
. 'מוא
ו . אמט
ל
רי
רי
ו . םאו רי
ג·
ל
ג·
ל
. ןתליחתמ
. ש"
ב
. יאמש
ע
ת
רי
רי
ו
רי
ג·
ל
רי
ו
רי
ו ל . רמוא רי 'מוא
רי
65
. 'מטמו
מ
10
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ד
. ןמשב | ןמש
. 'והט
מ | רוהט
א אמטנו ד י ש ק ר [] פ | אמטינו
א
. דרי ד מ ק א ר פ פ | דריו
א
. 'ובטל
מ לובטל י ש פ | לבטו
א . ש"
ב מ י ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש א יימש ק | ימש
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
א . פ"
עא מ י א ר יפע"
א פ | יפ לע ףא
א
. ףטנימש מ ףטנמ אוהש י ש ר | ףטנמ
. 'והט
מ | רוהט
א
י ללה תיב א ה"
ב ר לליה תיב פ
. 'ירמוא
. 'יחתמ
ד
| ללה תיבו
. ה"
בו מ
א ג א
ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר פ | 'וא
| ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ
. 'כיס
מ | תכיס
.() ר | ותליחתמ ... היה םא
א . םאו ד () ק פ | םא
מ
ותלחתמ
. ש
. יאמש
א
ד י ש
א " ב מ י ר
ד ש א
.() מ | אמט
ק פ | ותליחתמ
| יימש תיב
יימש ק פ | ימש
.() ר | ללה תיבו ... 'מוא
א
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'וא
מ פ פ | 'מוא
. 'כיס
מ | תכיס
א . ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
א
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר פ | 'וא
. ג"
לה ח"
פ תוכרב ימלשורי "... רוהט ןמש ךסה"
תוידע אתפסות " ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'וא
ללה תיבו ... ןמש ךסה"
9
10
11
12
ו
8

66
ר חיפוט הקשמ
'
וא הדוהי
'
תיב םשמ
ללה
חיפוט
חיפטמו
:
ז
'
השאה
15
ניד הוושבו רנידב תשדקתמ
'
ירבדכ
תיב
ימש
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
הטורפב
הושבו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
13
הקשמ
|
ש
י
א
הקשמכ
מ
קשמ
'
.
חיפוט
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
חפוט
מ
פוט
'
.
ר
'
הדוהי
...
חיפוט
)
רוש
'
15
(
|
מ
()
טמשוה
ע
"
תומודה י
.
הדוהי
|
פ
א
פ
דוהי
'
.
וא
| '
ר
ק
י
א
מוא
'
א
ש
ד
רמוא
.
םשמ
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םושמ
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
י
א
ב
"
ה
.
14
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
חיפוט
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
חפוט
.
השאה
|
מ
שאה
'
.
רנידב
|
מ
נידב
'
.
הוושבו
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
הושבו
מ
ושבו
'
.
ניד
| '
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רניד
.
ירבדכ
|
פ
א
מ
בדכ
'
.
16
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
י
א
ב
"
ה
א
ש
תיב
ללה
מ
בו
"
ה
.
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
הטורפב
|
מ
טורפב
'
.
הושבו
|
פ
א
הוושבו
מ
ושבו
'
.
רי
ל
·
ו
חפוט
.
רי
ל
·
ו
םושמ
.
רי
ל
·
ו
חפוט
.
חיפטמו
|
פ
ד
חפטמו
מ
חיפטמ
.
15
תשדקתמ
|
ק
שדקתמ
מ
שדקתמ
'
.
תוליבקמ

67
17
הטורפ
|
מ
טורפ
'
.
המכו
|
ש
י
א
המכ
מ
מכו
'
.
דחא
|
18
הנומשמ
|
פ
ר
י
א
מ
הנמשמ
ד
הנמשב
.
רסאב
|
פ
א
·
ג
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
רסיאב
מ
סיאב
'
.
יקלטיאה
|
ר
יקילטיאה
ק
ש
יקלטאה
מ
לטיאה
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
ש
יאמ
.
רטופ
|
מ
טופ
'
.
םדא
|
ר
ד
()
מ
דא
'
.
תא
|
ד
.()
20
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
ב
"
ה
א
ללה תיב
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ןירסוא
|
מ
סוא
'
.
אוה הז יאו
|
פ
ד
והזיא
ר
והז יא
א
ש
הז יא
אוה
י
א
אוה הזיא
מ
והזיאו
.
21
טג
|
ק
.()
דחיתינש
|
פ
א
פ
מ
ד
דחייתנש
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
דחיתנש
.
המיע
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
המע
מ
מע
'
.
תוליבקמ
ש
ב
ו
2
המכ
ב
מ
2
מכו
'
.
ב
מ
2
וה
'
.
ד
ב
מ
2
טורפ
'
.
ד
תחא
.
ר
ב
ו
21
הנמשמ
מ
ב
מ
2
נמשמ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
ספ
י
ל
רי
ו
ספ
י
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
רסיאב
.
ש
מ
אה
יקלט
רי
ו
ייקלטיאה
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
יאמש
.
מ
טופ
'
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
.()
מ
דא
'
.
ק
שא
ב
ו
.()
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ש
ללה תיב
.
ר
ירסוא
'
ק
מוא
'
מ
סוא
'
.
ר
ד
והז יא
ק
ש
אוה הז יא
מ
ב
ו
והזיאו
רי
ל
·
ו
והז יאו
.
פ
א
ק
חייתינש
ד
ר
ש
דחיתנש
מ
חיתנש
'
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
דחייתנש
.
ר
ק
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
המע
מ
מע
'
.
פ
א
רחאמ רחאמ
מ
ד
רחא
.
ז
"
המכו
...
יקלטיאה
"
פ ןישודיק הנשמ
"
לה א
"
פ ןישודיק ימלשורי א
"
לה א
"
א
ןישודיק ילבב
1
ב
.
2
בי
:
דחא הטורפ איה המכו הטורפ
ימש תיב יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ
מוא
'
רטופ
אוה
םדא
תא
ותשא
טגב
20
תיבו ןשי
ללה
ןירסוא
יאו
הז
אוה
טג
ןשי
לכ
דחיתינש
המיע
רחאמ
תכ
"
ע לש י
תויד
איה
|
מ
יה
'
.
הטורפ
|
מ
טורפ
'
.
19
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
אוה
|
פ
מ
()
א
ה
'
או
'
.
ותשא
|
רחאמ
|
ד
רחא
.
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
מ
וא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
מ
שא
'
.
"
ב
"
מוא ש
'
רטופ
...
הל ובתכש
"
פ ןיטיג הנשמ
"
מ ח
"
יטיג ימלשורי ד
פ ן
"
לה ח
"
ד
.
טע ןיטיג ילבב
:

68
הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה הל ובתכש
ומע
וא ימש תיב יקדנופב
'
הניא
הכירצ
ונממ
טג
ינש
ו
תיב
ללה
מוא
'
25
ןמזב יתמא ינש טג ונממ הכירצ
השרגתינש
ןמ
ןיאושנה
ןידומו
22
ובתכש
|
מ
ונתנש
.
שרגמה
|
פ
א
ק
ח הנשמ
.
23
ומע
|
פ
א
ומיע
מ
מע
'
יקדנופב
|
מ
דנופב
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
א
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
י
א
מוא
'
ד א
רמוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
הניא
|
מ
ניא
'
.
24
הכירצ
|
מ
כירצ
'
.
ונממ
|
ש
ונמה
י
א
מ
ונמיה
.
ינש
|
פ
א
ר
ק
יניש
ד
םינש
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
א
ג
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
ר
ב
"
ה
.
25
הכירצ
|
מ
כירצ
'
.
ונממ
|
ש
ונמה
י
א
מ
ונמיה
.
ינש
|
פ
א
ר
א
ג
יניש
.
יתמא
|
יתמא
|
פ
ר
א
י
א
מ
ד
יתמיא
.
ןמזב
|
מ
מזב
'
.
26
השרגיתנש
|
השרגתינש
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
השרגתנש
מ
שרגתנש
'
.
השרגיתנב ןידומו ןיאושנה ןמ
|
ק
.()
ןיאושנה
|
פ
א
ר
י
א
ןיאושינה
פ
יאושנה
'
א
םיאושינה
מ
יאושנה
'
.
ןידומו
|
פ
ידומ
'
א
ש
י
א
םידומו
מ
ידומו
'
ד
םא לבא
.
תוליבקמ
מ
ב
מ
3
נלו
'
.
ר
ש
ד
קדנופב
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
31
ב
"
ש
.
ק
ש
ד
רי
ו
יאמש
.
וק
ר
ק
רי
ל
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
מ
ב
מ
3
כירצ
'
.
וק
מ
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
31
ונמיה
ש
ונמה
.
וק
ר
רי
ל
יניש
.
ר
ב
"
ה
מ
ב
מ
3
בו
"
ה
.
ש
ןירמוא
מ
ד
ב
מ
3
וא
'
.
מ
ב
מ
3
כירצ
'
.
ש
ב
ו
31
ונמיה
מ
מיה
'
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
3
ימיה
ונ
.
וק
רי
ל
יניש
.
מ
א
"
דוהי ר
'
מיא
'
.
ר
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
1
יתמיא
מ
מיא
'
.
ר
ונממ השרגתנש
.
וק
השרגש
פ
א
ר
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
1
השרגתנש
ש
תשרגתמש
.
וק
םיאושנה
פ
א
ןייושינה
ק
רי
ל
·
ו
ןיאושינה
מ
יאושנה
'
.
וק
פ
א
ב
ו
321
םידומו
ק
לבא
ש
םידומ
מ
ב
מ
32
ידומו
'
.
ז
"
שרגמה
..
הב סג
"
ג הנשמ
פ ןיטי
"
ימ ח
"
א
פ ימלשורי
"
לה ח
'
י
"
א
.
ןיטיג ילבב
1
אפ
.
2
אפ
") :
ןידומו
("...
3
הס ןישודיק
) .
עטקהמ ץוח
"
יתמא
...
ןיאושנה ןמ
("
תכ
"
דע לש י
תוי
שרגמה
|
מ
רגמה
'
.
תא
|
ד
.()
הנלו
|
מ
נלו
'
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
ד
וא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
מ
תכש
'
.
מ
רגמה
'
.
ר
ד
המע
.
מ
יא
'
.

ש
2מ
ב
השרגתינש ק השרגתנב
השרגתנשב ד 'שרגתנ
םאש
. 'שרגתנשב
321ו
מ ןיסוריאה ב
2מ
ב 'יסוריאה
321ו
ק ובל ןיאש ב
הניאש םיסוראה ןמ השרגתינב
ובילש ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ
תורצה תא ןיריתמ ימש תיב הב סג
ןיחא השלש ןירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל
. 'מיה
32מ
ב
3מ
. ה"
בו ב
מ
ו·
ל
רי
321ו
ב
מ
3מ
3מ
תוליבקמ
ו·
ל
רי ר
א
פ
תשרגתמב
ב 'שרגתנב
ב
. ןיאש
ו·
ל
רי ד ר ש
. ןיסוראה
3ו
ב 'ניאש
א
ק פ
32
מ
ב מ
32מ
. 'כירצ
ב 'ירצ
321
ונמה ש ונמיה
. יניש
2ו
.() ב יפל
א
ד מ ש ר פ וביל
. ובלש
. ש"
ב
1ו
וי
ו . יאמש ב ספ רי ד
. 'יריתמ
מ םיריתמ
. ()
432ו
. ןיחאל ב
ר ללה תיב
מ
. םיחא
מ
ו 32מ
ב ב ק
ל
רי ר וק
2מ
ב מ
ןיאש
וק
432מ
ב מ ר
ש יימש ק
א
פ וק
431ו
ב
432מ
וי
א
ב ספ ד ש פ
א
ו
פ וק
ללה תיב
2מ
. ןיריתמ ב
. השולש
ד ש ק ר
א
וק
פ וק
69
א
ר
םאש
מ
פ
מ
ןיסוריאה
השרגתנב
תשרגתנב
ד
א
י
.()
1
ש
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
פ | השרגתינב
א
י השגרתנשב
. השרגתנ ד 'שרגתנ
ש א ר פ
א
פ
. הניא
מ
א
'יאש
מ ובל ןיאש ד י
ד
| םיסוראה
. ןיסוראה
'ניאש
מ | הניאש
. 'כירצ
מ | הכירצ
א ונמיה י ונמה
ש | ונממ
. יניש א ר | ינש
. יפל א ר | ינפמ
א
ש ק א ר פ פ | ובילש
. ובל
. ט הנשמ ק | ןיריתמ ימש תיב
. ש"
ב מ ר | ימש תיב
א ג . יאמש ד י ש א יימש ק פ | ימש
. 'יריתמ
מ ןיריתמ 'ירמוא
ק | ןיריתמ
.() פ | תא
. 'ורצה
מ | תורצה
א . ןיחאל ד מ ק א פ | םיחאל
א . ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א ר | ללה תיבו
. לליה פ | ללה
א . םירסוא י 'ירסוא
מ פ | ןירסוא
א
א
א
א
ןירישכמ ( ה"
בו י)
ללה תיבו ( הנוהכה י ש)
הנהכה ןמ ןילסופ ( ש"
ב י)
יאמש תיב וצלח ןירסוא ד י ש | ןירסוא
א
א
א
א
וליאש ( פ"
עא י)
יפ לע ( ףא ש)
ףאו ןילסופ ( ה"
בו י)
ללה תיבו ןירישכמ ( ש"
ב י)
יאמש תיב ( ומביתנ י ש)
ומבייתנ
א
א
א
א
י)
ללה תיבמ םישנ ( אשילמ י אשלמ ש)
אשיל ( ש"
ב י)
יאמש תיב וענמנ אל ןירישכמ ולאו ןילסופ ( ולאש י ש)
א
א
א
ולא ויהש תואמטהו תורהטה לכו ( ש"
במ י)
יאמש תיבמ [() י ש]
< םישנ אשילמ>
( ה"
ב י)
ללה תיב אלו ( ה"
במ
א
א
א
. ולא ( ג"
ע י)
בג לע ולא תורהט ( ןישוע י ש)
םישוע [() י ש]
< תויהל>
וענמנ אל ןיאמטמ
ולאו ןירהטמ
3 2 1
: גי . ט . גי
תומבי ילבב
. ו"
לה א"
פ ימלשורי
ו"
מ א"
פ תומבי הנשמ
. ט הנשמ ד | ןיחא השלש
. 'שלש
מ | השלש
א
. 'יחא
מ םיחא ד י ש ר פ | ןיחא
" ןירסוא ... ןיריתמ ש"
ב"
4
(
ש"
ב תטיש קר).
זכ
27
28
29
ח
1

70
ןיאושנ ןהמ םינש
ל
דחאו תויחא יתש
הב השע תויחא ילעבמ דחא תמ הנפומ
הנפומ
רמאמ
רחאו
ךכ
תמ
ינשה ויחא
5
מוא ימש תיב
'
אצת זלהו ומע ותשא
תוחא םשמ
השא
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
איצומ
ןיאושנ
|
פ
ןיאשונ
ק
ש
ד
םיאושנ
מ
יאושנ
'
.
תמ
|
דחא
|
מ
חא
'
.
תויחא
|
מ
ויחא
'
.
רמאמ
|
פ
מאמ
'
מ
.()
ךכ רחאו
|
מ
חאו
'
ךכ
י
א
חאו
"
כ
.
ינשה
|
פ
א
ר
ינישה
.
5
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
פ
ג
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
מוא
| '
פ
א
מ
וא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
זלהו
|
ר
וזלהו
מ
וזל וז
ד
הלהו
.
6
םשמ
|
פ
ש
[]
ר
א
ק
י
א
ד
םושמ
מ
מ
וש
'
.
תוחא
|
מ
וחא
'
.
השא
|
מ
שא
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
תוליבקמ
ב
ו
1
.()
פ
א
ש
ד
רי
ל
1
רי
ו
1
ב
ו
1
םיאושנ
מ
יאושנ
'
.
וק
הנפמ
מ
נפומ
'
.
ק
ש ו
הנפמ
ש
רי
ל
2
הנפומה
מ
נפומ
'
רי
ו
2
נפומה
'
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
2
ב
"
ש
ב
ו
1
שב
"
א
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
21
יאמש
.
פ
א
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
מ
ב
מ
2
א
ו
'
ד
םירמוא
.
ר
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
וזלהו
מ
ד
הלהו
.
ד
ותשא
.
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ש
ד
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
ללה תיב
.
תכ
"
ע לש י
תויד
2
םינש
|
מ
ינש
'
.
ןהמ
|
פ
א
ד
םהמ
.
ל
יתש
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
מ
יתש
.
תויחא
|
מ
ויחא
'
.
דחאו
|
א
ו
רחא
.
3
הנפומ
|
ש
ד
הנפמ
מ
נפומ
'
.
השע
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
השעו
מ
שעו
'
.
4
הנפומ
|
מ
נפומ
'
ד
הנפמ
.
אצת
|
מ
צת
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
מוא
'
ק
י
א
םירמוא
ש
ןירמוא
.
איצומ
|
מ
יצומ
'
.
ק
רי
ל
21
ספ
י
ל
ספ
י
ו
רי
ו
21
ב
ו
1
יתש
.
מ
חאו
'
רי
ו
1
תחאו
.
רי
ל
1
רי
ו
1
ב
מ
2
תמו
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
השעו
.
ד
מאמ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
21
ינישה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
םושמ
מ
ושמ
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
21
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
מ
וא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
מ
יצומ
'
.
ח
"
ןיחא השלש
"...
פ תומבי הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
תומבי ימלשורי ה
1
פ
"
לה ג
"
ד
2
פ
"
לה ג
"
א
)
ממ ץוח
"
איה וז
"
ךליאו
.(
תומבי ילבב
1
טכ
.
2
אנ
) :
2
ב תטיש דע
"
ש
(

ו יואו ב
ול יוא
. רמוא
21ו
.() רי
ויחא תשא תאו הצילחו טגב ותשא תא
ותשא לע ול יא ורמאש איה וז הצילחב
תא רידמה ט ' :
ויחא תשא לע ול יאו
'מוא
ימש תיב הטמה שימשתמ ותשא
תחא תבש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תותבש יתש
21ל
רי
הצילחבו
. תשאו
. איה וזו
ו . ולא ד ול יוא ב
ו·
ל
ד
2
1
ז"
פ ח"
לה ה"
פ
רי
ולאו
ד
ו·
ל
ול יא
ו·
ל
תוליבקמ
.()
ק
ו
א
ב ד מ ק ר פ וק
. 'צילחב
והז ד 'יה
וזו
. 'יה
וליא
רי
רי מ
מ
וליאו
מ
מ
מ
א
ש ק ר פ וק
א
ש ק ר פ וק
. ול
21ו
21ל
.() ד הטימה רי רי
ע 21ו
. יאמש תיבש ת ש"
ב ב
1ו
ע . יאמש רי ת ד ש יימש
2מ
1ל
ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ב רי
2מ
ו
. רמוא ד 'וא
ב ת מ
ו 1ו
ב רי
ןירמוא
1ל
רי
ש
מ ש ק ר
ע א
ת ק פ וק
2מ
ב מ ר
ו
ת ק
א
מ פ
ע
2מ
. לליה תיבו ת ללה תיב ש ה"
בו ב מ ר
ימלשורי
ד"
מ ב"
פ
'ירמוא
.()
. רחא
ר
ד
2מ
ב
71
א
. ולא ד ול יוא מ י
א
ד ול יוא מ ול יואו י
. םירמוא
ד
א
י ללה תיב א ה"
ב
10
תוידע
לש י"
תכ
| תא
ג
.() מ ר הצילחבו פ | הצילחו
א . תשאו י ש א ר | תשא תאו
ויחא
. ותשא
מ | תשא
. 'צילחב
מ | הצילחב
. והז ד | איה וז
. 'יה
מ | איה
א וליא ק ול-יא
פ | ול יא
א וליאו ק פ | ול יאו
. ולאו
. 'שא
מ | תשא
. 'י
הנשמ ד ק | ט הנשמ
. 'ידמה
מ | רידמה
. 'ימשתמ
מ | שימשתמ
א
. 'טמה
מ פ הטימה פ | הטמה
א . ש"
ב מ י ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש א יימש ק פ | ימש
ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
א 'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
. ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ר
. 'ותבש
מ | תותבש
לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
. ה"
בו מ
א
ד מ פ פ | 'מוא
. 'בש
מ | תבש
. 'חא
מ | תחא
תוידע אתפסות ח"
מ ה"
פ תובותכ הנשמ " תחא תבש...
רידמה"
2 1
.
אע : אס תובותכ ילבב .( דבלב ןושארה טפשמ)
א"
לה
7
8
9
10
11
ט

2ו
ב
ל 2מ
םינמש ב םינמשל
ימש תיב דחאו םינומשל רוא תלפמה
ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןברקה ןמ ןירטופ
תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תיציצב ןידס
ןירטופ ימש תיב תבש תלכלכ ןיבייחמ ללה
ד
י'
תוליבקמ
1ו
. רוא ן מכ ק רואל ב
1ו
םינומש ב ק םינמש
. םינומשל
2ו
. יאמש ב
. 'ירטופ
2מ
. לליה תיבו ב ה"
בו מ
. 'יבייחמ
מ םיבייחמ
. ש"
ב
מ ר
מ ר
1ו
ב
2מ
ב ד יימש
םירטופ
. ןברקמ
ד
ללה תיב
. ש"
ב
. יאמש
2
2ו
ב ד
1ו
ב
מ
ק
ק
2ו
ב
ד ר וק
2ו
ב
א
ק פ
2מ
ב
1מ
ב ה
2מ
1מ
. ה"
בו ב לליה תיבו ב
ו 21ע
. יאמש רי ת
ד ש
. הלכלכ
. תבשה
. ש"
ב
21ו
יימש ת
. 'ירטופ
2ע
ת
1ו
ת
מ ר
ק
מ
1
72
. 'לפמה
מ | תלפמה
. רואל ד | רוא
א
א
םינמשל י 'ינומשל
פ םינמש ר פ | םינומשל
. םינומש ד 'ינמשל
מ
. 'חאו
מ | דחאו
א
. 'וא'
'ש"
ב מ ש"
ב י א ר | ימש תיב
א
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ פ | ימש
א . ה"
בו מ י
א
א . ה"
בו מ י א ה"
ב
.() ק | ( 16
. 'טופ
מ 'ירטופ
פ | ןירטופ
| ןברקה ןמ
. 'ברקה
פ | ןברקה
ר לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
| ןיבייחמ
ג·
א
. 'יציצב
מ תציצב פ | תיציצב
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ | ימש
. 'ירטופ
מ פ | ןירטופ
ר לליה תיב פ | ללה
תיבו
. 'ייחמ
מ 'יבייחמ
פ | ןיבייחמ
'וש)
ןיבייחמ ... תבש תלכלכ
. 'לכלכ
מ | תלכלכ
. תבשה ד | תבש
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר פ | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש | ימש
. 'טופ
מ | ןירטופ
. ג םיחספ . ז תותירכ ילבב ו"
מ א"
פ תותירכ הנשמ " ןיבייחמ ... תלפמה"
2
1
. מ תוחנמ . הכ תבש ילבב בי:
בכ םירבדל םיאנת שרדמ " ןיבייחמ ... ןידס"
2
1
ימלשורי ד"
מ ב"
פ תוידע א"
מ ג"
פ תורשעמ אתפסות ב"
מ ד"
פ תורשעמ הנשמ "... תבש תלכלכ"
.
ב"
לה ד"
פ תורשעמ
15
תוידע לש י"
תכ
12
13
14
15
ט

73
ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו
:
י'
רזנש ימ
ותוריזנ תא םילשמהו הבורמ תוריזנ
ךכ רחאו
אב
ץראל
תיב
ימש
וא
'
ריזנמ
19
םישולש
םוי
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
ריזנ
הליחת
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
הבורמ
|
ר
הברה
מ
בורמ
'
.
םילשמהו
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םילשהו
פ
םלשהו
מ
ילשה
'
.
תא
|
ר
א
מ
ד
.()
ותוריזנ
|
מ
וריזנ
'
.
18
אב ךכ רחאו
|
ךכ רחאו
|
י
א
חאו
"
כ
מ
חאו
'
ךכ
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
םוי םישולש ריזנמ
|
19
םישולש
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םישלש
מ
ישלש
'
.
םוי
|
ק
.()
ללה תיבו
|
פ
ב
"
ה
ר
א
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
וא
| '
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
ד
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
ריזנ
|
מ
יזנ
'
.
תוליבקמ
מ
וריזנ
'
ספ
ב
מ
ויריזנ
'
.
מ
בורמ
'
ב ד
ו
1
הברה
.
וק
םילשיה
פ
א
ק
רי
ל
·
ו
םילשה
ר
ש
ד
ב
ו
1
םילשהו
מ
ילשהו
'
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
2
ב
"
ש
ב
ו
1
שב
"
א
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
2
יאמש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
ירמוא
'
.
מ
ריזנ ימי םישלש
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
21
םישלש
ב
מ
2
ישלש
'
.
ב
מ
2
.()
ר
מ
ב
מ
2
בו
"
ה
ש
ללה תיב
.
וק
פ
א
ר
רי
ל
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
רמוא
.
מ
יזנ
'
.
16
לה תיבו
ל
|
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ןיבייחמ
|
מ
יבייחמ
'
.
י הנשמ
|
ק
ד
אי הנשמ
.
רזנש
|
ר
א
ד
רדנש
.
17
תוריזנ
|
מ
וריזנ
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
רמוא
'
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
ריזנמ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ריזנ
מ
יזנ
'
.
הליחתכ
ג
ש
5
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
הלחתכ
מ
יחתכ
'
.
וק
ה תיבו
י
לל
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ת
ע
21
לליה תיבו
.
מ
.()
מ
אבו
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
ריזנ
ד
ריזינ
.
ר
ש
הלחתכ
מ
ב
מ
2
לחתכ
'
ד
הליחתב
ב
ו
21
הלחתב
.
י
"
רזנש ימ
...
הליחתכ
"
פ ריזנ הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
ו
פ ריזנ ימלשורי
"
לה ג
"
ו
.
ילבב
21
טי
) :
2
'
ב
"
ש
'
ךליאו
(

74
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
יתש
|
פ
ק
ינש
.
יתיכ
|
פ
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יתכ
.
םידיע
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םידע
מ
ידע
'
.
תודיעמ
|
י
א
ןידיעמ
מ
ודיעמ
'
.
21
ולא
|
ג
ש
5
א
וליא
.
ולאו
|
א
וליאו
.
שמח
|
מ
שלש
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
5
א
ש
ד
יאמש
פ
ק
יימש
.
וא
| '
פ
א
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
פ
מוא
'
ר
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
הקלחנ
|
ש
י
א
הקלחתנ
מ
קלחנ
'
.
23
ןיא
|
ק
מ
ד
ןיאו
.
ןאכ
|
ג
ש
5
ןכ
.
תוריזנ
|
א
נ
'
ץראל הצוחב תוריז
'
מ
ע
ד'
ו
'
וריזנ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
וא
| '
פ
א
א
י
א
מוא
'
ר
ש
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
תוליבקמ
ר
ינש
.
ר
ש
יתכ
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
רי
ל
32
רי
ל
3
·
ג
רי
ו
321
ב
ו
םידע
מ
ידע
'
.
ש
רי
ו
2
םידיעמ
מ
ידיעמ
'
רי
ל
2
ןידיעמ
.
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
.()
וק
פ
א
ק
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
וליא
.
ר
ש
ד
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ןידיעמ
מ
ידיעמ
'
רי
ל
3
·
ג
רי
ו
3
ןידיעמ
ותוא
.
ד
רדנש
.
מ
יתש
'
.
פ
א
ק
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
וליאו
.
ד
רדנש
.
ר
מ
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
רי
ו
2
שב
"
א
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
1
יאמש
.
פ
א
ר
ק
רי
ל
21
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
רמוא
.
מ
קלחנ
'
.
ול
ויהש ימ
`
יתש
יתיכ
םידיע
תודיעמ
ותוא
21
ש רזנש םידיעמ ולא
םידיעמ ולאו םית
שמח רזנש
תיב
ימש
וא
'
תודעה הקלחנ
ןיא
ןאכ
תוריזנ
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
שי
ללכב
20
ול
)
ןוילגב
(
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
.()
ותוא
|
פ
א
א
ותא
ר
.()
םידיעמ
|
ג
ש
5
ר
ש
י
א
ןידיעמ
פ
ידיעמ
'
מ
יעמ
'
.
רזנש
|
ד
רדנש
.
םיתש
|
מ
יתש
'
.
םידיעמ
|
פ
א
ש
י
א
ןידיעמ
ר
()
מ
ידיעמ
'
.
22
רזנש
|
ד
רדנש
.
תודעה
|
מ
ןתודע
.
וק
פ
א
ק ר
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
321
רי
ו
321
ב
ו
.()
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ןידיעמ
מ
ידיעמ
'
רי
ל
3
·
ג
רי
ו
3
ותוא ןידיעמ
.
וק
ק
ה
תודיע
מ
תודע
'
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
ןתודע
.
ר
ש
ד
רי
ל
1
רי
ו
1
ב
ו
ןיאו
מ
יאו
'
.
וק
ןכ
.
מ
יזנ
'
.
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ק
ש
ללה תיב
.
פ
א
םירמוא
ר
רי
ל
2
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
רי
ל
1
ןירמוא
ד
רמוא
.
י
"
ויהש ימ
...
םיתש
"
פ ריזנ הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
ז
ימלשורי
1
פ ריזנ
"
לה ג
"
ז
2
פ ןירדהנס
"
לה ה
"
ב
3
טפ תומבי
"
ז
ה
ל
"
ה
)
ןושארה עטק קר
.(
ילבב
ריזנ
כ
.

א' י' :
םיתש ריזנ אהיש םיתש שמח
ימש תיב קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש ןדא
ללה תיבו האמוטה תא איבמ וניא 'מוא
ןוילעה דצהו אוה לולח םדא 'מוא
ה ' ר' פ
:
האמוטה תא איבמ
. 'יתש
2ו
. אהיו רי
. םיתש םיתש
תוליבקמ
מ
2ל
םינש
אהי
. 'יזנ
'יתש
א
. םש ןותנ ןדא היה פ םש ןותנ םדא היה ד מ ק ר וק
. ה"
בו ד מ
. 'וא
ד
רי
. ש"
ב
. יאמש יימש
()
מ
ד
ןירמוא
ר
מ
מ
ד מ
. אמטה ד 'אמוטה
ו
ללה תיב ק ללה תיב
. 'וא
ד ()
. ןדא
. האמטה
מ
ק
ש
מ
וק
א
מ
פ
ד
75
. בי הנשמ ד ק
. 'אמוטה
. שלש מ | שמח
. 'יתש
מ | םיתש
. היהיש ד 'היש
מ | אהיש
. 'יזנ
מ | ריזנ
. 'יתש
מ | םיתש
א
י הנשמ ךשמה פ | אי הנשמ
| ןדא
. 'והש
מ | אוהש
. 'חת
מ | תחת
א . ש"
ב מ י ר | ימש תיב
5ש
יאמש ד ש א ג | ימש
'וא
מ פ | 'מוא
. 'יא
מ | וניא
. 'יבמ
מ | איבמ
. 'מוטה
מ | האמוטה
לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
. ןירמוא ר 'וא
ד מ פ | 'מוא
. 'דא
מ | םדא
. ללח מ | לולח
. 'וה
מ | אוה
. 'וילעה
מ | ןוילעה
ד 'מוטה
25
מ
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש ןדא
. םדא
. יימש
ק פ
א
א
ד מ י ש א ר ק פ פ
. ןירמוא ש 'רמוא
ד ר
א . ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א ר
. 'יבמ
מ | איבמ
5ש
'מטה
ג | האמוטה
.
ג"
מ א"
יפ תולהא הנשמ
אי
24
25
26
27
28

76
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
הדוי
ג
ש
5
|
פ
א
מ
דוהי
'
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הדוהי
.
השש
|
מ
שש
'
.
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
1
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ד
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
5
א
ש
יאמש
פ
א
פ
ק
יימש
.
2
תוליבנ
|
ש
י
א
ד
תולבנ
מ
ולבנ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ד
ב
"
ש
.
ןירהטמ
|
פ
םירהטמ
.
לליה תיבו
|
ר
ב
"
ה
א
ללה תיב
י
א
מ
ד
בו
"
ה
.
לליה
|
פ
א
ק א
ש
ללה
.
תציב
|
מ
ציב
'
.
הלבנה
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
הליבנה
פ
הליבנ
מ
לבנ
'
.
4
תרכמינ
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תרכמנ
מ
רכמנ
'
.
תרתומ
|
מ
רתומ
'
.
םאו
|
פ
א
םא
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
1
ר
'
ב יסוי
"
הדוהי ר
ב
מ
2
דוהי
'
ת
ע
ב
ו
21
הדוהי
.
ת
ע
מוא
'
.
ת
ע
השמח
ב
מ
2
ישוע
.
ב
מ
21
ב
"
ש
.
ת
ו
יימש
ת
ע
ב
ו
21
יאמש
.
ב
מ
21
ב
"
ה
.
ת
ו
תולבנה
ת
ע
תוליבנה
ב
מ
3
תולבנ
ב
ו
1
הלבנ
.
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
1
ב
"
ש
.
ת
ו
יימש
ת
ע
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
32
יאמש
.
ת
ע
טמ
ןיאמ
ב
מ
2
טמ
מ "
ןיא
.
ב
מ
32
בו
"
ה
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
31
ב
ו
321
ןיאמטמ
ת
ע
ןירהטמ
ב
מ
2
הטמ
'
ןיר
.
רי
ל
·
ו
הליבנ
.
רי
ל
תרכמנ
רי
ו
רכמנ
'
.
א
"
םירבד השש
...
ללה תיב ירמוחמו
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ב
"
ילבב ה
1
זע תבש
.
2
דק תוחנמ
.
ה
ל'
י'
א'
ר
'
הדוי
וא
'
השש
ןירבד
1
םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ
ב תוליבנ
לליה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תי
םימטמ
תציב
הלבנה
םא
שי
אצויכ
הב
תרכמינ
קושב
תרתומ
םאו
ויאל
וא
| '
ג
ש
5
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
רמוא
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ד
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
ש
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
3
םימטמ
|
פ
א
ןימטמ
פ
םיאמטמ
ר
א
ק
י
א
ש
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
מטמ
'
.
שי
|
אצויכ
|
מ
צויכ
'
.
ויאל
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ואל
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
םירבד
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
ת
ו
ללה
.
רי
ל
·
ו
הב שי
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ואל
.
םד
תוליבנ
...
םימטמ
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ב
"
ילבב ה
1
זע תבש
.
2
דק תוחנמ
.
3
אכ תותירכ
.
"
הליבנה תציב
"
פ הציב ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
א
.

77
5
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הרוסא
איהש הפורט הציבב ןידומו ןירסוא
תירכנ םד רוסאב הלדגש ינפמ הרוסא
הט םדו
וc
לש הר
תערוצמ
ימש תיב
ןירהטמ
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
הקורכ
ימימכו
5
הרוסא
|
מ
רוסא
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ד
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
5
ש
יאמש
פ
ק
יימש
.
6
ןירסוא
|
מ
ד
ירסוא
'
.
ןידומו
|
א
ק
ש
י
א
םידומו
מ
ידומו
'
.
יבב
הצ
|
ג
ש
5
ר
א
ש
י
א
תציבב
מ
ציבב
'
.
איהש
|
פ
אהיש
מ
יהש
'
.
7
רוסא
ה
|
מ
וסא
'
.
ינפמ
|
ג
ש
5
נפמ
'
.
הלדגש
|
מ
לדיגש
'
ד
הלידגש
.
רוסאב
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
י
א
מ
רוסיאב
.
תירכנ
|
מ
ירכנ
'
.
8
םדו
|
הט
וc
הר
|
פ
ד
הרוהט
מ
רהט
'
.
לש
תערוצמ
|
פ
א
ר
לש
-
תערוצמ
ש
י
א
תערוצמלש
מ
לש
-
ערוצמ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ד
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
5
א
ש
יאמש
פ
ק
יימש
.
9
ןירהטמ
|
פ
םירהטמ
מ
הטמ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
ב
"
ה
א
ללה תיב
י
א
מ
ד
בו
"
ה
.
הקורכ
|
מ
קורכ
'
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
·
ע
םידומ
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
1
ןיושו
ב
מ
2
ו
ידומ
ן
ב
ו
2
ו
םידומ
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
תציבב
.
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
.()
ת
ו
הילודיגש
ב
מ
21
הלידגש
.
ת
ו
רוסא
ת
ע
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ב
רוסיא
.
ספ
ב
מ
ספ
ב
ו
םד
.
וק
הט
וc
הר
מ
רוהט
ד
ספ
ב
מ
רהט
'
.
וק
לש
-
תיערוצמ
פ
א
י ר
ר
ל
תערוצמלש
ספ
ב
מ
לש
ערוצמ
'
.
מ
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
.
"
תירכנ םד
...
ןידומו
...
שביו
"
פ הדנ הנשמ
"
מ ד
"
ג
פ הדנ ימלשורי
"
לה ד
"
ג
דל הדנ ילבב
.
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
ד
בו
"
ה
.
הפורט
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ד
הפירט
ש
י
א
הפרט
מ
פירט
'
.
וא
| '
ג
ש
5
()
פ
א
רמוא
'
פ
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
מ
טמ
מ
'
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
הפירט
.
ב
מ
1
רוסאש
'
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
הרוסאש
.
וק
תירכונ
מ
ירכנ
'
ספ
ב
מ
תירכנה
ב
ו
םיבכוכ תדבוע
.
ר
ד
רי
ו
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
ק
ב
ו
םירהטמ
מ
ירהטמ
'
.
ק
ללה תיב
מ
בו
"
ה
.
פ
א
רי
ל
מוא
'
ר
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
.
מ
קורכ
'
.
א
"
ןידומו
...
רוסא
ה
"
ילבב
21
חנ ןילוח
.

הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא הילגר
תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הבוטב אלשו
אלשו הבוטב ןילכוא ןיא 'מוא
ללה
ו' ע הרורצ 'וא
ימש תיב תמחה הבוטב
הניאש יפ לע ףא 'וא
ללה תיבו תדמוע
תוליבקמ
. 'ילגר
מ
ו .
יאמש רי
78
א
ד מ י
ג
ק א פ
ד
ה"
ב
א ר
. םילכואו
. 'וריפ
. 'יעיבש
'
.
א
פ פ
מ פ
מ
בוטב
מ
| הילגר
| ןילכוא
| תוריפ
| תיעיבש
| הבוטב
. 'בוטב
מ | הבוטב
א . ירבד מ 'בדכ
פ | ירבדכ
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ | ימש
לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
. ה"
בו
. ןירמוא ש 'ירמוא
ק 'וא
ד מ פ | 'מוא
. 'ילכוא
מ | ןילכוא
א א הבוטב י ש ר פ | הבוטב אלשו הבוטב
. 'בוטב
מ הבוטב אלא ד
. םירמוא
ןירמוא
ש
. ט"
לה ט"
פ תיעיבש ימלשורי
10
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
. 'ינחה
מ תמיחה פ | תמחה
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
א
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ פ | ימש
א
ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר | 'וא
. 'רורצ
מ | הרורצ
. 'דמוע
מ | תדמוע
א
ג
. ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א ר פ | ללה תיבו
א ג א
'ירמוא
ק 'מוא
י א ר פ פ | 'וא
. םירמוא
א ג . פ"
עא מ י א ר פ | יפ לע ףא
. 'ניאש
מ | הניאש
" ימש תיב ... תוריפ ןילכוא"
10
11
12
13
14
א

2ו
ה"
ב ב
2 1
תבש : דק
ו
. םהמ תחא וזו ללה ב
3מ
ד ה"
בו ב
:
ןירבד השש 'וא
הסוי 'ר
ב' הרורצ
ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ
ןחלושה לע הניבגה םיע הלוע ףועה
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ לכאנ וניאו
. םירבד
תוליבקמ
. יסוי
ו·
מ ו·
ל
ו·
מ ו·
ל
ב
. ש"
ב
. יאמש
. ה"
ב
ןהמ דחא הזו ללה
רי
ו·
מ
ב
ו
רי
מ
ב
מ
ב
ו·
ל
.()
321ו
. ירבד ב
321ו
. ש"
ב ב
2מ
ו . יאמש ב רי ש יימש
ו
ללה תיב ש ק ללה תיב
2מ
. לליה תיבו ב
ב
רי
3ו
. ףוע ב
. הניבגה םע ןחלושה לע
321ו
32מ
ו·
ל . םע ב ב רי ד מ ש ק ר
. 'ניבגה
מ הנבגה
2ו
32 . ןחלשה ב
מ
ןילוח ילבב
רי
א
פ וק
ש
מ
ב ד מ ש ק ר וק
א
פ
32מ
ב
3מ
ב ד מ
ק
וק
79
15
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
םילמב ףוסב תלחתמ 'ג
הנשמ פ | ב הנשמ
. 'תילדרחב
ןיליבטמ'
א . יסוי ד מ י ש ק א ר פ | הסוי
א
א
. רמוא ד ש 'מוא
י ק א ר 'מא
פ | 'וא
. 'שש
מ | השש
א
א
. 'ירבד
מ ק םירבד ד י ש א ר פ פ | ןירבד
א . ה"
בו מ י
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
1ש
. יימש ק פ יאמש ד ש ג | ימש
א . ה"
ב מ י א ר | ללה תיב
. לליה פ | ללה
. ףוע פ | ףועה
. 'לוע
מ | הלוע
| ןחלשה לע הניבגה םיע
א
א
. םע ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ | םיע
. 'ניבגה
מ הנבגה ד ש | הניבגה
א
א 1ש
. ןחלשה מ י ש ק א פ פ ג | ןחלושה
| לכאנ וניאו
. 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
1ש
. יימש ק פ יאמש
ד ש ג | ימש
ה"
ב א ר לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
: דק ןילוח ילבב ." לה א"
פ תומורת ימלשורי " ללה תיב ... הסוי ר"
. ח"
לה א"
פ תומורת ימלשורי א"
מ ח"
פ ןילוח הנשמ " לכאנ
אלו ... ףועה"
3
:
דק ןילוח . גי
15
16
17
18
ב

80
מוא
'
אל
הלוע
אלו
לכאנ
ןימרות
ןיתיז
20
תיב ירבדכ ןייה לע םיבנעו ןמשה לע
וא ללה תיבו ימש
'
עירוזה ןימרות ןיא
תומא עברא
םרכבש
תיב
ימש
וא
'
שדיק
הלוע
|
מ
לוע
'
.
אלו
|
ד
וניאו
.
ןיתיז
|
ג
ש
1
םתיז
פ
א
ק
ש
םיתיז
ר
א
י
א
ד
םיתז
מ
יתז
'
.
20
ןמשה
|
ג
ש
1
פ
א
פ
ג
ד
ןמש
מ
יבנעה
'
.
םיבנעו
|
מ
יבנעו
'
.
ירבדכ
|
מ
בדכ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
21
ימש
|
ג
ש
1
א
ש
ד
יאמש
פ
ג
ק
יימש
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
וא
| '
ג
ש
1
פ
א
פ
ג
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
תומא
|
מ
ומא
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ג
ש
1
ש
ד
יאמש
פ
ק
יימש
.
וא
| '
ג
ש
1
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ד
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
תוליבקמ
מ
וניא
.
רי
ו
יאמש
.
רי
ל
מוא
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ערוזה
.
ר
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
21
יאמש
.
ב
"
ןימרות
...
ןימרות ןיא
"
פ תומורת ימלשורי
"
לה ו
"
ח
.
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
19
מוא
| '
ר
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
מ
וא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
אל
|
ד
וניא
.
ןייה
|
ג
ש
1
פ
ג
ד
ןיי
.
עירוזה
|
ג
ש
1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ערוזה
מ
.()
22
עברא
|
מ
ברא
'
.
שדיק
|
פ
ר
ד
שדק
ש
.[]
ש
ןירמוא
מ
רי
ל
ב
מ
32
וא
'
.
רי
ל
·
ו
םיתז
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ןמש
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ןיי
.
מ
ומא
'
ד
ומא
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
רי
ל
21
מוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
"
עירוזה
...
תורוש יתש
"
פ םיאלכ הנשמ
"
מ ד
"
ימלשורי ה
1
פ םיאלכ
"
לה ד
"
ה
2
פ
"
לה ד
"
א
.

ר
. ללה תיב ש ה"
בו
. ירומא ד 'מוא
. יאמש
מ . לליה תיבו ב ה"
בו
יימש ק>
ימש < ש"
ב
. ןיליבטמ
תוליבקמ
.()
1ו
רי
ר
ר
ק
ל א
רי ד ש פ
. ןירטופ
> תיב
'מוא
< יאמש
. םיליבטמ
מ
ב
א
ד מ ק ר פ וק
א .() ד מ ק ר פ וק
א
ו
. ה"
ב ד ה"
בו מ ללה תיבו ק ר פ לליה תיב
1ל
רי
. ןירמוא 'מוא
א
. תילדרחב ןיליבטמ פ םיליבטמ
.
בצ םיחספ ילבב
מ
ב
מ
ק
וק
ד ק ר וק
ק
81
25
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
1ש
. יאמש ד ש יימש ק פ | ג ימש
א
. ללה תיבו ד ש ה"
בו מ י א ר | ללה תיב
. לליה פ | ללה
א 1ש
י ק א ר ג | 'וא
| ןיליבטמ
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'רוש
מ | הרוש
. 'חא
מ | תחא
א . ה"
בו מ י ר לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
א א 1ש
. 'רמוא
ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר פ ג | 'וא
. 'דיק
מ שדק ד ש ר | שדיק
.() מ | יתש
א ג
י ה"
ב א ר ללה תיבו
. 'ורוש
מ | תורוש
. הסעמה מ ש | הסיעמה
א . ש"
ב מ י א ר | ימש תיב
| תיב
1ש
. יימש ק יאמש ש ד פ ג | ימש
. 'טופ
מ | ןירטופ
א 1ש
ד ש ק פ ג | ללה תיב
. ה"
בו מ
. לליה פ | ללה
. םיבייחמ פ | ןיבייחמ
| ןיליבטמ
. 'יליבטמ
מ םיליבטמ פ | ןיליבטמ
. 'ילדרחב
מ תילדרחל פ | תילדרחב
| ימש תיב ירבדכ
. 'בדכ
מ | ירבדכ
: זל םיחספ ילבב . ו"
לה א"
פ ימלשורי ו"
מ א"
פ הלח הנשמ " הסיעמה"
. ו"
מ ה"
פ תואווקמ הנשמ " ןיליבטמ ןיא ... ןיליבטמ"
. ח"
לה ח"
פ םיחספ ימלשורי ח"
מ ח"
פ םיחספ הנשמ "... רייגתינש רג"
23
24
25
26
ב

82
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
27
רייגתינש
|
ג
ש
1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
רייגתנש
.
מוא ימש תיב
| '
ד
.()
וחסיפ תא
|
מ
.()
תא
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
.()
ברעל
|
פ
ברעב
.
29
וא
| '
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ד
םירמוא
.
'
'
]
ןועמש
|
פ
ר
ועמש
'
מ
עמש
'
ד
לאעמשי
.
וא
| '
פ
א
מא
'
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
השלש
|
מ
שלש
'
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
ספ
ב
מ
ספ
ב
ו
רייגתנש
.
ד
חספ
.
ק
ר
.()
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
וחספ
.
פ
א
ד
םירמוא
ר
ק
רי
ל
מוא
'
ש
וא
ןירמ
.
ת
ע
מוא
'
.
מוא ימש תיב םיחספ ברע רייגתינש
'
לבוט
לכואו
תא
וחסיפ
ברעל
ללה תיבו
וא
'
ןמ שרופה
עה
הלרו
שרופכ
ןמ
רבקה
1
ג'
ר
'
ןועמש
וא
'
השלש
ןירבד
ילוקמ
ברע
|
פ
מ
יברעב
ד
יברע
.
םיחספ
|
מ
ד
יחספ
'
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ש
יאמש
.
מוא
| '
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
מ
וא
'
.
28
לכואו
|
מ
כואו
'
.
וחסיפ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
וחספ
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
הלרועה
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הלרעה
מ
לרעה
'
.
שרופכ
|
מ
רופכ
'
.
1
ג הנשמ
|
פ
א
ד הנשמ
)
םשרומ ןוילגב
ד
,'
םשרומ עצמאב
ג
'
תינש םעפ
הנושארה
תמדוקה הנשמה עצמאב התיה
[
(
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
ב
ו
עב
"
פ
.
ר
מ
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
.
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
וק
וא
'
ק
ד
ירמוא
'
.
וק
לליה תיבו
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ק
ש
ללה תיב
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
הלרעה
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םירבד
.
ג
"
ר
'
ןועמש
...
ןימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ב
"
ז
.

83
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ירמוחמו
|
מ
מוחמו
'
.
3
הניא
|
מ
ניא
'
ד
וניא
.
אמטמ
|
ר
א
ש
י
א
האמטמ
מ
אמטמ
'
.
םידייה
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םידיה
מ
ידיה
'
.
רבדכ
| '
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ירבדכ
.
4
ימש
|
פ
ג
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
וא
| '
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
אמטמ
|
פ
א
ר
א
ש
י
א
האמטמ
מ
מטמ
'
.
5
תאטח
|
מ
אטח
'
.
יימש תיב
...
ןימטמ
)
רוש
'
6
(
|
מ
מטמ
'
תא
.
יימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
ב
"
ש
.
6
ןירהטמ
|
פ
םירהטמ
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
חצקה
...
םימטמ ללה תיבו
|
חצקה
|
ק
הצקה
ש
י
א
חצקהו
.
ת
ו
יימש
ת
ע
יאמש
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םידיה
.
ת
ו
יימש
ת
ע
יאמש
.
ת
ו
ללה תיב
ת
ע
ליה תיבו
ל
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םידיה
.
ת
ע
לליה
.
ר
.()
תלהק ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב
רבדכ םידייה תא אמטמ הניא
'
תיב
ימש
תיבו
ללה
וא
'
מ
אמט
תא
םידייה
5
יימש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ
ןירהטמ
תיבו
ללה
ןימטמ
חצקה
תיב
2
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
תלהק
|
פ
ק
תלהוק
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
םידייה
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
םידיה
.
ןתוצמ
|
פ
א
ש
ןתווצמ
.
יימש
|
פ
א
ימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ללה תיבו
|
ר
י
א
בו
"
ה
.
ןימטמ
|
פ
םיאמטמ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ןיאמטמ
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ע
תלהוק
.
ת
ע
ןיא
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ירבד
.
ת
ע
מוא
'
.
ת
ע
יאמש
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ןיאמטמ
.
מ
ד
ב
"
ש
.
ג
"
חצקה
"...
פ ןיצקוע הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
ו
.

84
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ןירהטמ
|
מ
הטמ
'
.
ללה תיבו
|
פ
ג
ר
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
א
ו
ב
"
ה
.
8
תורשעמל
|
מ
שעמל
'
.
ר
| '
א
יבר
.
רזעל
|
פ
זעילא
'
ר
א
ש
י
א
רזעלא
מ
עלא
'
ד
רזעילא
.
ינש
|
ירמוחמו
|
מ
מוחמו
'
.
הלבט
|
מ
לבט
'
.
וא ימש תיב
| '
ימש
|
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
מ
בו
"
ה
ד
ב
"
ה
.
ת
ו
·
ע
מוא
'
.
ת
ו
.()
ת
ע
לליה
.
מ
ד
דלוי
'
ת
ו
·
ע
ב
ו
21
ספ
ב
ו
תדלויה
ספ
ב
מ
ב
מ
2
דלויה
'
.
רי
ו
אלמ
.
מ
ב
מ
2
לבט
'
ת
ו
האמט
ת
ע
הדלי
.
ת
ו
·
ע
.()
מ
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
1
ב
"
ש
.
ר
ד
רי
ו
ב
ו
2
יאמש
ק
יימש
.
ת
ו
·
ע
יאו חל אמטמ
יימש תיב ירבד שבי אמטמ ונ
)
ת
ע
|
יאמש
.(
ד
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ב
"
ח
.
ימש
ןירהטמ
תיבו
ללה
םימטמ
ןכו
תורשעמל
:
ד'
ר
'
וא רזעל
'
ןירבד ינש
ילוקמ
תיב
ימש
ירמוחמו
תיב
ללה
םד
10
תדלוי
אלש
הלבט
תיב
ימש
וא
'
הקורכ
7
ימש
|
פ
ג
ק
יימש
א
ש
ד
יאמש
.
םימטמ
|
פ
א
ןימטמ
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
יאמטמ
'
.
ד הנשמ
| '
פ
א
ה הנשמ
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
מא
'
ר
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ש
ד
רמוא
.
ןירבד
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
9
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
פ
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
ללה תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ה
.
ללה
|
פ
לליה
.
10
תדלוי
|
מ
י
דלו
'
.
אלש
|
ימש תיב
|
פ
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
וא
| '
פ
א
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
ר
רמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
ד
םירמוא
.
הילגר ימימכו הקורכ
|
הקורכ
|
מ
קורכ
'
.
תוליבקמ
ק
יימש
.
וק
פ
א
מ
ד
ןיאמטמ
ק
ןימטמ
.
מ
ל
ורשעמ
'
ד
תורשעמ
.
ת
ע
רזעלא
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םירבד
.
ת
ו
יימש
ת
ע
יאמש
.
ק ר
רי
ל
מוא
'
ןירמוא
.
מ
ד
קורכ
'
ב
מ
2
ב
קור
'
.
"
תדלוי םד
...
וא
'
שביו חל אמטמ
"
פ הדנ הנשמ
"
מ ד
"
ג
פ הדנ ימלשורי
"
לה ד
"
ג
.
הדנ לבב
1
דל
.
2
הל
:

2מ
. ה"
ב ד ה"
בו ב מ
. 'ידומו
. העברא
32
4321ו
ב
. 'ילגר
ע לליה
תיבו
ת ללה תיב
. 'מוא
. 'מטמ
432מ
ב
32ו
. ןהמ ב
1
חל אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו
אוהש בוזב תדלויב ןידומו שביו
םיחא העבראו ה' :
שביו חל אמטמ
ותמו תויחא
ל
יתש ןיאושנ םהמ םינש
ו·
ל
432מ
ב
רי
ו·
ל
21ע21
רי
ו
ת
2ע
ת
ד
ו
ת ד ק
ל ע א
רי ת ק ר פ וק
. 'דלויב
איהש
32מ
ב מ
א
ד מ ש ק ר פ וק
21ו
ת
. םיאושנ
תוליבקמ
32מ
321ו
ב מ םידומ
ד םידומו ב
. 'יחא
32מ
.() ב מ
321ו
. האמטמ ב
מ
ןיחא
4321ו
3מ
. יתש ב ב
431ו
ב
ו·
ל
רי
321ו
ב
. 'ינש
מ
א
מ ש ר פ וק
421ו
ב
2מ
ב
ק וק
א
ד פ
32מ
'מטמש
ב מ
432מ
ב
21ע
ת
ו·
ל
רי
21ו
ת
. 'ביו
21ו
ת
מ
וק
ד ש
א
ק פ וק
א . ותמ ד ש ק ר פ וק
85
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| הילגר
א . ה"
בו מ י ה"
ב א ר לליה תיב פ | ללה תיבו
א
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'מוא
י ק א ר | 'וא
. 'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
. הל ק | חל
ןירומו ק םידומ פ םידומו
| ןידומו
. 'ידומו
מ
. 'דלויב
מ | תדלויב
. 'יהש
מ | אוהש
א א
ד י ש א פ
. 'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
. הל ק | חל
| שביו
א
םעפ ןאכ םושר 'ה
הנשמ פ | 'ה
הנשמ
. תינש
א . העברא ד מ י ש ק א ר פ | העבראו
. ןיחא מ | םיחא
. 'ינש
מ | םינש
א א . ןהמ מ י ש ק פ | םהמ
א
. ןיאשונ ק םיאושינ
' פ םיאושנ ד ר פ | ןיאושנ
א ל
. יתש ד מ ק א ר פ | יתש
. 'ויחא
מ | תויחא
.() מ | ( 15 'וש)
תויחאה ... ותמו
א . ותמ ד ק א ר פ פ | ותמו
: הל . דל הדנ לבב . ג"
לה ד"
פ הדנ ימלשורי ג"
מ ד"
פ הדנ הנשמ " שביו חל ... ןידומו"
2
1
ט"
מ ב"
פ תוידע א"
מ ה"
פ תומבי תוידע אתפסות א"
מ ג"
פ תומבי הנשמ " תומביתמ...
םיחא העבראו"
2 1
. חי . וכ תומבי ילבב . א"
לה ג"
פ ימלשורי
ימלשורי
2
1
ט"
מ ב"
פ תוידע א"
מ ה"
פ תומבי תוידע אתפסות א"
מ ג"
פ תומבי הנשמ "... רזעל 'ר"
.
וכ תומבי ילבב . א"
לה ג"
פ
11
12
13
14
ד
ה

86
15
תוצלוח ולא ירה תויחאה תא ןיאושנה
אלו
תומביתמ
םא
ומדק
וסנכו
ואיצוי
ר
'
וא רזעל
'
שמ
ומייקי ימש תיב ם
תיבו
מוא ללה תיבו
'
ואיצוי
:
ו'
ןב היבקע
לאללהמ
דיעה
העברא
םירבד
ורמא
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
תויחאה תא
|
ד
תויחאל
.
תוצלוח
|
מ
וצלוח
'
.
16
תומביתמ
|
פ
ד
ייתמ
תומב
ר
תומבימ
מ
ומביתמ
'
.
ואיצוי
|
ר
| '
רזעל
|
פ
זעילא
'
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
רזעלא
מ
זעלא
'
.
וא
| '
פ
א
א
מא
'
ר
י
א
מוא
'
ק
רמא
ש
ד
רמוא
.
ימש תיב
|
ר
א
י
א
מ
ב
"
ש
.
ימש
|
ק
יימש
ש
ד
יאמש
.
18
ללה תיבו
|
פ
לליה תיב
ר
ללה תיב
א
ב
"
ה
י
א
מ
בו
"
ה
.
19
העברא
|
פ
מ
עברא
'
.
םירבד
|
מ
ירבד
'
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ש
ד
ב
ו
1
םיאושנה
מ
יאושנה
'
.
ב
ו
2
תויחאה
.
פ
א
ר
ת
ו
21
ת
ע
21
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
432
וליא
.
ת
ו
2
ןיצלוח
.
מ
ת
ע
21
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
42
ב
ו
4321
תומבייתמ
ב
מ
3
תומביימ
ת
ו
2
ןימבימ
.
ק
יבר
.
פ
א
ק
מ
ת
ע
1
רזעלא
ש
ד
ב
ו
רזעילא
ת
ע
2
זעלא
'
.
ק
רמוא
ש
ד
ת
ע
21
מוא
'
.
וק
ק
ד
םושמ
מ
ת
ו
1
ע
21
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
.()
ר
רי
ל
ב
ימש תי
מוא
'
מ
ב
"
וא ש
'
ת
ו
1
מוא יימש תיב
'
ת
ע
21
מוא יאמש תיב
'
רי
ו
םירמוא יאמש תיב
ב
ו
ב
"
םירמוא ש
.
ר
מ
ב
ו
ב
"
ש
.
ק
ת
ו
2
יימש
ש
ד
רי
ו
יאמש
.
15
ןיאושנה
|
פ
א
ק
ש
ד
םיאושנה
פ
אושנה
'
.
ולא
|
ג
ש
1
ר
וליא
.
םא
|
ג
ש
1
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
םאו
.
וסנכו
|
ק
וסנקו
.
ר ואיצוי
'
רזעל
) ...
וש
'
17
(
מוא ללה תיבו
'
|
ג
ש
1
.()
17
ר
'
וא רזעל
'
םשמ
|
םשמ
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
םושמ
מ
.()
ימש תיב
|
מ
ב
"
וא ש
'
.
ומייקי
|
ד
ומייק
.
מוא
| '
פ
מ
וא
'
ר
ד
()
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
היבקע
|
פ
ד
איבקע
מ
יבקע
'
.
פ
א
ר
ק
מ
ד
ת
ו
21
ע
2
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
םאו
.
ת
ו
2
איצוי
.
ר
.()
ב
ו
םייקי
.
ר
מ
בו
"
ה
ש
ת
ו
1
ב
ללה תי
ת
ע
21
לליה תיבו
.
ר
ירמוא
'
ש
ד
ןירמוא
מ
ת
ו
2
ע
1
וא
'
.

. 'שיל
3ל
רי
ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח היבקע ול
'רשיל
ןיד תיב בא ךשענו 'וא
התיהש
ימי לכ הטוש תורקיל יל בטומ ןהל 'מא
ינפל עשר תחא העש תושעל אלו
הררס ליבשב
ןירמוא והי אלש םוקמה
2ו
() רי
2ל
רי
31ו
. םירבד רי
321ו
. תייהש רי
לארשי לע
תוליבקמ
1
321ל
רי
321ל
רי
ו 1ל
רי
רי
87
. 'ירבד
מ
א
מ תייהש ד י
מ
מ
ד
. 'רשיב
. איבקע
םירבד
מ
תורקהל
ד
ש ק
א
ד
20
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
פ מ פ
'בקע
()
. 'בראמ
י ש ק א ר פ
התייהש
מ
ג
פ
א 1ש
ר פ ג
א
. רמוא ד ש ק 'מוא
י א ר
. ד"
ב מ
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ
א
לארשיל
י ש א
| היבקע
| העבראב
ש
ג | ןירבד
| התיהש
. 'תיהש
1ש
ג | 'וא
פ | ןיד תיב
א
פ | 'רשיל
. 'א
מ רמא ד ש ק | 'מא
א א . םהל י ש ק פ פ | ןהל
. יל 'טומ
מ יל בטומ
פ | בטומ
1ש
ר תורקיהל פ ג | תורקיל
. ארקהל ד 'רקיהל
. 'טוש
מ | הטוש
א . יימי פ | ימי
א
א
תושעהל י ש תושעיל פ | תושעל
. 'ושעיל
. 'חא
'עש
עשר מ | עשר תחא העש
'ירמוא
. 'ררש
ק
מ
.() מ | םוקמה
א . ורמאי י ש א ר | ןירמוא והי
1ש
. ויהי ד אהי פ | ג והי
א 1ש
'וא
מ פ 'מוא
פ ג | ןירמוא
. םירמוא
. 'יבשב
מ | ליבשב
א
א 1ש
הררש ד י ש ק א ר פ ג | הררס
3
2
1
.
ה"
לה ג"
פ תוירוה ב"
ילה א"
פ הלגמ א"
לה א"
פ אמוי ימלשורי " 'ארשיל
א
1
... ךב רוזח"
20
21
22
23
24
ו

:
רעש אמטמ היה אוה ז' וב רזח
אוה ןירהטמ 'מכחו
קוריה םדו הדוקפ
רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש ריתמ היה
'כחו
וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב וחיניהו
אל םיקשמ ןיא 'וא
היה אוה ןירסוא
. 'ינהו
21ו
מ וחינהו ב
. ןיקשמ
.()
תוליבקמ
. רעיש ר
2מ
ב ד ש ק ר וק
. 'מ
2מ
כחו ב
ו·
מ ו·
ל
ב
מ
ב
ו·
ל
רי
רי
88
מ
הדוקפ
. רזוח ד | רזח
. ו הנשמ ךשמה ד ר | ז הנשמ
. 'וה
מ | אוה
. רעיש מ | רעש
| הדוקפה
. 'דוקפ
J1 םימכחו א ג | 'מכחו
. ןימכחו ש 'ימכחו
. 'ירהטמ
ק םירהטמ א | ןירהטמ
| ( 29 'וש)
ןירסוא 'כחו
... אוה
. אוהו ד | אוה
א
א 1ש
J1
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג ג
א 1ש
ד ר 'כחו
מ ק פ ג
1ש
גב)
.()
ש 'ימכחו
מ
םומ לעבו
. וחינהו
ק ר פ
25
ה
.() ר | היה
| רעש
2ש
| ג םומ לעב
.( 'ו'ה
קחמנד הארנ
א J1
ד ק פ ג
2ש
J1
ג | ג וחיניהו
א . כ"
חאו
י | ךכ רחאו
א 2ש
J1
םימכחו ד א פ ג ג | 'כחו
א . 'מכחו
י ןימכחו
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ
א . 'מוא
י ק א פ
. 'יקשמ
מ ןיקשמ
א
פ
ד
תוידע לש י"
תכ
רמוא
ד
א 2ש
י ש א ר ג
. 'וה
מ | אוה
J1
ש ר ג | 'וא
| םיקשמ
.() מ ק | אל
2 1
. וכ
. הכ תורוכב ילבב ה"
מ ג"
פ תורוכב הנשמ " ןולחב ... רוכב רעש"
. טי תוכרב ילבב "... ןיא 'וא
היה אוה"
.
ו"
לה ב"
פ הטוס ימלשורי " ןיקשמ 'וא
'כחו
תרויגה תא אל םיקשמ ןיא"
25
26
27
28
29
ז

89
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
1
תרויגה
|
ג
J1
תא
ה
יג
י
תרו
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תרויגה תא
מ
רויגה תא
'
.
תא אלו
|
החפשה
|
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
החפש
מ
.()
2
מכחו
| '
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
ר
א
ד
םימכחו
פ
א
ק
מ
כחו
'
פ
ימכחו
'
ש
ןימכחו
.
וא
| '
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
פ
א
ש
ד
ןירמוא
ר
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
.
ןיקשמ
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ק
םיקשמ
מ
יקשמ
'
.
3
תימכרכב
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
|
ש
י
א
תימכרוכב
מ
ימכוכב
'
.
תררחושמ החפש
|
ק
.()
החפש
|
ג
ש
2
פשב
]
הח
[
מ
חפש
'
.
תררחושמ
|
ג
J1
פ
א
א
תררחשמ
מ
ררחושמ
'
.
4
םלשוריב
|
ג
ש
2
ילשוריב
]
ם
[
מ
לשוריב
'
.
אהוקשהו
ג
J1
|
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
הוקשהו
.
היעמש
|
מ
יעמש
'
ד
איעמש
.
5
ןוילטבאו
|
מ
לטבאו
'
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
מ
א
'
.
ןהל
|
ןהל
|
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
םהל
מ
הל
'
.
אמגכיד
|
ג
J1
אמגיד
ג
ש
2
המכד
פ
א
המכיד
פ
א
המגוד
ר
ש
י
א
ד
אמגוד
ק
המגיד
מ
מגוד
'
.
אהוקשיה
ג
J1
|
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הוקשה
מ
וקשה
'
.
ב
מ
תאו
.
ב
מ
·
ו
.()
ב
ו
םילשוריב
.
ב
ו
רמאו
.
ב
מ
לאללהמ ןב היבקע ןהל
ב
ו
םהל
.
תררחושמ החפשה תא אלו תרויגה
מכחו
'
וא
'
ןיקשמ
ורמא
השעמ ול
התיהש תררחושמ החפש תימכרכב
םלשוריב
אהוקשהו
היעמש
או
ב'
ט'
5
ןוילטבאו
מא
'
ןהל
אמגכיד
אהוקשיה
תררחושמ
|
ק
תררחשמ
מ
ררחושמה
'
ד
תררחושמה
.
ורמא
|
ד
רמא
'
.
השעמ
|
מ
שעמ
'
.
התיהש
|
פ
א
התיחש
ד
התייהש
.
תוליבקמ
רי
ל
לוכו תרויגה תא
'
ב
מ
·
ו
תרויגה תא
.
ב
מ
·
ו
תררחושמה
ב
מ
םימכחו
.
רי
ל
מוא
'
.
ב
ו
ורמאו
.
ב
מ
תחא החפשב
.
ב
ו
.()
ב
מ
·
ו
הוקשהו
.
רי
ל
·
ו
המכד
ב
מ
·
ו
אמגוד
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
·
ו
הוקשה
.
ז
"
אהוקשיה אמגכיד
"
ומ ימלשורי
"
פ ק
"
לה ג
"
א
.

90
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ויודינב
|
ש
מ
ד
ויודנב
.
ח הנשמ
|
פ
ןוילגב הנשמה לכ
ר
ד
ךשמה
ו הנשמ
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
א
ק
ד
רמא
מ
א
"
ר
.
ר
| '
ג
ש
2
ק
יבר
.
הדוהי
|
פ
א
מ
והי
ד
'
פ
ג
הדוי
.
8
היבקעש
|
מ
יבקעש
'
ד
איבקעש
.
הדנתינ
ג
J1
|
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הדנתנ
מ
דנתנ
'
.
9
תלענינ
ג
J1
|
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תלעננ
מ
לעננ
'
.
לע
|
ד
ינפב
.
לכ
|
ש
י
א
.()
ןדא
|
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םדא
מ
דא
'
.
ארשימ
| '
ג
J1
פ
א
ק
ד
לארשימ
ג
ש
2
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
לארשיב
מ
רשיב
'
.
10
תואריבו
ג
J1
ג
ש
2
|
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תאריבו
מ
אריב
'
.
אטח
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
טח
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
·
ו
והודנו
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ויודנב
.
ב
מ
1
ב
מ
1
ג
יסוי
.
ב
מ
1
לאללהמ ןב היבקעש
ב
מ
1
ג
קעש
'
לאללהמ ןב
ב
ו
21
לאללהמ ןב איבקעש
.
ב
מ
1
ב
מ
1
ג
ב
ו
21
תלעננ
.
ב
מ
1
ב
מ
1
ג
ב
ו
21
לארשיב
.
ב
ו
1
המכחב
הרהטבו
.
ז
"
והודינו
"...
ומ ימלשורי
"
פ ק
"
לה ג
"
א
.
והודינו
תמו
ויודינב
ולקסו
תיב
ןיד
ונורא תא
:
ח'
מא
'
ר
'
סח הדוהי
הרזעה ןיאש הדנתינ היבקעש םולשו
תלענינ
לע
לכ
ןדא
ארשימ
'
המכחב
10
תואריבו
אטח
היבקעכ
ןב
לאללהמ
6
והודינו
|
ג
ש
2
ש
י
א
מ
והודנו
.
ןיד תיב
|
פ
ר
י
א
מ
ב
"
ד
.
7
תא
|
ק
.()
םולשו סח
|
י
א
מ
ח
"
ו
.
הרזעה
|
ש
י
א
הרזע
מ
רזע
'
.
המכחב
|
מ
.()
אטח תואריבו המכחב
|
היבקעכ
|
ק
ד
איבקעכ
מ
יבקעכ
'
.
ב
מ
ב
"
ד
.
רי
ל
·
ו
.()
ב
מ
1
ב
מ
1
ג
א
"
ר
.
ב
מ
1
ג
ולשו סח
'
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
הדנתנ
ב
מ
1
ג
דנתנ
'
.
ב
ו
21
הרזע
.
ב
מ
1
ב
מ
1
ג
ב
ו
21
םדא
.
ב
מ
1
ג
.()
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
תאריבו
.
ב
מ
1
ג
ב
ו
21
איבקעכ
ב
מ
1
ג
קעכ
'
.
ח
"
מא
'
ר
'
...
לאללהמ
"
ילבב
1
טי תוכרב
.
2
דס םיחספ
:
)
כ
"
זנ םיפד םיחספב רסח ןכנימ י
:
-
זס
(:

תמו
2ו
ב
2מ
ויודינב
תמו ב
פ' ש' ךנה ןב רזעילא תא ודינ ימ תאו
וחלש תמשכו
םיידי תרהטב קפקיפש
דמלל ונורא לע ןבא וחיניהו ןיד תיב
:
ונורא תא ןילקוס תמו הדונמה לכש
רוזח ינב ונבל 'מא
ותתימ תעשבו ט '
מ . רזעלא 'ר
ב
ו םידי ב
. דומלל
ג1מ
. ןילוס ד"
ב ב
ג1
תוליבקמ
ו . תא אלא ב
ו ג·
מ ג·
. ודנ ב ב
ג·
.()
ו ג·
מ ו·
ל רזעלא ב ב
ו ו·
ל . ךונח ב דנה
ו . קפקפש ב
. תליטנב
ג·
מ מ
ב ב םידיה
ג·
מ
מ
מ
ב
ב
ב
רי
ו ג·
מ מ
ב ב ב
ו·
ל
. וידנב תמו
. וחלשו
ג·
מ
ב
ג·
מ
. ד"
ב
. וחינהו
. הלודג ןבא
מ
ב ךדמלל ב
21ו
. הדנתמה ב
1ו
ויודנב תמו ב
. ויודינב
21ו
ןילקוס ד"
ב
רי
· מ מ
ב ב
ג
רי
ב
ג·
מ מ
ב ב
ו ג·
מ מ
ב ב ב
ו
ב
21ו
21מ
ב
ג1מ
1מ
ב ב
ב
21מ
ב
21מ
ב
91
א
י ש
15
. והודינ
א
. 'זעלא
מ רזעלא ד י
א רנה ק דנה א ר פ ךנח
א
2ש
ד מ י ש ק ר ג
א
מ םידיה י
מ
ש
. וחינהו ד מ
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ד
ש א
2ש
ג
| תאו
ודנ ש ק | ודינ
.() ד מ | תא
ג
ר פ | רזעילא
J1 דונה
ג | ךנה
. דונה
J1 קיפקיפש ג | קפקיפש
. קפקפש
. 'ליטנב
מ תליטנב א ר | תרהטב
ג
א J1
פ םידי ד ק א ר פ | ג םיידי
. 'ידי
| תמשכו
| וחלש
א
י ש ק א ר
א . ד"
ב מ י ר | ןיד תיב
ג א J1
פ פ | ג וחיניהו
. 'לודג
ןבא מ | ןבא
. ךדמלל מ א ר | דמלל
דנתמה
J1
הדונמה ג | הדונמה
ה
הדנתמה ד א ר
. 'דנתמה
ג
ויודנב תמו ש וייודינב תמו א | תמו
. ויודינב
ןיד תיב ןילקוס
א ד"
ב ןילקוס ר | ןילקוס
א . ןילקוס ד"
ב מ י ןילקוס ןיד תיב
J1 . םילקוס ק ג | ןילקוס
.() ד | תא
א תמו ד י
ש
. 'עשב
מ
. ז הנשמ
א א תעשב ד י ש ק
. 'א
מ רמא
ד ר
J1
פ ג
א
ד י ש
| ט הנשמ
| תעשבו
J1
ג | 'מא
. א"
לה ג"
פ ק"
ומ ימלשורי " םידיה ... ודינ ימ תא"
. טי תוכרב ילבב " ונורא לע ןבא ... ודינ ימ תא"
1
.
וט ק"
ומ . טי תוכרב ילבב "... דמלל"
11
12
13
14
15
ח

92
16
העבראב
|
מ
בראמ
'
.
ןירבד
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םירבד
מ
ירבד
'
.
יתיהש
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יתייהש
.
וא
| '
ג
J1
א
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
פ
א
פ
ר
י
א
מוא
'
.
מא
'
ול
|
מ
א
"
ל
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
.
17
התאו
|
פ
ש
י
א
ד
התא
מ
תאו
'
.
המל
|
ג
J1
אמל
מ
מל
'
.
התרזח
ג
J1
|
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
תרזח
.
מא
'
ול
|
מ
א
"
ל
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
.
18
יתעמש
|
מ
עמש
'
.
ןיבורמ
|
ג
J1
םיבורמ
פ
א
פ
ק
םיבורמה
ר
א
ג
ש
י
א
ד
ןיבורמה
מ
יבורמה
'
.
ןהו
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ג
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םהו
.
19
ןיבורמ
|
ג
J1
םיבורמ
פ
א
פ
ג
ק
םיבורמה
ר
א
ג
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןיבורמה
.
יתדמע
|
מ
דמע
'
.
לע
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
.()
יתעומשב
|
פ
יתעמשב
מ
עומשב
'
.
ןהו
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
י
א
םהו
.
התא
|
מ
תא
'
.
תוליבקמ
וא יתיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב
'
מא
'
ול
מא ךב התרזח אל המל התאו
'
ינא ול
יפמ ועמש ןהו ןיבורמ יפמ יתעמש
ןיבורמ
ינא
יתדמע
לע
יתעומשב
ןהו
20
ודמע
ןתעומשב
לבא
התא
התעמש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ול
|
ד
יבא ול
.
ול
|
א
.()
20
ןתעומשב
|
פ
א
י
א
מ
םתעומשב
.
התעמש
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תעמש
מ
עמש
'
.

93
יפמו
|
מ
ןמ אלו
.
ןיבורמה
|
ג
J1
םיבורמה
.
בטומו
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
בטומ
מ
טומ
'
.
22
חינהל
|
מ
ינהל
'
.
תא
1
|
ג
J1
ש
י
א
מ
ד
.()
דיחיה
|
מ
יחי
'
.
תא
2
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
.()
23
ירבד
|
ג
J1
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ירבדב
.
ןיבורמה
|
ג
J1
םיבורמ
ג
ש
1
פ
א
פ
םיבורמה
.
מא
'
ול
|
מ
א
"
ל
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
.
24
ךריבחל
|
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ךיריבחל
א
ריבחל
י
ך
ד
ךיריבח
.
מא
'
ול
|
מ
א
"
ל
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ר
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
.
דקפמ
|
ר
א
ד
דיקפמ
ק
רקפמ
מ
קפמ
'
.
המש
|
ג
J1
פ
א
ק
אמש
ר
א
מא
'
אמש ול
ש
י
א
אמש ול רמא
מ
א
"
מש ל
'
ד
מא
'
ול
אמש
.
הלווע
|
ג
J1
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הלוע
מ
לוע
'
.
25
התאצמ
ג
J1
ג
ש
1
|
ר
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תאצמ
מ
אצמ
'
.
מא
'
ול
|
מ
א
"
ל
.
מא
| '
ג
A
ג
J1
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
.
ול
|
ד
אל
.
ואל
|
ג
A
.()
תוליבקמ
בטומו ןיבורמה יפמו דיחיה יפמ
תא זוחאלו דיחיה ירבד תא חינהל
מא ןיבורמה ירבד
'
ילע דקפ אבא ול
ךריבחל
מא
'
ול
א
י
ינ
דקפמ
המש
הלווע
25
התאצמ
יב
מא
'
ול
ואל
ךישעמ
י
ק'
ר
י'
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
21
יפמ
|
מ
ןמ
.
דקפ
|
מ
וקפ
'
.
א
י
ינ
|
ק
וניא
מ
ינא
.

ךוקחרי ךישעמו ךוביc
רקי
ט ' ל' ה ו ' ר' פ
ןירבד השמח דיעה אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
ןיאישמשו תונטקה תא םינאממש
לקסינשו דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא
שפנה תא גרהש לע םלשוריב לוגנרת
. לע אבב ןב 'דוהי
'ר
דיעה
. 'ר
דיעה
21מ
. 'דוהי
ב הדוי
2מ
() ב אבא רב
21ו
. אבב ב
.()
. 'ירבד
2מ
ב
1מ
ב
1מ
ב
ו ל
רי רי
ו
רי
1מ
ב ה
1מ
ב
2מ
ב
ו·
ל
1ו
. הנטקה ב
ו < םלשוריב | רי>
'שוריב
לקסנש לוגנרת לע
1ו
1ו
1מ
| ב>
םלשוריב לקסנש לוגנרת לעו ב ב
. < םילשוריב
2ו
2מ
1ו
1מ
ו·
. לקסנשו ב ב לקסנש ב ב
. 'לשוריב
2מ
ב
:
תוליבקמ
. 'שמח
21ו
1מ
םירבד ב ב
1ו
. ןינאממש ב
21מ
ב
. 'שאה
ל
'שוריב
2מ
ו·
ל .() ב
ו·
ל
ו·
ל
רי
רי
2מ
ב
רי
רי ה
ל
רי
רי ה
94
מ
מ
א
י
ש
. 'בב
תוידע לש י"
תכ
J1
ג | ךוברקי
מ פ
. ךיברקי
ךישעמ
| דיעה אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
J1 A . יבר ג ג | 'ר
. 'דוהי
מ פ | הדוהי
| אבא ןב
א אבב י ש הבא פ | אבא
J1 A . דיעיה ג ג | דיעה
.() מ | ןירבד השמח
| השמח
| ןירבד
מ
א
א J1 A
. םירבד ד ק י ש א ר פ פ ג ג
ק
א
םיאישמשו
. 'ישעמו
ר
פ
א
םיני ממי'
ש פ | םינאממש
. ןינאממש
. 'ונטקה
מ | תונטקה
J1 A םיאיסמשו ג ג | ןיאישמשו
. 'יאישמשו
א
A J1
. לקסנשו ד מ י ש א ר פ ג | ג
ר
1
| ךישעמו
. 'שאה
מ | השאה
. 'ידע
מ | דחא דע
| םלשוריב לוגנרת
לקסינשו
לקסינשו
א
. 'וגנרת
מ לוגנרות י | לוגנרת
. 'לשוריב
מ | םלשוריב
J1 A .() ג ג | לע
. 'פנה
מ | שפנה
. ח הדנ . זכ תוכרב
. א"
לה ג"
יפ תומבי ימלשורי " אבא רב הדוהי 'ר
דיעה"
. א"
לה ג"
יפ תומבי ימלשורי " תונטקה תא ןינאממש"
.
א"
לה י"
פ ןיבוריע ימלשורי טכ:
אכ י"
בשרד אתליכמ " שפנה ... לוגנרת לע"
2
1
26
28
29
1
2
א

95
ןב
|
םיעברא
|
ג
J1
ןב
םיעבראמ
מ
יעברא
'
.
םוי
|
ג
A
.()
ינש
ךסנת
ג
J1
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ךסנתנש
פ
ךסנתיש
.
דימת
|
פ
דימתה
מ
ימת
'
.
רחשלש
ג
J1
|
פ
א
ד
רחש לש
ק
לש
-
רחש
מ
חש לש
'
.
תועש
|
מ
ועש
'
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
.
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
6
עשוהי
|
ג
J1
עושוהי
.
רו
| '
ג
A
יברו
פ
מ
ןב
א
וברו
.
הימחנ
|
ג
J1
הינחנ
ג
A
פ
י
א
ד
אינוחנ
פ
א
היינוחנ
ר
א
ק
ש
הינוחנ
מ
ינוחנ
'
.
ןתנלא
|
ד
ןתנילא
.
7
ילבבה
|
מ
ילבב
.
רבא
|
ג
A
רביא
.
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ןיי
.
ב
מ
2
לש
.
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ךסנתנש
.
ב
מ
2
בזמה
'
.
ב
מ
1
ךלוהו ברקש
)
ל בותכ ןוילגב
"
ךלוהו ג
(
ב
מ
2
ברא דע
'
.
ב
מ
2
ועש
'
.
לעו
ןייה
ןב
םיעברא
םוי
ש
ךסנתינ
לע
יבג
חבזמה
לעו
דימת
רחשלש
ש
'
ק'
5
תועש עבראב ברקש
:
ב'
ר דיעה
'
רו עשוהי
'
רפכ שיא ןתנלא ןב הימחנ
לע ילבבה
רבא
ןמ
תמה
אוהש
אמט
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
3
ןייה
4
חבזמה
|
5
ברקש
|
עבראב
|
מ
בראב
'
.
ןתנלא
|
ר
ר
'
ןתנלא
.
רפכ
|
מ
פכ
'
.
תמה
|
מ
מה
'
תמה
.
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
ב
מ
2
יעברא
'
.
רי
ו
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
רחש לש
ב
מ
1
ירחש לש
'
.
א
"
דימת לעו
...
תועש
"
פ תוכרב ימלשורי
"
לה ד
"
א
.

רבא אלא ורמא אל 'וא
רזעילא יברש
רמוחו לק אלהו ול ורמא ג ' :
יחה ןמ
רבא רוהט אוהש יחה םא המ אוה
אמט אוהש תמה אמט ונממ שרופה
ונממ שרופה רבא אהיש ןיד וניא
תוליבקמ
96
א
י
רזעל
. 'רש
'זעילא
ק
א
א
ד 'מוא
י ק א ר 'מא
פ
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
ד מ י ש ק א ר
A
לע אלא ד פ רביא לע אליא ג
פ
א J1
פ פ | ג יברש
א 'עילא
פ | רזעילא
. 'עלא
מ רזעלא
J1 A רמוא ש ג ג | 'וא
. רמא
| רבא אלא
. רבא
. 'לא
מ | אלא
J1 . ייחה ג | יחה
. ב הנשמ ךשמה ד מ ר | ג הנשמ
א . ל"
א י | ול ורמא
J1 .() מ אולהו ג | אלהו
א . ו"
ק מ י | רמוחו לק
א J1 A . לוק פ ג ג | לק
.()
. 'היש
10
.() ד מ | אוה
א . המו ד י ש | המ
. ןמ ד | םא
J1 . יח א ייחה ג | יחה
. 'והש
מ | אוהש
A .() פ רביא ג | רבא
מ
מ
. 'רופה
מ | שרופה
. 'מט
מ | אמט
| אמט אוהש תמה
A . תימה ג | תמה
. 'יא
מ | וניא
ג היהיש ד פ | אהיש
A . רביא ג | רבא
. תמה ןמ מ | ונממ
8
9
10
11
12

97
מא אמט
'
ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל ןהל
יחה
:
ד
'
רבד
רחא
הבורמ
תאמוט
15
השוע יחהש םיתמה תאמוטמ םייחה
אמטל ויתחתמ בשומו בכשמ
םדא
אמטל
םידגב
לע
ויבג
ףדמ
אמטל
ןילכא
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
13
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
מא
| '
ג
A
ג
J1
ק
ש
י
א
ד
רמא
מ
א
'
.
ןהל
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
םהל
מ
הל
'
.
ורמא
|
מ
מא
'
.
רבא אלא
|
ג
A
אליא
לע
רביא
.
אלא
|
ג
J1
ש
י
א
ד
לע אלא
מ
לא
'
.
14
יחה
|
מ
דבלב יחה
.
ד הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ב הנשמ ךשמה
.
רחא רבד
|
פ
ג
מ
ד
"
א
.
הבורמ
|
ר
()
מ
בורמ
'
ידגב
'
.
תאמוט
|
מ
מוט
'
ד
תאמט
.
תאמוטמ
|
מ
מוטמ
'
ד
תאמטמ
.
םיתמה
|
ג
J1
םיתימה
מ
יתמה
'
.
16
בכשמ
|
מ
כשמ
'
.
םדא אמטל
|
מ
מטל
'
דא
'
.
17
אמטל
1
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
אמטלו
מ
מטל
'
.
םידגב
|
מ
ידגב
'
.
לע
ג
A
ג
J1
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לעו
.
ףדמ
|
ר
הדמ
מ
דינ
'
.
אמטל
2
|
ק
ד
אמטלו
מ
מטלו
'
.
ןילכא
|
ג
A
א
י
א
םילכוא
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ק
ש
םילכא
ר
ד
ןילכוא
מ
ילכוא
'
.
15
םייחה
|
מ
ייחה
'
.
יחהש
|
י
א
מ
ירהש
.
ויתחתמ בשומו
|
מ
.()
ויבג
|
מ
יבג
.
תוליבקמ

ו ןב אינוחנ 'רו
ב
:
ה ' אמטמ תמה ןיאש המ ןיקשמו
'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ
הינוחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
אמטמ רזעילא
רביאמ שרופה הרועסכ םצע םירהטמ
תוליבקמ
. תיזכ ב
מ . תמה ןמ ב רשבה
. 'עילא
. רבאמ
ו·
מ ע·
ו
ת
מ .() ב
ו·
מ ע·
ו
ב
ע
ת
מ
ו
ב רזעיל ת
עשוהי 'רו
הנקה ןב אינוחנ
. עשוהי 'רו
הנקה
מ 'ר
ב
ו
מ
. הנקה ןב אינוחנ ב הנקה ןב אינוחנ
ב
. ןירהטמ
. הרועשכ
ו·
מ
ב
ו·
מ ע·
ו
ב
ת
ת
98
20
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א J1 A
. 'יקשמו
מ םיקשמו ק פ ג ג | ןיקשמו
. וניא תמהש הב מ | תמה ןיאש המ
. 'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
. ג הנשמ ד ר | ה הנשמ
. ןכ
. 'הטמ
מ
תיזכ
. 'עילא
. 'ינוחנ
מ
| תייזכ
. 'שבה
מ | רשב
. 'רופה
מ | שרופה
J1 A רביאמ ג ג | רבאמ
J1 . ייחה ג | יחה
A . יבר ג | 'ר
א
א J1 A
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג ג
מ
. 'רו
. 'שוהי
.()
מ
רזעיל ק 'זעילא
פ | רזעילא
. 'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
| הינוחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
א
י ש
ק
א
מ פ פ
א
מ אינוחנ ד י
ןירהטמ
A יברו ג | 'ר
J1 עושוהי ג | עשוהי
A . יברו ג | 'רו
הימחנ פ | הינוחנ
J1
א ר פ ג
א
א J1
מ הרועשכ ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג
א
א J1
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ ג
| םירהטמ
. 'צע
מ | םצע
A | ג הרועסכ
. 'רועשכ
. 'רופה
מ | שרופה
A רביאימ ג | רביאמ
. רבאמ
א
א
ד י ש ק א ר פ
: טכק ןילוח ילבב
. י"
מ ב"
פ תוידע אתפסות " אמטמ רזעילא 'ר
... רשב תיזכ"
.
י"
מ ב"
פ תוידע אתפסות " אמטמ הינוחנ 'ר
.. . הרועשכ םצע"
18
19
20
21
ה

99
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
22
יחה
|
ג
J1
ייחה
.
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
הינוחנ
|
ג
J1
פ
א
היינוחנ
פ
ק
י
א
ד
אינוחנ
מ
ינוחנ
'
.
אמטמ
|
ד
מטמ
'
.
רו
| '
ג
A
יברו
פ
א
פ
מ
ר
'
.
רזעילא
|
פ
א
מ
עילא
'
פ
זעילא
'
ק
רזעיל
.
23
רו
| '
ג
A
יברו
.
עשוהי
|
ג
J1
עושוהי
פ
א
פ
מ
שוהי
'
.
ו הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ג הנשמ ךשמה
.
רל
| '
ג
A
יברל
.
24
רזעילא
|
פ
א
מ
עילא
'
פ
זעילא
'
ק
רזעיל
.
התיאר
ג
A
ג
1
J
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
תיאר
.
אמטל
|
מ
מטל
'
.
תייזכ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תיזכ
מ
יזכ
'
.
25
שרופה
|
מ
רופה
'
.
באמ
ר
|
ג
A
ריביאמ
.
יחה
|
ג
J1
ייחה
.
מא
| '
ג
A
ג
J1
ש
ד
רמא
מ
א
'
.
ןהל
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םהל
.
ונאיצמ
|
ג
A
וניצאמ
ג
J1
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
וניצמ
מ
יצמ
'
.
26
רבאש
|
ג
A
רביאש
ד
רבא
.
ב
מ
ר
'
ב
ו
יבר
.
ב
מ
שוהי
'
.
ר יחה ןמ
'
רו אמטמ הינוחנ
'
רזעילא
ו
ר
'
םירהטמ עשוהי
:
ו'
רל ול ורמא
'
המ רזעילא
התיאר
אמטל
תייזכ
רשב
25
מא יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה
'
ונאיצמ ןהל
רבאש
ןמ
יחה
תמכ
םלש
המ
תמה
םירהטמ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ןירהטמ
.
רשב
|
מ
שב
'
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
·
ע
ב
מ
·
ו
אינוחנ
.
ב
מ
עילא
'
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ןירהטמ
.

100
תיזכ
רשב
שרופה
ונממ
אמט
רבא ףאו
יהי ונממ שרופה רשב תייזכ יחה ןמ
אמט
מא
'
ול
אל
םא
התאמוט
1
תייזכ
ןמ שרופה רשב
תמה
''
ןכש
התאמיט
םצע
הרועסכ
שרופה
ונממ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
27
תיזכ
|
ג
J1
תייזכ
מ
יזכ
'
.
רשב
|
פ
תיזכ
()
מ
שב
'
.
שרופה
|
פ
שרופ
.
ףאו
ג
J1
|
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ףא
.
רבא
|
ג
A
ג
J1
רביא
.
28
יחה
|
ג
J1
ייחה
.
תייזכ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תיזכ
מ
יזכ
'
.
אמט יהי
|
מ
.()
יהי
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
ק
ד
היהי
פ
ג
ר
א
ג
ש
י
א
אהי
.
29
מא
'
ול
|
ג
J1
פ
א
ק
ז הנשמ
'
.
מא
'
םא אל ול
|
א
.()
מא
| '
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ורמא
.
םא
|
ד
.()
התאמוט
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
התימיט
ר
התאמט
א
ג
ק
התאמיט
ש
י
א
ד
תאמט
מ
תאמיט
.
1
תייזכ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ג
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
תיזכ
.
2
יט
התאמ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
התרהיט
פ
התאמוט
ר
התאמט
ש
י
א
מ
תאמט
ד
תרהט
.
םצע
|
מ
צע םצע
'
.
הרועסכ
ג
J1
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
הרועשכ
מ
רועשכ
'
.
תוליבקמ
רשב
|
מ
שב
'
.
אל
|
ר
מ
.()
רשב
|
מ
שב
'
.
שרופה
|
מ
רופה
'
.
שרופה
|
פ
רופה
'
ש
.

101
3
אמטת
|
ק
אמט
מ
מטת
'
ד
אמטנו
.
תייזכ
ג
J1
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
תיזכ
.
שרופה
|
מ
רופה
'
.
רבאמ
|
ג
A
רביאמ
מ
באמ
'
.
4
התרהט
|
ג
A
ג
J1
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
התרהיט
י
ב
מ
תרהיט
ד
תרהט
.
שרופה
|
מ
רופה
'
.
ח הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ג הנשמ ךשמה
א
ז הנשמ
.
רל
| '
ג
A
ק
יברל
.
הינוחנ
|
פ
א
היינוחנ
פ
ק
י
ב
מ
ד
אינוחנ
.
6
התיאר
ג
A
ג
J1
|
פ
ר
א
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
תיאר
.
אמטל
|
מ
מטל
'
.
םצע
|
מ
צע
'
.
הרועשכ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
הרועסכ
.
7
רבאמ
|
ג
A
רביאימ
.
מא
| '
ג
J1
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
רמא
.
ןהל
|
ג
J1
ג
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םהל
.
וניצמ
|
ג
A
וניצאמ
פ
ונאיצמ
ק
אצמ
י
ונ
.
רבאש
|
ג
A
רביאש
ד
רבא
.
םצע
|
מ
צע
'
.
הרועשכ
|
ג
A
ג
J1
ג
הרועסכ
מ
ועשכ
'
ד
.()
ת
יc
ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ אמט
יחה
ןכש
התרהט
םצע
הרועסכ
שרופה
5
ונממ
:
ח'
רל ול ורמא
'
המ הינוחנ
שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטל התיאר
מא יחה ןמ רבאמ
'
ןמ רבאש וניצמ ןהל
יחה
תמכ
םלש
המ
תמה
םצע
הרועשכ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
הרועסכ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
הרועשכ
מ
רועשכ
'
.
5
ונממ
|
ד
ונמה
.
שרופה
|
מ
רופה
'
.
8
יחה
|
ג
J1
ג
ייחה
.
םלש
|
פ
לש
'
מ
.()
תוליבקמ

יחה ןמ רבא ףאו אמט ונממ שרופה
אמט יהי ונממ שרופה הרועשכ םצע
ע' ש' כ' םצע התאמיט םא אל ול ורמא
אמט ' ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה הרועשכ
ת ' ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ התאמט
רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמט
תוליבקמ
102
.()
. אהי
התאמט ק ר
מ
cית
10
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. ונמיה ש הנממ פ | ונממ
. 'מט
מ | אמט
| ( 10 'רוש)
אמט יהי ... ףאו
ב
א גJ1
. ףא י ש א ר פ פ ג | ףאו
A . רביא ג | רבא
גJ1
. ייחה ג | יחה
ש א ר פ
. הרועסכ
גJ1
ג היהי
גJ1
ג
A
ג
ב
ד י ק
| הרועשכ
א A
פ ג | יהי
א . 'ט
הנשמ ק פ | ול ורמא
גJ1
. 'רמא
ג | ורמא
ב .() י ק א | אל
גJ1
.() ד ג | םא
A
התאמוט פ התימיט ג | התאמיט
ב . תאמט ד מ י ש
. 'ועשכ
מ
הרועסכ
| הרועשכ
A . ןיכש ג | ןכש
גJ1
A
ג ג
א גJ1
A
פ התאמיט פ ג התרהיט ג | התאמט
ב
ד 'אמוט
מ תאמט י תאמיט א התאמוט
. תרהט
. 'יזכ
מ | תיזכ
'מוט
ןכש תמה ןמ 'רופה
מ | ונממ שרופה
הרוש לע רזח)
ונממ 'רופה
'שב
'יזכ
.(
תומודה םושמ
. 'רועשכ
מ
.() מ | אמטת
גJ1
A הרועסכ ג ג | הרועשכ
A . רביאמ ג | רבאמ
9
10
11
12
13
14

רשב תייזכ התרהיט ןכש יחה ןמ
'זעילא
'רל
ול ורמא ט ' :
ונממ שרופה
אמט וא ךתדימ קולחל התיאר המ
הבורמ ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב רהט וא ןהינשב
תומצעה תאמוטמ רשבה תאמוט
תוליבקמ
103
ד ר
ב . תרהט ד י תרהיט
ב . 'יזכ
מ תיזכ ד
מ
י ש ק א ר פ
תוידע לש י"
תכ
גJ1
. ייחה ג | יחה
A . ןיכש ג | ןכש
םתרהיט פ | התרהיט
א A גJ1
פ ג ג | תייזכ
. 'שב
מ | רשב
. 'רופה
מ | שרופה
א
A
י הנשמ פ ח הנשמ א ג | ט הנשמ
. ט הנשמ ךשמה ק ג הנשמ ךשמה
.() פ | ול
A . יברל ג | 'רל
ב ג A
רזעילא ד י ש א ר פ ג | 'זעילא
. רזעיל
א
ק 'עילא
מ פ
ד
15
ב
א
. תיאר ד מ י ש א ר פ פ | התיאר
. קלחל מ | קולחל
ב ךתדמ תא י ךתדימ תא ש ק | ךתדימ
. ךיתודמ
. 'מט
מ | אמט
א A
. 'הינש
מ םהינשב ד ש ק א ר פ פ ג | ןהינשב
A
. 'והט
מ רוהט פ ריהט ג | רהט
א A
מ פ םהינשב ד ש ק א ר פ ג | ןהינשב
. 'הינשב
ב A . רמא י ש ג | 'מא
ב
א A
. 'הל
מ םהל י ש ק ר פ פ ג | ןהל
א
. 'בורמ
מ : תדימ:
הבורמ פ | הבורמ
ב . 'מוט
מ תאמט י | תאמוט
. רשב מ | רשבה
.
'מוטמ
מ 'אמוטמ
ר | תאמוטמ
. 'ומצע
מ | תומצעה
15
16
17
18
19

םיצרשבו תוליבנב גהונ רשבהש
רביא רחא רבד תומצעב ןכ ןיאש המ
עגמב אמטמ יוארכ רשב וילע שיש
אמט רשבה רסח להאבו אשמבו
'רל
ול ורמא י ' :
רוהט םצע רסח
ךתדימ קולחל התיאר המ היינוחנ
תוליבקמ
104
תומהבב
ר
20
תוידע לש י"
תכ
A . עגונ ג | גהונ
תולבנב רשבב פ | תוליבנב
ב
. 'ולבנב
מ תולבנב ד י ש תוליבנב
. 'יצרשבו
מ | םיצרשבו
. רבא ד מ
. כ"
שמ מ | ןכ ןיאש המ
A . ןאכ ג | ןכ
. 'ומצעב
מ | תומצעב
. א"
ד מ פ | רחא רבד
ב
א
י ש ק א ר פ פ | רביא
. 'שמבו
מ | אשמבו
A . ליהאבו ג | להאבו
א
מ רשב פ פ | רשבה
. 'מט
מ | אמט
.() מ | רסח
ב
A
. 'צע
מ םצעה ד י ש ק א ר ג | םצע
לכ ) רש'
ב 'י'לע
שיש
' רבא
' א"
ד 'והט
מ | רוהט
. ( מב
הנשמה ףוסב ףסומ הז
א
A
ד ר אי הנשמ פ ט הנשמ א ג | י הנשמ
. ג הנשמ ךשמה
ול א .() פ פ | ול
A . יברל ג | 'רל
ד
ב
A
. אינוחנ ד מ י פ הינוחנ ש ק א ר ג | היינוחנ
ב
א
. תיאר ד מ י ש ק א ר פ | התיאר
. קלחל מ | קולחל
ב
ךתדימ תא ש ךתדמ תא י ק | ךתדימ
. ךיתודמ
5
. 'שב
. הילע מ | וילע
. 'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
20
21
22
23
24
25

ןהינשב
רוc
הט וא ןהינשב אמט וא
תומצעה תאמוט הבורמ ןהל 'מא
שרופה רשבהש רשבה תאמוטמ
רביאו
רוהט יחה ןמ
רבד אמט ותייריבכ אוהו ונממ שרופה
אשמבו עגמב אמטמ רשב תייזכ רחא
תוליבקמ
105
. 'הינשב
ר םהינשב
. רוהט א 'והט
םהינשב
א ןהינש י
רבא
מ
ד א ר
. 'ירכב
. 'יזכ
רבאו
. 'הל
מ ש פ
מ פ
ש ק א ר פ
. 'מט
מ | אמט
א A
פ ג | ןהינשב
A ריהט ג | רהט
א A
פ ג | ןהינשב
. 'הינשב
מ
ב A
. 'א
מ רמא ד י ש ק ג | 'מא
א A
םהל ד ש ק א פ פ ג | ןהל
. 'בורמ
מ | הבורמ
. 'אמוט
פ | תאמוט
. 'מצעה
מ | תומצעה
מ
ד ש
רבא
ק א ר פ
. 'והט
מ | רוהט
א A
פ | ג רביאו
. יחה ןמ
א . שרפה פ | שרופה
. אה מ אוה פ | אוהו
ב A
ותירבכ י ש ג | ותייריבכ
ותיריבכ ק ותירבב פ ותיירבכ
. 'מט
מ | אמט
. א"
ד מ פ | רחא רבד
א
פ
מ
מ
תיזכ
| תייזכ
.
'מטמ
מ | אמטמ
אשמב פ | אשמבו
ב
א A
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג
. 'שמבו
מ
1
תוידע לש י"
תכ
26
27
. 'מוטמ
מ | תאמוטמ 28
. 'שבהש
מ | רשבהש
. שרופ מ | שרופה
29
2
1

106
עגמב םימטמ תומצע עבורו להאבו
אשמבו
להאבו
רסח
רשב
רוהט
רסח
5
אמטלמ רהטש יפ לע ףא תומצע עבור
עגמב אמטמ להאב
אשמבו
רבד
א
רח
לכ
רשב
תמה
אוהש
תוחפ
תיזכמ
רוהט
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
3
להאבו
|
ג
A
ליהאבו
מ
.()
תומצע עבורו
|
ק
תומצעבו
.
עבורו
|
ג
A
ד
בורו
פ
א
פ
ג
א
עבור
ש
[]
מ
בורבו
.
תומצע
|
ג
A
י
ב
תומצעה
מ
ומצע
'
.
םימטמ
ג
A
|
פ
א
ןימטמ
פ
ג
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
ןיאמטמ
מ
יאמטמ
'
.
4
אשמבו
|
מ
שמבו
'
.
להאבו
|
ג
A
ליהאבו
.
רשב
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
רשבה
.
רוהט
|
פ
מ
והט
'
.
5
עבור
|
ג
A
ק
מ
ד
בור
פ
עבר
.
תומצע
|
ג
A
פ
א
ק
תומצעה
מ
ומצע
'
.
יפ לע ףא
|
פ
א
"
יפע
ר
א
י
ב
מ
עא
"
פ
.
רהטש
|
פ
רוהטש
מ
והטש
ןיר
.
אמטלמ
|
ג
A
אמטלימ
.
6
להאב
|
ג
A
ליהאב
.
אשמבו
|
מ
שמבו
'
.
רחא רבד
|
פ
מ
ד
"
א
.
תוחפ
|
מ
וחפ
'
.
עבורו
...
להאבו
)
וש
'
(
4
|
ר
()
ע טמשוה
"
י
תומודה תופוס
.
אמטמ
|
מ
מטמ
'
.
7
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
תיזכמ
|
פ
א
תייזכמ
מ
יזכמ
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
.()
תוליבקמ

2מ
אלמו ב
לע ףא תמלש וניינימ בור ונייניב בור
א' י ' םיאמט עבור
ןהב ןיאש יפ
רהטל תיאר המ עשוהי 'רל
ול ורמא
תמב םתרמא םא אל ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב
ייחב ורמאת בקרו עבורו בור וב שיש
. 'רמא
תוליבקמ
21מ
21ו
ב תרמא ב
. ול
21ו
ב
ע·
ו
ת
21מ
ב
.()
2מ
1מ
. עיבירו ב עובירו ב עבור
2ו
1מ
ע
בקר דוורת אלמו ב ב בקה ת בקר
1ו
. בקר דוורת אלמ וא ב בקר דורת
21מ
21ו
ע·
ו
. 'מאת
ב רמאת ב
21ו
21מ
ע·
ו
. יחב ב ב יחה ןמ רבאב
ו
ת
ע·
ו
ת
ו
ת
ת
ת
107
ב
א
י וניינב ד מ ש א ר פ פ
ר
תוידע לש י"
תכ
A
ק ג
וניניב | ונייניב
. ונינב
.() מ | וניינימ בור
ב
א A
. בורו ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג | בור
א ב A
. וניינמ ד ש א ר פ פ ונינמ י ק ג | וניינימ
A
. תמ לש ד מ ק א פ | ג תמלש
ב . פ"
עא מ י א ר יפע"
א פ | יפ לע ףא
. 'יאש
מ | ןיאש
. םהב ד א וב ש | ןהב
. בור מ תומצע עבור א ר | עבור
ב . ןיאמט מ י א ר | םיאמט
א
A
בי הנשמ פ י הנשמ א ג | אי הנשמ
. ג הנשמ ךשמה
א ןהיתשב פ
. 'הל
םהינשב
מ
. 'א
םהל
2 21
.("
ייחב רמאת"
דע ) : אנ ריזנ ילבב י"
מ ב"
פ תוידע אתפסות
10
A .() פ ג | ול
A . יברל ג | 'רל
א . 'דוהי
מ 'שוהי
פ | עשוהי
A . התיאר ק פ ג | תיאר
| ןהינשב
. 'הינשב
מ
ב A רמא ד י ש ק ג | 'מא
| ןהל
. אל םא מ פ | םא אל
. 'תרמאנ
מ | םתרמא
ב
A
ד י ש ק ר פ ג
מ
ב
א A
ד י ש ק א ר פ פ ג
. שיש ינפמ מ | שיש
. םש מ | וב
| בור
. עבור ד | עבורו
. בקו מ | בקרו
ב
א
. יחב ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ
| ורמאת
A
ג | ייחב
"... םתרמא םא אל"
אי
8
9
10
11
12

:
בקרו עבורו בור וב ןיאש
א' י ' ל' ה ו' ר' פ
ןוידיפ לע קודצ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ
שמחכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
א' ב ןיבייח ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
ןבלש םיעלס
. ןב לש
. םימכחו
תוליבקמ
ע
בקה עבור בור וב ןיאש ת בקר עבור וב ןיאש
1מ
בקר דורת אלמ אלו עוביר אל ול ןיאש ב
ו 2ו
2מ
אלו עבור אלו בור אל ול ןיאש ב 'וכ
ב ב
. בקר דוורת אלמ
. 'עילא
. ןוידפ
. 'דוהי
. 'רב
. 'יעלס
ו
ת
מ
א
פ
ו
א
ב ד מ ש ר ק פ
.( 'כ'
ל 'ב'ה
ןקותו 'ו'
בתכנו 'ן'ה
קחמנ)
ןכ וק
א
מ רזעלא ר רזעיל ק פ רזעילא ד ש וק
. רמוא ד ש ק 'מוא
. בייח ש םיבייח
ר
מ
ו
ב ד מ ק םהלש ר
ד ש
ק
. םישמחכ מ
'ימכחו
. םירמוא ד ןירמוא ש 'רמוא
ר 'מוא
. 'ייח
מ בייח ש םיבייח
ק ר
א
ק פ וק
ד ק
108
. ןוידפ
A . דיעיה ג | דיעה
A . יבר ג | 'ר
א . 'שוהי
מ פ | עשוהי
A . יברו ג | 'רו
| ןוידיפ
ב
א A
ד מ י ש ק ר פ פ ג
. וב ד ןכ פ | ןאכ
ב . םינהכל י ש | ןהכל
. 'ולכ
מ | םולכ
A . יברש ק ג | 'רש
א
A
מ פ רזעלא ג | 'זעילא
. רזעיל ק רזעילא
ב א A
. 'מוא
א ר פ רמוא ד י ש ק פ ג | 'וא
א
A
םיבייחמ פ םיבייח פ ןיביח ג | ןיבייח
. 'יבייח
א
. 'וירחאב
מ ןתוירחאב ד פ | ותוירחאב
. שמחב
ןב לש מ | שמחכ
. שמחב מ פ | שמחכ
ב
ד י ש א ר 'עילא
מ
א
מ ק פ 'כחו
פ
. ןירמוא
. 'בייח
ב
י ש
ד
15
תוידע לש י"
תכ
| בקרו עבורו בור וב ןיאש
. 'יעלס
פ | םיעלס
. ןב לש ד מ ק א | ןבלש
ב A
םימכחו ד י ש א ר ג | 'מכחו
. 'ימכחו
א
A
'מוא
ק א ר פ םירמוא ד ג | 'וא
A
'יבייח
מ בייח ש ביח ג | ןיבייח
:
בי ילבב ח"
מ א"
פ תורוכב הנשמ
13
15
16
17
18
א

109
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
19
ותוירחאב
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
ד
ןתוירחאב
.
ןוידיפכ
|
פ
ןוידפב אלא
ר
א
ש
ד
ןוידפכ אלא
.
ןוידיפכ
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
ןוידפכ
פ
מ
ןוידפב
.
רשעמ
|
מ
ד
רשעמ לש
.
יניש
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ינש
.
20
ב הנשמ
|
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
.
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
קודצ
|
מ
ודצ
'
.
רצ
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
ריצ
.
ןיבגח
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םיבגח
מ
יבגח
'
.
םיאמט
|
פ
ג
ןיאמט
מ
יאמט
'
.
21
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
הנש ימש
|
ג
A
י
ב
הנשמהש
פ
א
פ
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
הנשמש
מ
נשמש
'
.
הנושאר
|
ג
A
פ
פ
ג
א
ש
י
ב
הנושארה
פ
א
הנשאר
ר
הנשארה
מ
אל
ניש
'
.
םיבגח
|
פ
ג
ןיבגח
מ
יבגח
'
.
22
םיאמט
|
פ
ג
ןיאמט
מ
ד
יאמט
'
.
ושבכינש
|
ג
A
מ
ןשבכש
פ
א
פ
פ
ג
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ד
ושבכנש
.
םיע
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
מ
ד
םע
פ
םש
.
ןיבגח
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
םיבגח
מ
ד
יבגח
'
.
םירוהט
|
פ
א
פ
ג
א
ןירוהט
מ
ירוהט
'
.
תוליבקמ
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ב
ו
ןוידפכ
מ
.()
מ
רשעמכ
.
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ת
ע
ה
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ריצ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ת
ע
ה
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
םיבגח
.
ד
ןיאמט
רי
ל
םיאימט
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש ק
ד
ה
רי
ל
·
ו
םע
.
ותוירחאב
ןוידיפכ
רשעמ
יניש
:
ב
'
20
ר דיעה
'
םיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ
םיבגח הנושאר הנש ימש רוהט אוהש
םיאמט
ושבכינש
םיע
ןיבגח
והט
םיר
וק
ק
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
ינש
.
ב
מ
תומורתב הנשמה רסח
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ןיאמט
.
ת
ו
והש
.
וק
ר
ק
ש
ד
ה
רי
ל
·
ו
ושבכנש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
ה
רי
ל
·
ו
םיבגח
.
וק
ןירוהט
ר
רוהט
'
.
ב
פ תומורת הנשמ
"
מ י
"
פ תוידע אתפסות ט
"
מ ג
"
א
")
דיעה
...
רוהט
("
ג השרפ ינימש ארפס
'
פ
"
ה
תומורת ימלשורי
1
פ
"
לה י
"
ט
2
פ
"
לה י
"
ז
)
2
"
דיעה
..
רוהט
.("

110
ןריצ
|
ר
םריצ
ק
ןדיצ
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
.
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
קודצ
|
מ
צ
וד
'
.
24
לע
|
מ
.()
ןהש
|
פ
ד
םהש
.
25
ןירישכ
|
ג
A
פ
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םירשכ
פ
א
םירישכ
א
ןירשכ
.
השעמ
|
מ
שעמו
'
.
תריבב
|
מ ר
תריכב
.
אייליפה
|
ג
A
איליפ
פ
א
ק
איליפה
פ
הילופ
ר
א
ה
היליפ
ש
י
ב
אילפ
מ
יילפה
'
ד
אילפה
.
26
השעמ
|
ר
מ
שעמ
'
.
מכח
| '
ג
A
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
ב
ד
םימכח
.
ורישכהו
|
ג
A
וריתיהו
פ
א
הו
ת
כ
י
ש
ור
מ
וריתהו
ד
והורשכהו
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
מ
יעה
'
.
27
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
קודצ
|
מ
ודצ
'
.
םילחוזה
|
פ
ר
א
י
ב
ד
ןילחוזה
מ
ילחוזה
'
.
ןחליקש
|
י
ב
ד
ןחלקש
.
אל
ולספ
תא
ןריצ
:
ג
'
ר דיעה
'
קודצ
לע
םילחוזה
וברש
לע
םיפטונה
ןהש
25
תריבב היה השעמ ןירישכ
ה
אבו אייליפ
ינפל השעמ
מכח
'
ורישכהו
:
ד'
דיעה
ר
'
קודצ
לע
םילחוזה
ןחליקש
ילעב
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
23
תא
|
מ
לא
'
ד
.()
םילחוזה
|
ר
א
ש
י
ב
ןילחוזה
ד
ןילחוז
מ
ילחוזה
'
.
םיפטונה
|
פ
םיפטינה
ר
א
ש
מ
ןיפטונה
.
תוליבקמ
ד
םריצ
.
וק
פ
א
ר
מ
ד
ןילחוזה
.
וק
פ
א
ר
מ
ןיפטונה
.
ד
םהש
.
פ
א
ר
מ
ןירשכ
ק
ד
םירשכ
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ןילחוזה
.
ג
"
דיעה
...
ןירישכ
"
פ תואווקמ הנשמ
"
מ ה
"
ה
.
ד
הכ םיחבז ילבב
:

ימלשורי
. ןיזוגא
ו
ב
תוליבקמ
םיזוגא
ו . השעמ היה הז ב 'שעמ
היה הז
ו . איילהואב ב אליהואב
ו
. םימכח ינפל השעמ ב
איילהאב היה השעמ ןירישכ ןהש זוגא
:
ורישכהו תיזגה תכשילל השעמ אבו
דידח שיא םיקי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ה'
ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטחלש ללק לע
דיעה רהטמ 'זעילא
'רש
אמט אוהש
'ימכח
ינפל 'שעמ
. תכשלב
. 'יזגה
. 'ישכהו
מ
ב
מ . ןירשכ ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
ו·
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
111
א
ד א םירישכ פ
הילהאב א ר פ
ב
'כשלב
מ תכשלל י
. 'אטח
לש
א
א
ק 'עילא
מ פ רזעילא ד י
2 2 1
(... םישש םוי חליג םא"
קר ). ו . זט ריזנ ילבב ב"
מ ג"
פ ריזנ הנשמ
1
| זוגא
. ןהש לכ מ םהש פ | ןהש
ב A
םירשכ י ש ק פ ג | ןירישכ
. 'ירשכ
מ ןירשכ
. 'שעמ
מ | השעמ
א A
היילהאב ש ק פ | ג איילהאב
ב . אילהאב ד י 'לה
מ
. 'שעמ
מ | השעמ
א A
ש א ר פ פ ג | תכשילל
. תכשל ינפל ד
. 'יזגה
מ | תיזגה
. והורישכהו ד | ורישכהו
A . 'יעה
מ דיעיה ג | דיעה
A . יבר ג | 'ר
. 'שוהי
מ פ | עשוהי
A . יברו ג | 'רו
.() מ | דידח שיא
. רירח ר | דידח
מ תאטח לש ד ק פ
. 'יעה
תוידע לש י"
תכ
ש
מ
| תאטחלש
. 'והש
מ | אוהש
A . יברש ג | 'רש
A
א ר ג | 'זעילא
. רזעיל
A דיעיה ג | דיעה
"... סיפפ 'ר
דיעה"
.
ב"
לה ג"
פ
28
29
ה
1
2
3

112
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
4
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
רזנש
|
תויריזנ
ג
A
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תוריזנ
מ
וריזנ
'
.
5
חליג
|
ש
ד
חלג
.
תא
|
י
א
.()
הנושארה
|
פ
א
ה
הנשאר
מ
נשארה
'
.
םישלש
|
מ
ישש
'
.
חילגמ
|
ג
A
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
חלגמ
ד
חלגמש
.
6
תא
|
ד
.()
םאו
|
פ
םא
.
7
םישש
|
מ
ישש
'
.
םוי
ג
ש
5
|
ג
A
ר
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
()
א
םוי
.
דחא
|
ר
תחא
מ
חא
'
.
אצי
|
מ
צי
'
.
8
םישלש
|
מ
ישלש
'
.
הלוע
|
ג
A
ג
ש
5
פ
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ול הלוע
ר
הלע
מ
לוע
'
.
ןינמה
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ןיינמה
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
.
תוליבקמ
ר
()
ד
יבר
.
מ
דנש
'
ד
רדנש
.
מ
ד
חלג
.
פ
א
הנשארה
מ
נשארה
'
.
וק
שולש
םי
.
פ
א
ר
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
1
חלגמ
מ
לגמ
'
.
ש
ב
ו
1
הינשה
מ
ינשה
'
.
ב מ
ו
1
םויל
.
מ
ישש
'
ד
ישיש
'
.
ש
מ
ד
חלג
.
מ
ב
ו
1
םויל
.
ר
מ
ב
מ
2
ישש
'
.
מ
חא
'
ד
תחא
.
וק
םישולש
מ
ב
מ
2
ישלש
'
ב
ו
1
םישלש לש
.
ר
'
סיפפ
לע
ימ
זנש
יc
ר
יתש
ריזנ
י
תו
םאש
5
הנושארה תא חליג
םוי
םישלש
חילגמ
םוי חליג םאו םישש םוי היינשה תא
םויש אצי דחא םוי רסח םישש
םישלש
הלוע
ןמ
ןינמה
:
ו'
דיעה
סיפפ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ד
סייפפ
.
םישלש םוי
|
היינשה
|
ג
ש
5
ש
ד
הינשה
מ
נשה
יי
'
.
םוי
|
םישש
|
מ
ישש
'
.
חליג
|
ש
ד
חלג
י
א
()
מ
ליג
'
.
םוי
|
מ
וי
'
.
םויש
|
פ
ל
םוי
.
וק
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
1
סייפפ
מ
יפפ
'
.
ר
ק
ש
ד
ב
ו
1
תוריזנ
מ
ויריזנ
'
לגמש
'
נשארה תא
'
ויל
'
ישלש
'
יינשה תאו
'
ישש םויל
'
חאו
'
םאו
.
מ
()
ד
םוי םישלש
.
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
2
א
ם
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
.()
מ
צי
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
ד
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
ו
21
ול הלוע
מ
ב
מ
2
לוע
'
ול
.
וק
פ
א
רי
ל
·
ו
ןיינימה
ר
מ
ד
ןיינמה
.
ו
פ הרומת הנשמ
"
מ ג
"
מו ב
"
הרומת ילבב ג
1
חי
.
2
ר
"
ו ה
.

113
9
ר
'
עשוהי
|
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
עשוהי
|
ג
ש
5
עשוי
פ
א
שוהי
'
ר
עושוהי
.
רו
| '
ג
A
יברו
.
סייפפ
|
ג
A
ש
י
א
סיפפ
.
דלוו
|
ג
A
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
דלו
ד
לש דלו
.
םימלש
|
מ
ימלש
'
.
ברקיש
|
פ
ברקש
.
םימלש
|
ג
A
מלש םימלש
םי
.
םימלש
|
מ
ימלש
'
.
רש
'
זעילא
'
...
מכחו
'
מוא
'
ברקי
)
וש
'
12
(
|
ג
A
מ
.()
רש
| '
ק
יברש
.
זעילא
| '
ג
ש
5
ק
רזעיל
פ
א
עילא
'
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
רזעילא
.
םימלש דלוו
|
ר
.()
11
םימלש
|
12
ברקי
|
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
ג
A
ק
י
א
ד
רמא
.
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
פ
.()
סיפפ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ד מ
סייפפ
ש
סאיפפ
.
דיעמ
|
ג
A
דיעימ
.
תוליבקמ
ספ
ב
ו
ר
"
ש
.
וק
פ
א
ק
ש
סיפפ
.
ק
ר
ש
מ
ד
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
דלו
.
מ
.()
ד
ימלש
'
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ש ק
מ
םימלש
ד
ימלש
'
.
ד
רמא
מ
ב
מ
2
א
"
ר
.
ר
'
עשוהי
רו
'
סייפפ
לע
דלוו
םימלש
10
רש םימלש ברקיש
'
זעילא
'
וא
'
דלוו
מלש ברקי אל םימלש
'
מכחו
'
מוא
'
ברקי
מא
'
ר
'
יפפ
ס
ינא
דיעמ
התיהש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
10
םימלש ברקיש
|
וא
| '
ר
א
י
א
מוא
'
ק
ש
ד
רמוא
.
דלוו
|
א
ק
ש
י
א
דלו
ד
דלוש
.
מלש
| '
ג
ש
5
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םימלש
.
מכחו
| '
פ
ר
ק
ימכחו
'
א
ד
םימכחו
ש
ןימכחו
.
מוא
| '
פ
וא
'
ק
ירמוא
'
ש
ןירמוא
.
מא
'
ר
'
סיפפ
|
ק
ז הנשמ
ןאכ תלחתמ
.
התיהש
|
מ
ע'
ל'
תיהש
'
.
מ
שוהי
'
.
ב
מ
2
בירקיש
.
וק
מלש
'
ב
מ
2
מלש
י
'
.
וק
ר
ש
מ
ד
רזעילא
פ
א
ק
רזעיל
.
ר
מ ק
מוא
'
ש
רמוא
.
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
ב
ו
21
דלו
.
וק
ר
ש
םימכחו
ק
ד
כחו
ימ
'
.
ש
ןירמוא
מ
ד
וא
'
.
פ
א
ר
מ
ד
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
סייפפ
.

114
13
הרפ
|
מ
רפ
'
.
םימלש
|
מ
ימלש
'
.
אהונלכאו
ג
A
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
הונלכאו
.
ז הנשמ
|
ק
ח הנשמ
.
15
ודיעה
|
ג
A
ודיעיה
.
תובורא
|
ג
A
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
תוכורא
מ
ובורא
'
.
םימותחנ לש
|
ג
A
פ
א
םימותחנלש
ג
ש
5
לש
-
ןימותחנ
ר
א
י
א
ןימותחנלש
ש
ד
לש
ןימותחנ
מ
ימותחנ לש
'
.
16
תואמט
|
ג
A
תואימט
מ
ואמט
'
.
רש
| '
ג
A
יברש
.
רזעילא
|
פ
א
מ
ילא
ע
'
פ
זעילא
'
ק
רזעיל
.
רהטמ
|
מ
הטמ
'
.
ןהו
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ק
מ
ןה
ר
א
ד
םה
.
ודיעה
|
ג
A
ודיעיה
.
17
רונת
|
מ
ונת
'
.
וכתיחש
ג
A
|
ר
א
ש
י
א
וכתחש
מ
יכתיח
ד
ןכתחש
.
ןתנו
|
תוליבקמ
פ
א
הרפ
ר
.()
מ
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
יחבז לש
.
וק
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
מ
ד
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
הונלכאו
.
ק
ר
ש
ד
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
הדלו
מ
דלו
.
וק
מלש
'
ר
לש
-
םימלש
.
חספב אהונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל
ונלכאו
הדלוו
םימלש
גחב
:
ז
'
ןה
15
ןהש םימותחנ לש תובורא לע ודיעה
תואמט
רש
'
רזעילא
רהטמ
ןהו
ודיעה
לע
רונת
יחש
וכת
תוילח
ןתנו
לוח
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
יחבז
|
פ
א
יחבזלש
מ
יחבז לש
.
14
הדלוו
|
ר
ש
י
א
מ
ד
הדלו
א
תא
הדלו
ק
תא
הדלו
.
םימלש
|
פ
ימלש
'
מ
.()
ןה
|
ר
א
םה
ש
י
א
ןהו
.
ןהש
|
ר
ד
םהש
.
תוילח
|
י
א
ד
תוילוח
מ
וילח
'
.

115
תכ
"
י
תוידע לש
18
איילח
|
ג
A
איליח
ג
ש
5
פ
א
א
ק
ש
הילוח
פ
ר
ד
אילוח
י
א
הילח
מ
ילוח
'
.
איילוחל
|
ג
A
איליחל
ג
ש
5
פ
א
א
ק
ש
י
א
הילוחל
פ
ד
אילוחל
ר
מ
ילוחל
'
.
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
19
רש
| '
]
ג
A
[
יברש
.
רזעילא
|
ג
ש
5
ק
רזעיל
פ
א
מ
עילא
'
פ
זעילא
'
.
ןה
...
םירופה דע
)
הרוש
21
(
|
מ
.()
ןה
|
ר
א
םה
ש
י
א
ןהו
.
ודיעה
|
ג
A
ודיעיה
.
20
ןירבעמש
|
ג
A
ק
םירבעמש
.
תא
|
הנשה
|
לכב
|
ג
A
ג
ש
5
פ
א
פ
ר
לכ
.
21
ויהש
|
ןירמוא
|
ג
A
ד
םירמוא
פ
א
א
ק
י
א
מוא
'
פ
וא
'
.
םירופה
|
ןה
|
ר
א
םה
ש
י
א
ןהו
.
ודיעה
|
ג
A
ודיעיה
מ
יעה
'
.
ןירבעמש
|
ג
A
פ
א
םירבעמש
מ
רבעמש
'
.
ב
ו
2
םירבעמש
.
ב
ו
1
.()
ב
מ
2
נשה
'
.
ת
ו
21
ת
ע
21
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
לכ
.
ת
ו
21
ת
ע
21
הנושארבש
>
ת
ע
1
הנשארבש
<
ויה
ת
ו
21
ת
ע
21
רי
ל
מוא
'
ב
מ
21
וא
'
רי
ו
ב
ו
21
םירמוא
.
ת
ו
2
ת
ע
2
ב
מ
1
פ דע אלא ןירבעמ ןיא
םירו
.
ז
"
ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה
...
םירופה
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ג
"
פ ןירדהנס א
"
ימ ב
"
פ הלגמ ימלשורי ג
"
א
לה
"
ז
.
ילבב
1
ר
"
ז ה
.
2
זפ ןירדהנס
.
אמט אוהש איילוחל איילח ןיב
רש
'
רזעילא
רהטמ
ןה
ודיעה
מש
ע'
20
הנשה תא ןירבעמש
ב
ויהש רדא לכ
ןירמוא
דע
םירופה
ןה
ודיעה
ןירבעמש
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
רדא
|
םירופה דע
|
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
1
םה
.
ב
מ
2
דא
'
.
ב
מ
2
ירופה
'
.
"
ודיעה ןה
..
יינת לע
"
פ הלגמ ימלשורי
"
לה א
"
ז
.

116
הנשה תא
יינת לע
:
ח'
ןברב השעמ
אילמג
'
ךלהש
יל
לוט
תושר
ןומגיהמ
ש
הc
היירוסב
אהשו
אובל
ורביעו
תא
25
הנשה
לע
יינת
הצרייש
ןבר
אילמג
'
22
תא
|
ד
.()
הנשה
|
מ
נשה
'
.
יינת
ג
ש
5
|
ג
A
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יאנת
.
ח הנשמ
|
ר
ד
ז הנשמ ךשמה
ק
ט הנשמ
.
השעמ
|
ג
A
עמ
ש
ס
ה
מ
שעמ
'
.
אילמג ןברב
| '
מ
רב
"
ג
.
23
אילמג
| '
ג
A
ג
ש
5
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לאילמג
פ
א
פ
ילמג
'
.
ךלהש
|
מ
להש
'
.
תושר
|
ןומגיהמ
|
ג
A
ג
ש
5
פ
א
ר
א
ק
מ
ד
ןומגהמ
פ
ש
י
א
ןומגאמ
.
24
היירוסבש
|
ג
ש
5
פ
א
ק
ש
הירוסבש
ר
י
א
אירוסבש
מ
ירוסבש
'
ד
אירוסב
.
אובל
|
פ
מ
ד
אבל
.
25
הנשה
|
מ
נשה
'
.
יינת
|
ג
A
ייאנת
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
יאנת
מ
תנמ
.
הצרייש
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
הצרישכ
מ
צריש
'
ד
הצרישל
.
אילמג ןבר
| '
מ
ר
"
ג
.
אילמג
| '
ג
A
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לאילמג
פ
א
למג
'
.
ב
מ
שעמ
'
ב
ו
ו
שעמ
ה
.
ב
מ
ושר
'
.
ב
מ
השו
'
ב
ו
ההשו
.
ב
מ
נשה
'
.
ב
מ
נמ
'
ב
ו
תנמ
.
ב
מ
צריש
'
ב
ו
הצריש
.
ב
מ
ר
"
ג
.
ח
אי ןירדהנס ילבב
.
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
אהשו
|
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
ההשו
מ
השו
'
.
ורביעו
|
י
א
ד
ורבעו
.
ליבקמ
תו
ב
מ
רב
"
ג
.
ב
מ
חא ןומגה לצא
'
ב
ו
ןוטלש לצא
דחא
.
ב
מ
ירוסבש
'
ב
ו
אירוסבש
.
ב
מ
·
ו
אבל
.

117
מא אבשכו
'
הנשה אצמנו ינא הצור ןהל
עמ
תרבו
:
ט
'
דיעה
םחנמ
ןב
ייגנס
ףסומ לע
ה
ארוי
לש
יקלוש
םיתיז
אוהש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
26
אבשכו
...
ינא הצור
|
ד
.()
אבשכו
|
מא
| '
ג
A
ג
ש
3
ק
ש
רמא
מ
א
'
.
ןהל
|
ג
A
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
םהל
פ
א
.()
הצור
|
מ
צור
'
.
אצמנו
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
תאצמנו
מ
אצמנו
'
.
הנשה
|
מ
נשה
'
.
27
תרבועמ
|
מ
רבועמ
'
.
ט הנשמ
|
ק
י הנשמ
ר
ד
ח הנשמ
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
ג
ש
3
דיעיה
מ
יעה
'
.
םחנמ
|
פ
ר
א
ר
'
םחנמ
מ
ר
'
חנמ
'
.
ייגנס
ג
ש
3
|
ג
A
ינגיס
פ
אגנס
ר
א
י
א
ד
יאנגס
ק
יגניס
ש
יאגנס
מ
יינגיס
.
28
ארויה ףסומ
לש
|
מ
.()
ארויה
|
ג
A
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
הרוי
פ
א
ד
הרויה
.
יקלוש לש
|
ג
A
פ
א
ש
י
א
יקלושלש
פ
לש
-
יקלוש
ר
לש
-
קלוש
.
יקלוש
|
מ
ילקש
.
םיתיז
|
ר
א
ק
י
א
םיתז
מ
יתז
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
ר אבשכו
"
ג
ב
ו
לאילמג ןבר אבשכו
.
ב
מ
או
'
ב
ו
רמאו
.
ב
מ
·
ו
.()
ב
מ
צור
'
.
ת
ו
יקליש
.
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
ב
מ
אצמנ
'
ב
ו
תאצמנ
.
ב
מ
נשה
'
ב
ו
הנש
.
ת
ו
עבצ והש ינגיס
ת
ע
עבצוהש יאגנוס
.
ת
ו
·
ע
הרוי
.
ת
ו
םיתז
.
ט
"
םחנמ דיעה
...
ןירבדה ףוליח
"
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ג
"
א
.

118
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
אמט
|
מ
מט
'
.
לשו
|
ג
A
ש
י
א
לש לעו
-
פ
לש לעו
מ
לעו
.
םיעבצ לשו
|
ג
A
ש
םיעבצלש
פ
א
ר
םיעבצלשו
י
א
ןיעבצלש
מ
ןינועבצ
.
אוהש
|
מ
והש
'
.
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
1
מוא
| '
ג
A
ד
םירמוא
פ
מ
וא
'
ר
ש
י
א
ןירמוא
ק
ירמוא
'
.
ףוליח
|
ק
ש
מ
ד
ףולח
.
ןירבדה
|
ג
A
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םירבדה
מ
ירבדה
'
.
דיעה
|
ר
ט הנשמ
א
י הנשמ
ד
ח הנשמ
)
ח תואב ושמתשהש תינש םעפ
.(
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
מ
יעה
'
.
ר
| '
ג
A
י
א
יבר
.
ןנחוי
|
פ
י
וי
ה
ו
ו
ח
ש
נ
ע
ן
מ
נחוי
'
ד
אינוחנ
.
2
הדגדוג
ג
A
|
ג
ש
3
ק
אדגדג
פ
א
ד
אדגדוג
ר
ש
י
א
הדגדג
מ
דגוג
'
.
תשרחה
|
פ
תשרח
מ
שרחה
'
.
האישיהש
|
ג
A
ג
ש
3
האיסיהש
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
האישהש
מ
ישהש
'
.
3
איהש
|
אצוי
ג
ש
3
|
ג
A
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
האצוי
מ
צוי
'
.
הנטק
|
מ
נטק
'
.
ארשי
| '
ג
A
ג
ש
3
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
לארשי
י
א
שי
'
מ
רשי
'
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
ש לעו
-
ת
ע
לש לעו
ת
ו
היהש
.
וק
1
ר
1
אדגדג
וק
2
גדוג
וc
אד
פ
א
-
21
ר
2
מ
1
ד
1
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ספ
י
ל
2
ספ
י
ו
2
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
321
אדגדוג
ק
21
ש
21
הדגדג
מ
2
דגדוג
'
ספ
י
ל
1
ספ
י
ו
1
ירונ
ספ
ב
מ
1
דגדג
'
.
מ
2
ב
מ
3
שרחה
'
.
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
32
.()
פ
א
1
ר
21
ש
21
ד
21
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ב
ו
321
האצוי
מ
21
אצוי
'
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
32
האצויש
.
ק
הנטקה
מ
1
נטק
'
.
ט
"
ר דיעה
'
ןנחוי
...
טגב
"
תומבי הנשמ
1
יפ
"
מ ד
"
ג
2
פ ןיטיג
"
מ ה
"
ה
.
תומבי ילבב
1
ביק
:
2
הנ ןיטיג
.
3
גיק
.
ימלשורי
1
יפ תומבי
"
לה ד
'
ג
'
2
פ ןיטיג
"
לה ה
'
ה
'
.
אמט
לשו
םיעבצ
אוהש
רוהט
ויהש
1
מוא
'
ר דיעה ןירבדה ףוליח
'
ןנחוי
''
ןב
תשרחה לע הדגדוג
היבא האישיהש
וי איהש
צ
א
טגב
לעו
הנטק
תב
ארשי
'
ויהש
|
ג
ש
3
אוהש
.
היבא
|
מ
ריבא
'
.
ת
ו
ןיעבוצש
ת
ע
םיעבצ לש
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ויה הנושארבש
.
ת
ו
·
ע
םירבדה
.
וק
2
דיעיה
.
מ
2
שוהי
'
.
וק
2
האיסיהש
פ
א
-
21
ר
21
ק
21
ש
21
מ
2
ד
21
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
2
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
321
האישהש
מ
1
אישהש
'
.
פ
א
ר
21
ק
ש
ד
ב
מ
3
לארשי
מ
21
רשי
'
רי
ל
שי
'
.

3מ
. תסינש ב
ינפמ וימד
המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש
לוזגה שירמה לעו השרוי
הלעב התימ םאו
לעו וימד תא ןתינc
ש הריבב ואנבש
םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה תאטחה
:
חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ תרפכמ איהש
ח ' ר' פ
ט' ל' ה
תוליבקמ
2
1
21ו
'אשנש
מ 'סינש
מ תאשנש ב
1
21ו
. 'לכואש
מ תלכואש ב
2 . 'יהש
מ אהתש
. 'לכוא
. 'מורתב
31ו
. לוטיש ב
321ו
ב
32מ
ב
. 'שרוי
מ
ד ש
3מ
1
ב ר
2
. 'לעב
השריי
. לע
'ירמה
. 'וזגה
. וינבש
ק
מ
ק
ק
3מ
ב
2ו
32מ
לטונש ב ב מ ןתייש
32ו
32מ
. () ב
ןיבשה 'נקת
ינפמ וימד
. םיבשה תנקת
וב
21ו
מב
2מ
. תאטח ספ ב ספ 'אטח
ב
. 'לוזגה
2מ
. עדונ ב 'עדונ
2מ
.() ב 'יברל
. 'רפכמ
ו . תמ
מ התמ ב
'תיהש
. 'וקת
2
. שירמ
2מ
ב
2מ
ו·
ל
ק
ב מ
מ
מ
2מ
ב מ
'רפכמ
'יהש
ןוקת ד ש
. 'בזמה
ב מ
רי
ו·
ל
21
מ
א
ד ש ק ר פ
רי
מ
מ
וק
מ
מ
מ
ר
2מ
ב מ
119
. התמ
5
. תאשנש
א
א
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ
. 'ריבב
. 'אטחה
תוידע לש י"
תכ
א
ד מ י ש
| תאשינש
| תלכוא איהש
. 'יהש
מ | איהש
. 'לכוא
מ | תלכוא
.() מ | המורתב
3ש
A | ג ג התימ
. 'לעב
מ | הלעב
. 'שרוי
מ | השרוי
| לעו
. שירמ פ | שירמה
.() מ | לוזגה
3ש
. ויינבש ג | ואנבש
הריכב ק ר | הריבב
| ןתיש
| תא
| וימד
מ תאטח פ | תאטחה
| הלוזגה
. עדונ מ | העדונ
. םילעפל מ | םיברל
. 'רפכמש
מ | תרפכמ איהש
א . ןוקת ד מ י ש ר | ןוקית
. חבזמ מ | חבזמה
סירפ י"
יתכב ג"
מ ד"
יפ תומבי הנשמ אוה ןושארה קלח)
ה"
מ ה"
פ ןיטיג הנשמ " השרוי ... הנטק לעו"
2
1
. הנ ןיטיג ( ןושארה קלח)
. גיק תומבי . 'ה
'לה
ה"
פ ןיטיג ימלשורי ( ןיכנימו
1
ק"
ב . הנ ןיטיג ילבב . ה"
לה ה"
פ ןיטיג ימלשורי ה"
מ ה"
פ ןיטיג הנשמ " וימד ... שירמה
לעו"
3 2
. הצ : וס
2 1
:
הנ . הנ ןיטיג ילבב . 'ה
'לה
ה"
פ ןיטיג ימלשורי ה"
מ ה"
פ ןיטיג הנשמ "... תאטחה לעו"
מ
ט
4
5
6
7
8

2ו
רי
. עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי
מ 3ו
32ל
אריתפ ב רי רי הריתפ
2ו
. הלבנ רי
2ל
רי
תולבנ םד לע אריתב ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
הריתב ןב ןועמש 'ר
דיעה רוהט אוהש
ותצקימב אמט עגנש תאטחה רפא לע
תלוסה הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה ולוכ תא אמיטש
ו
ב
ע
תוליבקמ
'שוהי
'רו
'שוהי
1ו
1ל
הריתב רי רי
. ארותפ
31ל
ע
רי ת תולבנה
ת
ו 31ו
תוליבנ ב רי
. אמטה
. 'ביקע
2ו
. ץמוקה
1ו
. איהש רי
2מ
ב
2מ
ב
ו
. עגנ םאש
םוי לובט
. ותצקמב
ב
. ע"
ר
2ו
אביקע ב
3ו
תלסה ב
ב
מ
ב
ו
ת
ו
ת
ו והש ת
. אריתב
. תאטח
ו·
מ
ב
ו·
מ
ב
מ
ב
מ
ב
ו·
מ
ב
מ . אמטיש ב
31ו
ב
31מ
ב
31מ
ב
120
[] ריתב
ש
ש
תוליבנ
. 'שוהי
א הריתב
א
מ פ
י ק א ר פ
א
א 3ש
י ק א ר פ פ ג
תוידע לש י"
תכ
A . דיעיה ג | דיעה
A . יבר ג | 'ר
3ש
עושוהי ג | עשוהי
א 3ש
A
פ ג ג | אריתב
. 'ריתב
מ
A תלבנ ג | תולבנ
. 'ולבנ
מ תול[]
בנ
. 'יעה
. 'עמש
. אריתב
א
א
מ תאטח ד י ש ק א ר פ פ
א . ותצקמב ד מ י ש ק א ר פ
מ
א
ד
. 'והש
מ | אוהש
. 'והט
מ | רוהט
A דיעיה ג | דיעה
A . יבר ג | 'ר
'ועמש
פ | ןועמש
'ריתב
ר | הריתב
מ
A . רפיא ג | רפא
3ש
A
ג ג | תאטחה
. 'אטח
| עגנש
. םוי 'ובט
מ | אמט
3ש
A
ג | ג ותצקימב
'מטיש
מ אמטש אמט ק אמטינש פ | אמיטש
. אמטש ד
. ףא ד | תא
. ולכ ד מ | ולוכ
. 'או
'קע
'ר
ףיסוה מ | הביקע יבר ףיסוה
A . יבר [ ג]
| 'ר
. 'יקע
מ אביקע ד א פ | הביקע
א 3ש
. תלוסה לע ד תלסה מ י א ר ג | תלוסה
ג2
1
ג"
לה ג"
פ םילקש א"
לה ח"
פ תבש ימלשורי ב"
מ ג"
פ תוידע אתפסות " רוהט ... עשוהי 'ר
דיעה"
3
: גק תוחנמ ילבב . א"
לה ח"
פ ( ןוילגב בתכנו םלש ףד טמשוה ןדייל י"
תכב)
: גכ הגיגח ילבב " ולוכ ... ןועמש
'ר
דיעה"
3 2
1
:
גכ הגיגח . חמ אמוי . טי םיחספ ילבב . ב"
לה ג"
פ הגיגח ימלשורי "... הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה"
10
פ
10
11
12
13
א

121
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
14
תרוטקהו
|
ג
A
ג
ש
3
פ
א
א
ק
י
א
ד
תרטקהו
פ
תרוטקו
מ
רטקהו
'
.
הנובלה
|
ג
A
ג
ש
3
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הנובלהו
מ
נובלהו
'
.
עגנש
|
לובט
|
מ
ובט
'
.
15
ןתצקימב
|
ןתצקימב
|
ג
A
י
א
םתצקמב
ג
ש
3
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
ד
ןתצקמב
מ
תצקמב
'
.
ש
לספ
|
םלוכ
|
ג
ש
3
ד
םלכ
ר
א
ןלוכ
מ
ןלכ
.
דיעה
|
ג
A
דיעיה
מ
יעה
'
.
16
ר
'
אבא ןב הדוהי
|
ר
| '
ג
A
יבר
.
ןב הדוהי
|
מ
.()
הדוהי
|
פ
מ
דוהי
'
ק
הדוי
.
אבא
|
פ
הבא
ר
א
ש
י
א
אבב
.
רו
| '
ג
A
יברו
.
הדוהי
|
פ
והי
'
מ
דוהי
'
.
17
הנטק
|
ש
י
א
הנטקה
מ
נטק
'
.
שי
| '
ג
A
ג
ש
3
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
לארשי
פ
מ
רשי
'
.
תאשינש
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
א
ג
ש
י
א
ד
תאשנש
ר
תואשנש
מ
אשנש
'
.
18
המורתב תלכוא איהש
|
תלכוא איהש
|
י
א
תלכואש
מ
לכואש
'
.
המורתב
|
מ
מורתב
'
.
ןויכ
|
נכינש
הס
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הסנכנש
פ
מ
סנכנש
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
321
עגנ םאש
.
ב
מ
3
יפא
'
ןתצקמב
.
ב
מ
1
פ
ו
לס
ב
מ
32
לספ
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
21
ןלוכ
ב
ו
3
ולוכ
.
ת
ע
אבב
.
ת
ו
·
ע
.()
ת
ו
לארשי
ת
ע
ןהכ
.
ת
ו
·
ע
.()
ת
ע
ןויכש
.
ב
"
ר דיעה
'
הדוהי
...
הלעבינ אלש
"
אתפסות
תוידע
פ
"
מ ג
"
ב
.
תרוטקהו
הנובלה
םילחגהו
עגנש
לובט
15
ןתצקימב םוי
ש
םלוכ תא לספ
:
ב'
דיעה
ר
'
רו אבא ןב הדוהי
'
לע ןהכה הדוהי
שי תב הנטק
'
איהש ןהכל תאשינש
תלכוא
המורתב
ןויכ
הסנכינש
הפוחל
םילחגהו
|
מ
ילחגהו
'
.
הפוחל
|
מ
פחל
'
.
רי
ו
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
3
תרטקהו
.
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
321
הנובלהו
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
21
ןתצקמב
ב
מ
1
()
ב
ו
3
ותצקמב
.
ת
ו
)
.(
ת
ו
ר
'
.
ת
ו
·
ע
הסנכנש
.

122
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
19
יפ לע ףא
|
ג
ש
3
יפ לע ףאו
פ
ד
א
"
יפע
ר
א
י
א
מ
עא
"
פ
.
ר
'
ןהכה ףסוי
רו
'
בצקה ןב הירכז
|
20
הירכז
|
מ
ד
ירכז
'
.
תקונית
|
ר
תוקונית
מ
ונית
'
.
21
הנח רוהש
|
ג
ש
3
רוהש
אנח
)
הארנ
ינש איהש
םילמ
(
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הנהרוהש
פ
הנחרוהש
ר
הנרהרוהש
א
רוהש
ה
הנ
מ
נהרוהש
'
.
22
ה
החפשמ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
ה
החפשמ
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
החפשמ
מ
חפשמ
'
.
הידיעו
ג
ש
3
|
ק
י
א
מ
הידעו
ד
םידעו
.
ןידיעמ
|
ג
ש
3
פ
ק
ד
םידיעמ
מ
ידיעמ
'
.
אלשו
|
מ
אלו
.
האמטינ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
האמטנ
מ
אמטנ
'
ד
תאמטנ
.
ורמא
|
פ
א
מא
'
.
ןהל
|
ג
ש
3
פ
א
פ
א
ק
י
א
ד
םהל
מ
הל
'
.
מכח
| '
ג
ש
3
פ
א
ק
ש
ד
םימכח
ר
ימכח
'
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
·
ע
הלעבנ
.
ב
מ
21
ר
'
רו בצקה ןב הירכז
'
ןהכה יסוי
.
ב
ו
21
הידעו
.
ב
ו
םידיעמ
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
הרתסנ
.
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ורמאו
.
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
1
םהל
ב
ו
2
.()
"
ר דיעה
'
ףסוי
...
האמטינ אלשו
"
פ תובותכ ימלשורי
"
לה ב
"
י
.
יפ לע ףא
אלש
הלעבינ
דיעה
ר
'
ףסוי
20
רו ןהכה
'
תקונית לע בצקה ןב הירכז
רו ןולקשאב הנח רוהש
ינב אהוקחי
ה
אלש התוא ןידיעמ הידיעו החפשמ
ארתסינ
אלשו
האמטינ
ורמא
ןהל
מכח
'
הלעבינ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הלעבנ
מ
לעבנ
'
.
דיעה
|
מ
יעה
'
.
ףסוי
|
ג
ש
3
פ
א
הסוי
פ
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
יסוי
.
אהוקחירו
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
י
א
ש
ד
הוקחירו
א
וחירו
:
הק
מ
וקחרו
'
.
התוא
|
מ
תוא
'
.
23
ארתסינ
|
ג
ש
3
הרתסינ
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הרתסנ
מ
רתסנ
'
.
ת
ו
עא
"
פ
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
יסוי
.
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
לארשי תב
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
הנהרוהש
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
הוקחירו
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
החפשמ
ב
ו
21
התחפשמ
.
ב
ו
2
הילע
.
רי
ל
·
ו
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
האמטנ
.
ב
מ
1
םימכח
ב
מ
2
םימכח
וכו
'
.
ב
"
ה
ר דיע
'
ףסוי
"...
תובותכ ילבב
1
וכ
:
2
זכ
.

123
םא
םינימאמ
םתא
הנחרוהש
הנח
25
האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש ונימאה
הרתסינ אלש ןינימאמ םתא ןיא םאו
האמטינ אלשו
לא
ונימאת
רוהש
הנח
:
ג
דיעה
ר
'
עשוהי
רו
'
עשוהי
ןב
24
םתא םינימאמ
|
פ
םינימאמ םתא
.
םינימאמ
|
מ
ינימאמ
'
.
הנחרוהש
|
ג
ש
3
נחרוהש
א
ר
הנרהרוהש
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הנהרוהש
מ
נהרוהש
'
.
25
הרתסינ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הרתסנ
מ
רתסנ
'
.
26
םאו
|
פ
א
פ
ד
םא
ק
.()
ןיא
|
מ
יא
.
םתא
|
פ
()
מ
תא
'
.
ןינימאמ
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םינימאמ
מ
ינימאמ
'
.
27
אלשו
|
מ
אלו
.
האמטינ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
ר
ק
ש
י
א
ד
טנ
האמ
פ
מ
אמטנ
'
.
רוהש
הנח
|
ג
ש
3
אנהרוהש
ג
ש
4
פ
א
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
הנהרוהש
פ
הנרוהש
ר
הנרהרוהש
.
28
דיעה
|
מ
יעה
'
.
ר
| '
ג
ש
6
יבר
.
עשוהי
|
ג
ש
3
עושוהי
פ
מ
שוהי
'
.
רו
'
עשוהי
|
פ
()
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
נהרוהש
ה
.
ב
מ
1
םא
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
האמטנ
.
ב
מ
2
דוהי
'
.
ב
מ
2
()
ב
מ
1
והי
ש
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
האמטינ
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
ק
ש
י
א
ד
האמטנ
מ
מטנ
'
.
הרתסינ
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
הרתסנ
מ
רתסנ
'
.
עשוהי
|
ג
ש
3
עושוהי
מ
שוהי
'
ד
הדוהי
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
םינימאמ םתא
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
הרתסנ
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
האמטנ
.
ב
ו
1
יא
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
םינימאמ
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
הרתסנ
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
הנהרוהש
.
ד
ע
ה
ב
ו
21
הדוהי
.
ג
"
דיעה
...
הנוהכל
"
ילבב
1
די תובותכ
.
2
הע ןישודיק
.

124
ריתב
ה
לע
תנמלא
הסיע
איהש
הרישכ
1
רהטלו אמטל הרישכ הסיעה הנוהכל
מא ברקלו קחרל
'
אילמג ןבר
'
ונלבוק
לבא ןכתודע
המ
השענ
רזגו
ןבר
ןנחוי
ןב
ייכז
אלש
בישוהל
תיב
ןיד
לע
ךכ
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
29
הריתב
|
ק
ד
אריתב
מ
ריתב
'
.
לא
תנמ
|
א
תונמלא
מ
נמלא
'
.
הסיע
|
מ
סיע
'
.
איהש
|
מ
יהש
'
.
הנוהכל הרישכ
|
מ
[]
תכב חויר שי
"
לבא י
ולא םילממ תוארנ תויתואה תצקמ
.
הרישכ
|
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
הרשכ
.
1
הנוהכל
|
ד
הנהכל
.
הסיעה
...
ברקלו
)
הרוש
2
(
|
מ
.()
הסיעה
ג
ש
3
|
ג
ש
4
ד
הסיעהש
פ
א
ר
א
ק
הסיעהו
פ
ו
ש
יעה
הס
.
הרישכ
|
פ
א
ק
ש
י
א
הרשכ
.
2
קחרל
|
ג
ש
4
.()
ברקלו קחרל
|
פ
קחרלו ברקלו
.
מא
| '
ג
ש
4
ג
ש
6
ר
י
א
ד
רמא
מ
א
'
ןהל
.
אילמג ןבר
| '
מ
ר
"
ג
.
אילמג
| '
ג
ש
4
ג
ש
6
פ
ר
א
ק
לאילמג
פ
א
למג
'
ש
י
א
ד
לאילמג ןב ןועמש
.
ונלבוק
|
ג
ש
4
פ
א
פ
א
ק
י
א
ונלביק
ר
ש
מ
ד
ונלבק
.
3
ןכתודע
|
ג
ש
4
פ
םכיתודע תא
פ
א
א
םכתודיע
ר
ד
םכתודע
ק
ןכתודיע
ש
םכתודע תא
י
א
םכתודיע תא
מ
כתודע
'
.
השענ
|
ג
ש
4
פ
ג
א
נ
השע
ר
מ
שענ
'
.
רזגו
|
פ
תא רזגו
מ
א ירהש
'
ד
רמגנ
.
אלש
|
בישוהל
|
מ
ישוהל
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
אריתב
ב
מ
2
ריתב
'
.
ב
מ
2
נמלא
'
.
ב
מ
1
אסיע
ב
מ
2
סיע
'
.
ב
מ
מא
'
ןהל
ב
ו
ןהל רמא
.
ב
מ
השעא
.
ב
מ
·
ו
יאכז
.
4
ייכז
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
|
ג
ש
6
יכז
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
יאכז
מ
כז
'
.
ןיד תיב
|
פ
ר
מ
ב
"
ד
ד
ןיניד יתב
.
ב
מ
2
יהש
'
ב
ו
2
.()
ב
מ
1
רישכ
'
ב
מ
2
רשכ
'
ב
ו
1
הרשכ
ב
ו
2
הרישכש
.
ב
מ
21
נוהכל
'
.
ב
מ
ר
"
ג
.
ב
מ
·
ו
ונלבק
.
ב
מ
·
ו
םכתודע
.
ב
מ
·
ו
רזג ירהש
.
ב
מ
.()
ב
מ
ב
"
ד
.
ג
"
מא
'
אילמג ןבר
'
"...
די תובותכ ילבב
.

125
5
אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה
ברקל
:
ד'
ר דיעה
'
רזעוי ןב הסוי
יכד הייצימק לייא לע הדירצ שיא
לעו
הקשמ
תיב
הייחבטמ
ןייכד
ידו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
5
םינהכה
|
ג
ש
4
ג
ש
6
פ
א
ש
י
א
םינהכהו
מ
ינהכהש
'
.
ןיעמוש
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
פ
א
פ
םיעמוש
מ
יעמוש
'
.
קחרל
|
מ
קוחרל
.
דיעה
|
מ
יעה
'
.
ר
| '
ג
ש
3
מ
.()
7
הדירצ שיא
|
לייא
|
ר
א
ש
ד
ליא
מ
לויא
.
הייצימק
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
פ
הייצמק
פ
א
ק
אייצמק
ר
יצמוק
ש
אייצמוק
א
י
א
איצמוק
מ
צמק
'
ד
אצמק
.
יכד
|
ג
ש
4
יכד אוהש
פ
יבד
מ
ד
ןכד
.
תיב
|
מ
יב
.
הייחבטמ
ג
ש
4
|
]
ג
ש
3
[
פ
י
א
אייחבטמ
פ
א
אייחטמ
ר
ק
מ
ד
איחבטמ
א
היחבטמ
ש
.[]
ןייכד
ג
ש
3
|
ג
ש
4
ד
ןייכד ןוניאד
פ
א
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ןכד
ק
ןאכד
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
4321
()
ב
ו
1
יבר
.
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
3
ףסוי
ב
ו
421
יסוי
.
ב
מ
21
ו הדירצ שיא
ןנחוי ןב ףסוי
)
ב
מ
1
(
שורי שיא
'
.
ב
מ
4321
דירצ
'
.
ב
מ
4321
לויא
ב
ו
43
ליא
.
ב
מ
4321
יקשמ
ב
ו
43
ןיקשמ
.
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
2
יב
.
ד
"
דיעה
..
.
יכד
"
ילבב
21
ע
"
זל ז
.
3
זט םיחספ
.
4
טי םירדנ
.
"
הקשמ לעו
...
ןייכד
"
ילבב
21
ע
"
זל ז
.
3
זט םיחספ
.
4
טי םירדנ
.
םכל
|
פ
א
()
ר
םהל
.
6
ברקל
|
מ
בורקל
.
הסוי
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
יסוי
מ
ףסוי
.
רזעוי
|
ר
זעוי
'
.
הדירצ
|
ש
הדרצ
מ
דירצ
'
.
8
הקשמ
|
ג
ש
3
פ
א
ר
א
י
א
מ
יקשמ
.
ברקי ידו
ג
ש
4
|
ג
ש
3
פ
ש
י
א
ד
ברקידו
מ
לעו
ברקיד
.
ב
מ
ש
םינהכה
ב
ו
םינהכהש
.
ב
מ
םהל
.
ב
מ
3
זעוי
'
.
ב
מ
421
צמק
'
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
4321
אצמק
.
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
4321
ןכד
.
ב
מ
421
יחבטמ
'
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
4321
איחבטמ
.
ב
מ
4321
ב
ו
4321
ןכד
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
21
ברקיד לעו
ב
מ
2
ברקד לעו
.
"
ידו
"...
ע ילבב
"
ז
21
זל
.

126
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
באסמ
|
ד
באתסמ
.
היל
|
פ
הל
מ
יל
'
.
10
איירש
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
6
ר
א
ש
י
א
מ
ד
אירש
פ
הירש
.
דיעה
|
ג
ש
3
דיעיה
.
ר
| '
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
6
יבר
.
הביקע
|
פ
א
ד
אביקע
מ
יקע
'
.
םשמ
|
פ
ר
א
ק
י
א
םושמ
מ
ושמ
'
ד
םושב
.
11
הימחנ
|
פ
ש
י
א
ר
'
הימחנ
ר
הימוחנ
מ
ר
'
ינוחנ
'
ד
אימחנ
.
ילדב תיב
|
ג
ש
3
פ
א
ילדב
ג
ש
6
לד תיב
ה
פ
תיב
ולד
ר
א
ילד יב
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ילד תיב
מ
ילדמ
.
ןיאישמש
|
ג
ש
3
םיאיסמש
פ
ק
ד
םיאישמש
מ
יאישמש
'
.
תא
|
פ
ד
()
.
12
השאה
|
מ
שאה
'
.
דיעה
|
מ
יעה
'
.
13
תומצעה
|
פ
ד
תומצע
מ
ומצעה
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
21
ב
ו
21
ורקו
.
ב
מ
1
יל
'
.
ברקי
התימל
באסמ
ןורקו
היל
הסוי
10
איירש
:
ה'
ר דיעה
'
םשמ הביקע
ןיאישמש ילדב תיב שיא הימחנ
תא
השאה
לע
יפ
דע
דחא
ר דיעה
'
עשוהי
לע
תומצעה
ואצמינש
רידב
םיצעה
9
התימל
ג
ש
6
|
ג
ש
3
ד
אתימב
פ
א
ר
ש
י
א
אתימל
מ
תימל
'
.
ןורקו
|
מ
ד
ורקו
.
הסוי
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
ג
ש
6
|
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
יסוי
מ
ףסוי
.
עשוהי
|
ג
ש
3
עושוהי
מ
שוהי
'
.
ואצמינש
ג
ש
3
|
ג
ש
4
ג
ש
6
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
ואצמנש
מ
צמנש
'
.
םיצעה
|
מ
יצעה
'
מט
'
ד
םהש םיצעה
םיאמט
.
ב
מ
21
תימל
'
ב
ו
21
אתימל
.
ב
מ
1
ניד יב
'
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
ףסוי
.
ב
מ
1
ירש
'
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
אירש
.

127
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
14
ורמא
|
ש
י
א
ורמאו
.
טקלמ
|
מ
יטקלמ
'
.
םצע
2
|
מ
צע
'
.
15
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
ג
ש
3
א
ד
רמא
.
יתעמש
|
ש
()
מ
עמש
'
.
והיש
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
ויהשכ
.
16
לכיהב
|
פ
לכיהה
.
םיעלקו
|
מ
יעלקו
'
.
18
תורזעבו
|
ג
ש
4
תורזעו
מ
ורזעבו
'
.
םינוב
|
ג
ש
4
מ
()
ר
א
ןינוב
.
מא
'
ר
| '
מ
א
"
ר
.
מא
| '
ג
ש
3
ד
רמא
.
ב
מ
32
עילא
'
.
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
3
.()
ב
מ
1
()
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
321
ויהשכ
.
ב
מ
2
יעלק
'
.
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
3
לכיהב
.
ב
מ
2
ורזעל
'
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
3
תורזעב
ב
ו
1
הרזעל
.
ב
מ
321
ב
ו
21
ןינוב
.
ב
מ
2
רזעבו
'
ב
מ
3
תורזעבשו
ב
ו
31
הרזעבו
.
ב
מ
21
()
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
321
ןינוב
.
ב
מ
2
ינפבמ
'
.
מכח ורמא
'
טקלמ
םצע
םצע
לכה
רוהט
:
15
ו'
מא
'
ר
'
םינוב והיש יתעמש רזעילא
לכיהב
םיעלקו לכיהל םיעלק ןישוע
ץוחבמ םינוב לכיהבש אלא תורזעל
תורזעבו
םינוב
םינפבמ
מא
'
ר
'
עשוהי
מכח
| '
ג
ש
3
ר
א
ש
ד
םימכח
פ
ק
ימכח
'
.
לכה
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
ק
ר
א
ש
י
א
ד
לכהו
מ
.()
רוהט
|
מ
והט
'
.
רזעילא
|
פ
א
מ
עילא
'
פ
זעילא
'
ק
רזעיל
.
םינוב
|
ר
א
ק
י
א
מ
ןינוב
.
ןישוע
|
ג
ש
3
ןישועו
פ
םישועו
ר
ןינוב
א
ד
םישוע
.
םיעלק
|
מ
יעלק
'
.
לכיהל
|
17
תורזעל
|
מ
ורזעל
'
.
אלא
|
מ
לא
'
.
לכיהבש
|
מ
כיהבש
'
.
םינוב
|
ר
ד
ןינוב
מ
ינוב
'
.
ץוחבמ
|
םינפבמ
|
ג
ש
3
םינפיבמ
מ
ינפבמ
'
.
עשוהי
|
ג
ש
3
עושוהי
פ
א
פ
מ
שוהי
'
.
תוליבקמ
ב
מ
321
א
"
ר
.
ב
מ
1
ןינובשכ
ב
מ
32
ב
ו
321
ןינוב
.
ב
מ
2
ןישוע ויה
ב
ו
2
ושע
ב
ו
3
םישוע ויה
.
ב
מ
2
יעלקו
'
ב
מ
3
ב
ו
3
םיעלק
.
ב
מ
2
לא
'
.
ב
מ
3
םינפבמ
.
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
1
או
"
ר
ב
מ
32
א
"
ר
.
ב
מ
32
שוהי
'
.
ו
הלגמ ילבב
1
י
.
2
זט תועובש
.
3
זק םיחבז
:

128
19
יתעמש
|
מ
עמש
'
.
ףא
|
ד
ףאו
.
20
תיב
|
ןישדק ישדק
|
ישדק
|
ג
ש
3
ישדוק
מ
.()
ןישדק
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ד
םישדק
מ
ישדק
'
.
םישדק
|
מ
ישדק
'
.
22
ינש
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
א
ק
יניש
.
23
הנושאר
|
ש
י
א
הנושארה
מ
נשאר
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ןיטחושש
ב
ו
3
ןיבירקמ ויהש
.
ת
ע
ףאו
.
ת
ו
ןיחתפ
ת
ע
םיחתפ
.
ב
מ
3
.()
ב
מ
2
יעלק
'
.
ב
מ
32
ישדק
'
.
ב
מ
2
ילק
'
ב
מ
3
ןילק
.
ת
ע
יניש
.
ב
מ
2
מוח
'
.
ת
ו
הנושארה
ב
מ
2
נושאר
'
ב
מ
3
ר
הנשא
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
31
השדק
ב
מ
2
שדיק
'
.
ב
מ
2
תעשל
'
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
1
השדקו
ב
מ
2
שדיקו
'
ב
מ
3
שדקו
'
.
יתעמש
ןיבירקמש
ףא
לע
יפ
ןיאש
20
תיב
ןילכואו
ישדק
ןישדק
ףא
לע
רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש יפ
השודקש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא ינש
הנושאר
השדיק
התעשל
השדיקו
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
ןיבירקמש
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
יבירקמש
ם
מ
יבירקמש
'
.
יפ לע ףא
|
ג
ש
3
לע ףא
ג
ש
4
א
לעפ
יפ
פ
א
"
יפע
ר
א
י
א
מ
עא
"
פ
.
ןילכואו
|
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
ק
ש
י
א
םילכואו
פ
א
פ
ג
ר
ןילכוא
א
ןילכא
.
יפ לע ףא
|
ג
ש
4
א
לעפ
יפ
פ
ג
ר
א
י
א
מ
עא
"
פ
ד
פעא
"
י
.
21
םיעלק
|
מ
יעלק
'
.
םילק
|
מ
ילק
'
.
רשעמו
|
מ
שעמו
'
.
יפ לע ףא
|
ג
ש
4
א
לעפ
יפ
פ
ד
א
"
יפע
ר
א
י
א
מ
עא
"
פ
.
המוח
|
מ
מוח
'
.
השודקש
|
מ
השודקהש
.
ק
השדי
|
ג
ש
4
ק
י
הושד
ר
הושדק
א
ודיק
'
הש
ש
השדק
מ
שדק
'
ד
השודק
.
התעשל
|
ק
תעשל
א'
מ
עשל
'
.
השדיקו
|
פ
השדק
ר
הושדקו
א
קו
י
הושד
ש
השדקו
מ
שדקו
'
ד
השודקו
.
תוליבקמ
ת
ו
ב
מ
321
עא
"
פ
.
ב
מ
1
ו
ןילכוא
ב
מ
2
ב
ו
21
ןילכוא
ב
ו
3
םילכואו
.
ת
ו
·
ע
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
321
םישדק
ב
מ
2
ישדק
'
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
321
עא
"
פ
.
ב
מ
2
שעמו
'
.
ת
ו
ב
מ
321
עא
"
פ
.
ת
ע
השודקהש
ב
מ
1
ב
ו
321
השודקש ינפמ
ב
מ
32
ינפמ
שודקש
'
.
ו
"
מא
'
ר
'
עשוהי
"...
פ תוידע אתפסות
"
מ ג
"
ג
.

עשוהי 'ר
'מא
ז ' :
אובל דיתעל
ש' ש' ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןברמ ינא לבוקמ
השמל הכלה וברמ
וברו וברמ עמשש
רהטלו אמטל אב והיילא ןיאש יניסמ
ןיברוקמה תא קחרל אלא ברקלו קחרל
עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו עורזב
.
אבל
32מ
תוליבקמ
. 'יתעל
ב
321מ
ב
2מ
ב
ע·
ו
ת
129
פ
מ
. והילא
םיקחורמה
. 'שוהי
. יאכז ד מ
25
מ
. אבל
. ר"
א
. רמא
עושוהי
מ ר
מ
J3
ג
ד א
| דיתעל
פ | אובל
| 'ר
'מא
3ש
ג | 'מא
| עשוהי
. ינלבוקמ מ | ינא לבוקמ
. לבקמ ק | לבוקמ
א
4ש
3ש
י ש ק א ר פ | ג ג ייכז
א 3ש
ד ק פ פ ג
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. 'משש
מ | עמשש
. ןברמ פ | וברמ
א . 'כלה
מ 'לה
י | הכלה
. 'שמל
מ | השמל
. 'ורזב
3ש
ג
א
א 4ש
3ש
ד מ י ש ק א ר פ פ ג ג
. 'הטל
אל
מ
.()
רהטל
ר
| והיילא
| אמטל
| רהטלו
. קחרל אלו מ קחרלו פ | קחרל
. 'רקלו
פ | ברקלו
. 'לא
מ | אלא
.() ד | תא
א 4ש
3ש
םיברוקמה ק פ ג ג | ןיברוקמה
. ןיברוקה מ םיבורקה
מ
. 'רקלו
מ | ברקלו
.() ד | תא
J3
ג | ןיקחורמה
. 'יקחורמה
J3
מ () ג | עורזב
24
25
26
27
28
29

130
1
עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו
תחפשמ
תיב
הפירצ
התיה
רבעב
ןדריה
הקחירו
ןיב
ןויצ
עורזב
דועו
תרחא
התיה
םש
הברקו
ןיב
ןויצ
עורזב
ןוגכ
5
ולא
והיילא
אב
אמטל
רהטלו
קחרל
תכ
"
וידע לש י
ת
התיה
|
מ
תיה
'
ד
תייה
.
רבעב
|
מ
בעב
'
.
4
םש
|
מ
.()
הברקו
ג
ש
3
|
ג
J3
פ
א
ר
ש
י
א
הבריקו
מ
בריקו
'
ד
הוברקו
.
ןיב
ג
3
J
ג
ש
3
|
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
ןב
מ
תב
ד
ינב
.
אב והיילא
|
א
והילא אב
.
והיילא
|
ג
J3
ג
ש
3
ג
ש
4
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ק
ש
י
א
מ
ד
והילא
.
תוליבקמ
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
הפירצ ינב
.
ת
ע
ב
ו
הפירצה
ב
מ
הפורצה
.
ת
ע
רי
ל
21
רי
ו
21
ב
מ
·
ו
ןב
.
ת
ע
()
ב
ו
דוע
.
ב
מ
רחא
'
.
ב
ו
.()
ב
מ
·
ו
והילא
.
ב
מ
מטלו רהטל
'
.
1
תחפשמ
|
פ
ד
תוחפשמ
מ
חפשמ
'
.
2
הפירצ תיב
|
מ
.()
הפירצ
|
פ
הפורצ
.
הקחירו
|
מ
קחירו
'
ד
הוקחירו
.
3
ןיב
|
ג
ש
3
פ
א
פ
ר
א
ש
י
א
ןב
מ
תב
ד
ינב
.
דועו
|
מ
ועו
'
.
תרחא
|
מ
חא
'
.
התיה
|
מ
תיה
'
ד
תייה
.
עורזב
|
ר
םש התיה תרחא דועו עורזב
עורזב ןויצ ןב הבריקו
מ
ורזב
'
.
ןוגכ
|
פ
מ
וגכ
'
.
5
ולא
|
ג
ש
4
ר
א
ק
וליא
.
רהטלו אמטל
|
אמטל
|
מ
מטל
'
.
רהטלו
|
מ
הטלו
'
.
ברקלו קחרל
|
ב
מ
וחפשמ
'
.
ב
מ
תיה
'
.
ת
ו
הקחרו
ב
מ
הוקחרו
.
ב
מ
תיה
'
.
ת
ע
רי
ל
2
ב
ו
יקו
הבר
רי
ו
2
הוברקו
ב
מ
ברקו
'
.
ת
ו
·
ע
רי
ל
1
ג
רי
ו
1
ב
מ
·
ו
ןב
רי
ל
2
רי
ו
2
ינב
.
ב
מ
לא
'
.
ב
מ
מטלו
'
.
ב
מ
קחרלו ברקל
.
ז
"
הפירצ תיב תחפשמ
...
עורזב
"
ג תוידע אתפסות
:
ייע ד
"
ימלשורי ש
1
פ תומבי
"
לה ח
"
ג
2
פ ןישודיק
"
ד
לה
"
א
.
אע ןישודיק ילבב
.

131
ר ברקלו
'
מוא הדוהי
'
אל לבא ברקל
קחרל
ר
'
ןועמש
מוא
'
תא תוושהל
תוקלחמה
מכחו
'
מוא
'
אל
חרל
וc
ק
אלו
9
ברקל
אלא
תושעל
םולש
םלועב
נש
'
6
ברקלו
|
מ
רקלו
'
.
ר
| '
ג
ש
3
ר
יבר
.
הדוהי
|
פ
א
פ
מ
דוהי
'
.
מוא
| '
ג
J3
ג
ש
4
ש
ד
רמוא
ג
ש
3
()
פ
א
פ
מ
וא
'
.
7
ר
| '
ג
ש
3
ר
יבר
.
ןועמש
|
פ
ועמש
'
י
א
מש
'
מ
עמש
'
.
מוא
| '
ג
J3
()
ג
ש
3
פ
א
פ
מ
וא
'
ש
ד
רמוא
.
תוושהל
|
א
י
א
תושהל
מ
וושהל
'
.
8
תוקלחמה
ג
ש
3
|
פ
וקלחמה
'
א
תקולחמה
ד
תוקולחמה
מ
וקולחמה
'
.
מכחו
| '
ג
J3
א
ק
ד
םימכחו
ג
ש
3
ש
ןימכחו
פ
ר
ימכחו
'
מ
כחו
'
.
מוא
| '
ג
J3
ק
ד
םירמוא
ג
ש
3
ש
ןירמוא
פ
מ
וא
'
.
םלועב
|
מ
לועל
'
ד
םהיניב
.
נש
| '
ג
J3
ג
ש
3
אנש
'
פ
ד
מאנש
'
.
תכ
"
תוידע לש י
קחרל אל לבא ברקל
|
ר
קחרל רהטלו
ברקלו
.
ברקל
|
מ
רקל
'
.
ברקל אלו קחרל אל
|
ר
א
אלו ברקל אל
קחרל
מ
רקל
'
חרל אלו
'
.
9
תושעל
|
מ
ושעל
'
.
םולש
|
מ
ולש
'
.
תוליבקמ

וc היילא תא םכל חלוש יכנא הנה
:
לע תובא בל בישהו 'וגו
איבנה
ז '
:
םתובא לע םינב בלו םינב
לה ' ח ' רפ '
תוליבקמ
ז ז ז
תוידע
132
ז ז
ל' סח
. 'וגו
חלוש
. ש'
3ש
א
ש והילא ד מ ג הילא י ק א ר
פ
10
15
ש 'לוש
מ ר חלש
תוידע לש י"
תכ
. יננה ד | יכנא
הנה
| םתובא לע ... חלוש
א 3ש
י ג | חלוש
. כל ' ש | םכל
א J3
פ ג | היילא
. לא '
. 'יבנה
מ יבנה ש | איבנה
J3 3ש
ר ארונו לודגה [ ] ג | ג 'וגו
אב ינפל
א ארונהו לודגה י"
י םוי אוב ינפל
לו'דגה
י'יי
םוי ' ו' ב פל ' ש ארונהו לודגה יי
י םוי
א
מ ארונהו לודגה 'ה
םוי אב ינפל י א'רונהו
. 'וגו
'רונהו
'ודגה
יי
י םוי אב ינפל
. 'ובא
מ בא ' ש | תובא
א .() י
ש
'
. 'ינב
מ | םינב
| םתובא לע םינב בלו
. 'ינב
מ | םינב
א . םתבא ר פ | םתובא
הנמש 'יקריפו
תוידע קילס
תועשומל ﭏ ונל ﭏה
תועושי רדס 'קילסו
ו ' ב '
ו'
ע' א'
ך' ל' נ'
מ
10
11
12
15

Tabulation of Textual Variants
I. Introduction
In this section we have tabulated the various textual variants that occur throughout
MEduyot in tables. The variants address different aspects of the texts. First, a number
(e.g. 'מוא-םירמוא) relate to scribal practices of individual manuscripts. Second, many
relate to spellings of different words which may or may not reflect upon relationships
between different manuscripts, but certainly may provide information regarding the
provenance of the manuscript. Finally, a small (relatively speaking) number of variants
may shed light on the connections between manuscripts and the history of the texts.
The word that is spelled out in full after the line number is from ms. Kaufmann. If
the linguistic issue involves a particular letter’s presence or absence, it will be underlined
(if present in Kaufmann) or placed in parenthesis (if absent).
Standard Notations within variants:
() Manuscript is missing the word entirely
[] Manuscript contains the word but it is not readable
- Manuscript contains a different word the properties of which are sufficiently
different to render it irrelevant to the current tabulation
M
Manuscript contains the word in the margin. Supralinear changes within the word
will be marked in superscript.
• The letter marked on the left by underlining or in parenthesis is not in the
manuscript.
The symbols or notations used in most of the tables are straightforward. Unless
otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, an English letter will stand phonetically for
its corresponding Hebrew letter. There are some words that appear in more than one
place because different aspects of the word are being commented upon. Some of the
results of the tabulation have been discussed in the introductions to the individual
manuscripts.
583

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
II. Abbreviations
A. רמוא
2= ' וא 3= ' מוא 4=רמוא
1 27 ' מוא 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
1 28 ' וא
2 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
2 06 1 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 6m
2 06 2 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
3 10 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 4
3 11 ' וא
2 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 4
4 13 ' מוא 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 2 4
9 10 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
10 15 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4
11 16 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
11 19 ' וא
2 3 M () 3 3 () 4 3 () 4
13 26 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3
13 28 ' וא
2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
14 29 ' וא
2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 4
14 02 ' מוא 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 4
15 04 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4
34 PA2 () 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 () 4
35 9 1 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
35 9 2 ' מוא 3 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 2 4
37 24 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 2
39 01 ' מוא 3 ' מא 3 3 3 רמא רמא רמא ' מא 4
40 09 ' וא
2 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 () 4
58 5 ' וא
2 2 3 M 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
66 13 ' וא
2 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 () 4
76 29 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 2
79 15 ' וא
2 ' מא 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4
82 01 ' וא
2 ' מא 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
84 08 ' וא
2 ' מא 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4
86 17 ' וא
2 ' מא 2 3 ' מא רמא 4 3 2 4
87 21 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
88 29 ' וא
2 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 4
92 16 ' וא
2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4
96 08 ' וא
2 ' מא 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 רמא
108 17 ' וא
2 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 4
113 10 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4
131 06 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4
131 07 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4
B. ן / םירמוא
2= ' וא 3= ' מוא 4=רמוא 5= ' ירמוא 6m=םירמוא 6n=ןירמוא
1 29 ' מוא 3 3 2 6n 3 5 6n 6n 2 6m
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
3 07 ' וא
2 3 2 6n 3 6m 6n “ 2 6m
4 14 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 2
8 07 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 3
9 09 ' וא
2 3 2 3 4 6n 6n 3 2 6m
10 12 ' וא
2 3 6n 6n 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
10 14 ' וא
2 3 3 M 3 3 2 6n 3 2 2
11 18 ' וא
2 3 M () 3 3 () 6n 3 () 6m
11 19 ' וא
2 3 M () 3 3 () 6n 3 () 6m
12 23 1 ' וא
2 3 3 5 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
12 23 2 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 () 6n 3 2 5
13 25 ' וא
2 6n 2 () 3 3 ורמא ורמא 2 6m
16 09 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 4 6n 3 2 6m
17 15 ' מוא 3 2 M 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 5
17 16 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
20 27 ' מוא 3 3 3 3 3 3 6n 3 3 4
22 7 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
27 4 ' מוא 3 2 2 5 3 3 6n 6n 2 6m
37 21 ' מוא 3 3 5 3 3 3 6n 6n 2 6m
44 2 M ' מוא 3 M 2 () 6n 3 6n 6n 6n () 6m
45 06 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 6n 2 6m
46 11 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 6m 3 6n 2 6m
47 14 ' מוא 3 3 2 6n 6n 5 6n 6n 2 6m
47 16 ' וא
2 3 2 3 5 5 6n 6n 2 6m
49 23 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 6m 2 6m
58 7 ' וא
2 6m 3 M 2 3 5 6n 6n 2 6m
59 12 1 ' מוא 3 3 2 6n 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
59 12 2 ' מוא
3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
59 13 ' מוא 3 3 () M 5 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
60 14 ' וא
2 3 3 M 2 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
60 15 ' מוא 3 3 3 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
60 16 ' מוא 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 6m
61 20 ' מוא 3 3 3 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
61 21 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 6n 6m 2 4
62 24 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
62 25 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
62 27 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 4 3 6n 3 () 6m
62 28 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 () 6m
63 29 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
63 01 ' מוא 3 3 2 5 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
63 02 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 () 2
63 03 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 () 6m
64 05 ' וא
2 2 3 3 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
64 06 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 2 6n 3 2 6m
65 09 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
65 10 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 M 3 6n 3 2 5
65 12 1 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
65 12 2 ' וא
2 2 3 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
66 16 ' וא
2 3 3 3 3 6n 6n 3 2 6m
67 19 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 3
68 23 ' וא
2 3 2 3 4 5 6n 3 2 4
68 24 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 2
70 05 ' מוא 3 2 3 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
70 06 ' וא
2 3 3 M 3 3 6m 6n 6m 2 2
71 10 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 5 3 6n 3 2 6m
71 11 ' מוא 3 2 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 2
73 18 ' וא
2 4 2 3 3 6n 6n 3 2 6m
73 19 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 3
74 22 ' וא
2 3 3 M 6n 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
74 23 ' וא
2 3 2 6n 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
75 26 ' מוא 3 3 2 4 3 3 6n 3 2 4
75 27 ' מוא 3 3 2 6n 3 3 3 3 2 2
77 09 ' וא
2 4 3 3 3 5 6n 3 - 2
78 12 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 2
78 13 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
78 14 ' וא
2 3 3 M 3 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
80 19 ' מוא 3 3 3 5 3 5 6n 3 2 6m
80 21 ' וא
2 3 3 M 5 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
80 22 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 2 5
81 23 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 4
81 26 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
82 27 ' מוא 3 3 3 5 3 3 6n 3 2 ()
82 29 ' וא
2 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 6m
83 04 ' וא
2 3 3 M 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
84 10 ' וא
2 3 2 4 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
85 11 ' וא
2 2 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6m
86 18 ' מוא 3 3 2 () 3 5 6n 3 2 ()
87 24 ןירמוא 6n 3 2 - - 5 - - 2 6m
89 02 ' וא
2 6n 2 3 3 3 6n 3 2 6n
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
108 18 ' וא
2 3 2 3 3 3 6n 6n 2 6m
113 11 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 5 6n 3 () 3
115 21 ןירמוא 6n 3 2 6n 3 3 6n 3 () 6m
118 01 ' מוא 3 3 2 6n 3 5 6n 6n 2 6m
131 08 ' מוא 3 3 2 3 3 6m 6n 3 2 6m
C. ורמא
1= ' א 2= ' מא 3= ' רמא 4=ורמא
7 02 ' מא
2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 ר " א 3
26 27 ' מא
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 ר " א 3
27 21 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 ר " א 3
30 16 ' מא
2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3
32 27 רמאו' 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 3
34 6 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 ר " א 3
36 18 ' מא
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 ר " א 3
43 26 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 ר " א 2
55 21 ' מא
2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3
87 22 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3
89 05 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 3
90 07 ' מא
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 ר " א 3
91 15 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 3
92 16 ' מא
2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 ל " א 3
92 17 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ל " א 3
93 23 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 ל " א 3
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
93 24 ' מא
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 ל " א 3
93 25 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ל " א 3
97 13 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 3
99 25 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 3
101 07 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3
103 18 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
105 27 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 3
107 11 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 3
113 12 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 ר " א 3
117 26 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 ()
124 02 ' מא
2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 3
127 15 ' מא
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 ר " א 3
127 18 ' מא
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ר " א 3
129 24 ' מא
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 ר " א 3
3 09 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
16 10 ורמא 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 - 4
17 16 ורמא 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4
18 19 ורמא 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4
18 20 ורמא 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4
23 09 ורמא 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
23 10 ורמא 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4
24 13 ורמא 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 ל " א 2 2
32 26 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
35 10 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
55 23 ורמא 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
86 19 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
89 02 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2
96 08 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
96 09 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ל " א 4 4
97 13 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
99 23 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
100 29 ' מא
2 4 4 4 () 4 4 4 4 4
101 05 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
102 11 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
103 16 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
104 24 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
107 10 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
122 23 ורמא 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
127 14 ורמא 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D. ן / םימכחו
2= ' כחו 3= ' מכחו 4= ' ימכחו 5=םימכחו 5n=ןימכחו
1 29 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 7 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 “ 2 5
4 14 ' מכחו 3 3 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 5
12 21 ' מכחו 3 3 () 5 5 () 5 3 () 5
12 24 ' מכחו 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 5
27 4 ' מכחו 3 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 3 5
28 9 ןימכחו 5n 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
30 16 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5
37 24 ' מכחו 3 3 5 5 5 2 5n 5 3 5
41 14 ' מכחו 3 2 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5
42 22 ' מכחו 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5
43 27 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 2 ()
44 2 M ' כחו 2 M 3 () 5 5 5 5 5 () 5
45 04 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 ()
45 06 ' מכחו 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5
46 09 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 5 5n 5 2 4
46 11 ' מכחו 3 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 2 5
47 14 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 5 2 5
47 16 ' מכחו 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5
48 19 ' מכחו 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 2 5
49 22 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5
50 28 ' מכחו 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 2 5
52 05 ' מכחו 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5
52 06 ם ימכחו 5 3 3 M 4 5 5 5 5 2 5
52 09 ' מכחו 3 2 3 M 5 5 4 5n 5 2 5
53 10 ' כחו 2 2 5 5 5 2 5n 5 2 5
53 13 ' כחו 2 3 5 2 5 5 5 5 2 5
57 30 ' מכחו 3 3 5 M 4 5 4 5 5 () 5
58 7 ' מכחו 3 5 [] M 3 5 4 5n 5 3 5
88 26 ' מכחו 3 2 3 4 5 2 5n 3 2 4
88 28 ' כחו 2 5 4 4 5 4 5n 3 () 5
89 02 ' מכחו 3 2 4 5 5 2 5n 3 2 5
108 18 ' מכחו 3 2 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
110 26 ' מכחו 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5
113 11 ' מכחו 3 3 4 4 5 4 5n 3 () 5
122 23 ' מכחו 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 3 5
127 14 ' מכחו 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5
131 08 ' מכחו 3 3 4 4 5 5 5n 3 2 5
E. יפ לע ףא
“•”=יפ לע ףא 3= פ " עא 4= י " פעא
25 23 יפ לע ףא • • 3 3 3 • • 3 3 4
26 27 יפ לע ףא • • 3 M 3 3 • • 3 3 •
38 28 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 •
65 09 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 •
78 14 יפ לע ףא • • 3 M 3 3 • • 3 3 •
106 05 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 •
107 08 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 •
122 19 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 4
128 19 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 •
128 20 יפ לע ףא • • 3 M 3 3 • • 3 3 4
128 22 יפ לע ףא • • 4 3 3 • • 3 3 4
III. Orthographic Features
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
A. Nunnation vs. Mimmation
i. Participles
10 13 ןיליכאמו N N N
a. Active
N N N N N ‘ N
10 14 ןיליכאמו N N N N N N N N ‘ M
78 10 ןילכוא N M M N N N N N N N
78 12 ןילכוא N N N N N N N N ‘ N
128 20 ןילכואו N N N N N M M M N N
123 24 םינימאמ M M M M M M M M ‘ M
123 26 ןינימאמ N M M M M M M M ‘ M
45 03 ןירסוא N N N N N ‘ N N ‘ ()
46 09 םירסוא M N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
57 30 ןירסוא N N N N N ‘ N N ‘ N
57 1 ןירסוא N N N
127 17 םינוב M M M N M M M M ‘ N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
M N N N N N () N
67 20 ןירסוא N N N N N N N N ‘ N
69 01 ןירסוא N N ‘ N N N N M ‘ N
77 06 ןירסוא N N N N N N N N ‘ ‘
88 29 ןירסוא N N N N N N N N () N
55 20 ןיפוא N N N N N N N N ‘ N
55 22 ןיפוא N M N N N N N N ‘ N
56 26 ןיפוא N N N N N N N N ‘ N
5 21 םיאבה M M M M N M N N N M
127 15 םינוב M M M N N N M N N M

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
127 18 םינוב M M M N N M M M () M
12 24 םינדה M M M N N M M M N M
53 13 םידומ M M ‘ () M M [] M () M
60 18 םידומ M M M N M N M M ‘ M
64 06 םידומו M M M N M M M M ‘ M
68 26 ןידומו N N ‘ N M () M M ‘ -
77 06 ןידומו N N N N M M M M ‘ N
85 12 ןידומו N M M N M N M M ‘ M
110 24 םילחוזה M M M N N M N N ‘ N
110 27 םילחוזה M M N N N M M N ‘ N
5 20 ןיריכזמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
6 23 ןיריכזמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
8 03 ןיריכזמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
54 19 ןיפקוז N N N N N N N N ‘ N
72 13 ןיבייחמ N N N N N N N N N N
72 15 ןיבייחמ N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
73 16 ןיבייחמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
81 25 ןיבייחמ N N M N N N N N N N
11 20 ןיללחמ N N N N N N N N N N
45 03 ןיללחמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
55 24 ןירימחמ N N N M N N N N N N N
28 08 ןימתוח N N N N N M N N ‘ M
45 05 ןיליבטמ N N M N N M N N ‘ N
81 25 ןיליבטמ N N M N N N N N ‘ N
81 26 ןיליבטמ N N N N N N N N N N
98 21 םירהטמ M N M N N N N N ‘ N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
99 23 םירהטמ M N N N N N N N N N
14 01 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
15 04 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
37 24 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
50 28 ןירהטמ N N M N N N N N ‘ N
52 05 ןירהטמ N N M N N N N N ‘ N
52 07 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
52 09 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
53 11 ןירהטמ N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
76 02 ןירהטמ N N M N N N N N N N
77 09 ןירהטמ N N M N N N N N ‘ N
83 06 ןירהטמ N N M N N N N N () N
84 07 ןירהטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
88 26 ןירהטמ N N N N M ‘ N N N N
14 01 ןימטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
14 03 ןימטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
40 12 םימטימה M N M M M N N N ‘ N
41 14 ןיאמטמ N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
42 22 ןיאמטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
44 28 ןיאמטמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
48 19 םימטמ M N N N N N N N ‘ N
76 03 םימטמ M N M N N N N N ‘ N
83 06 ןימטמ N N M N N N N N N N
84 07 םימטמ M N N M N N N N N ‘ N
106 03 םימטמ M N N M () N N N N ‘ N
54 18 ןינמוט N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
25 23 ןיפיסומ N N N N N N N N N N
26 27 ןיפיסומ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
21 03 ןיפוכ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
56 27 ןידבכמ N N N N N M N N ‘ N
94 29 םינאממש M M M N N N N N N M
18 20 םיסנכינ M M N N N M N M ‘ N
56 28 םיחינמו M N N N N N N N ‘ N
110 24 םיפטונה M M M N N M N M N M
12 21 ן יריתמ N N N N N N N N N N
69 29 ןיריתמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
94 29 ןיאישמשו N N M N N N N N ‘ N
126 11 ןיאישמש N N M N N M N N ‘ M
91 14 ןילקוס N N N N N M N N N N
115 20 ןירבעמש N N N N M N N N () N
115 21 ןירבעמש N M N N N N N N ‘ N
74 21
1
םידיעמ M M ‘ N M M N N ‘ M
74 21 םידיעמ 2 M M ‘ () N M N N ‘ M
122 22 ןידיעמ N N M N N M N N ‘ M
57 29 ןישועו N N N N N N N N ‘ N
127 16 ןישוע N N M N M N N N N M
63 03 ןידופ N N N N N N N N ‘ M
72 13 ןירטופ N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
72 14 ןירטופ N N ‘ N N N N N ‘ N
72 15 ןירטופ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
81 24 ןירטופ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
4 12 ןילסופ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
5 18 ןילסופ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
56 25 םילקמו M N [] M N N N N N ‘ N
128 19 ןיבירקמש N N N N N N N N ‘ N
57 5 ןידרקמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
57 8 ןידרקמ N N N () N N N N ‘ N
57 3 ןידרקמו N N N N N N N N ` N
57 7 ןיפצרקמ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
57 8 ןיפצרקמ N M [] M () N N N N N N
58 4 ןיקחושו N N N N N N N N - N
125 05 ןיעמוש N M M N N N N N ‘ N
10 12 םיפשו M M N N N N N N N N
10 14 םיפשו M N N M N N M N N N N
24 14 םיקשמו M M N ‘ N M N N ‘ N
24 13 ןיקשמו N M N N M M N N ‘ N
88 29 םיקשמ M M M N N M N N ‘ N
89 02 ןיקשמ N M M N N M N N ‘ N
97 18 ןיקשמו N M N N N M N N ‘ N
10 12 םירוש M M M N N N N N N N
10 14 םירוש M M N M N N M N N ‘ N
80 19 ןימרות N N N N N N N N N N
80 21 ןימרות N N N N N N N N N N
64 04 םילגלוגמ M M N
b. passive
N N M N N N M
3 08 ןיבייח N N ‘ N N N N N ` M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
3 09 ןיבייח N M M N N N N N ` N
3 10 ןיבייח N M M N N N N N N N
108 17 ןיבייח N M M N N N N N ‘ N
108 18 ןיבייח N N N N N N - N ‘ ‘
70 02 ןיאושנ N N N N N M M N ‘ M
85 14 ןיאושנ N M M M N N N N N M
86 15 ןיאושנה N M ‘ N N M M N () M
3 10 ןירוטפ N M M N N M N N ‘ N
36 14 ןילוספ N M M N M M M N ‘ N
92 18 ןיבורמ N M M N N M M N N ‘ N
92 19 ןיבורמ N M M M N N M M N N N N
6 24 ןיבורמה N M N N N N M M N N
6 25 ןיבורמה N M N N N N N M N N
8 04 ןיבורמה N M N N M M N N N N
93 21 ןיבורמה N N N N N N N N N N
93 23 ןיבורמה N M M N N N N N N N
129 28 ןיברוקמה N M M N N M N N N N
129 28 ןיברוקמה N M M N N M N N N N
129 29 ן יקחורמה N M M N N M N N ‘ M
4 12 ןיבואש N M N N M N N N ‘ N
5 18 ןיבואש N N N N N M N N () ‘
ii. Pronouns
114 14 ןה N N N M M N N N N N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
115 19 ןה N N N M M N N N () N
115 21 ןה N N N M M N N N N N
92 18 ןהו N M M M M M M M M M N M
92 19 ןהו N M M M N M N M N N
114 16 ןהו N N N M M N N N N M
33 04 ןהש N N N N N N N N N M
47 12 ןהש N N N N N N N N N N
110 24 ןהש N N M N N N N N N M
111 28 ןהש N N M N N N N N N N
114 15 ןהש N N N M N N N N N M
55 24 םהל M N N M N N () N N - M
16 10 ןהל N M M N M M N N -- M
18 17 ןהל N M M N N M N N N M
18 19 ןהל N N N N M M N M ‘ M
18 20 ןהל N M N N M M N N ‘ M
23 09 ןהל N M N N M M M M ‘ M
23 10 ןהל N M N N M M M M ‘ M
23 12 ןהל N M N N M M M “ ‘ M
24 13 ןהל N M N N M M M “ ‘ M
87 22 ןהל N M M N N M M M N N
97 13 ןהל N M M N M M M M ‘ N
99 25 ןהל N M M N M M M M N M
101 07 ןהל N M M N M M M M N M
103 18 ןהל N M M M N M M M ‘ N
105 27 ןהל N M M N M M M N ‘ M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
107 11 ןהל N M M M M M M M ‘ M
117 26 ןהל N () M M M M M M N ()
122 23 ןהל N M M N M M N M ‘ M
58 4 ןהלש N N M M M N M N ‘ N
123 24 םתא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
32 27 ןהב N M M M M N N N ‘ N
85 14 םהמ M N M M M N N N N M
70 02 ןהמ N N M N M N N N N M
iii. Verbs with Pronominal Suffixes
40 12 ןסינכהו N N N N N N N N ‘ N
32 28 ןשריפו N N N N N N N N N N
5 21 ןלטבל N N N N N N N N ‘ N
8 04 ןלטבל N N N N N N N N ‘ N
110 27 ןחליקש N N N N N N N N N N
34 08 ןקסירש N N N N N N N N N N
41 16 ןאשונ N N N N N N N N N N
iv. Nouns
a. With Pronominal Suffixes
121 15 ןתצקימב N N N N N N N M ‘ N
92 20 ןתעומשב N M N N N N N M M N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
107 11 ןהינשב N N M M N M M M ‘ M
103 18 ןהינשב 1 N M M M M M M N ‘ M
105 26 ןהינשב 1 N M M ‘ N N M N M N
103 18 ןהינשב 2 N M ‘ M M M M N ‘ M
105 26 ןהינשב 2 N M M M M M M N ‘ N
5 19 ןהירבד N N M N M M M M M M
6 23 ן הירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
47 16 םלוכ M N N N N M M N N M
121 15 םלוכ M M M N N M M M N M
25 20 םהימימ M N N M N M M M ‘ M
26 25 םהימימ M M N M M M N M M ‘ M
55 21 םהימימ M N N M M N N M N ‘ N
34 05 ןתכאלמ N N N N N N N N N N
11 16 ןהישעמ N M M M M M M N ‘ M
83 05 ןתוצמ N N N N N N N N N N
124 03 ןכתודע N M M M M N M M ‘ M
56 25 ןמצע N N N M N N N N N N N
63 03 ןמצעל N N N N N N N N ‘ N
55 20 ןתיפ N N N N N N N N N N
55 22 ןתיפ N N N N N N N N N N
56 26 ןתיפ N N N N N N N N ‘ N
110 23 ןריצ N N N M N N N N N N
1 27 ןתעש N N N N N N N N N N
b. Plurals
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
18 19 םיחאה M M N N N M N M ‘ N
85 13 םיחא M M M M M M M M N M
69 01 םיחאל M N M M N N M M N N
69 01 ןיחא N N M M N N M M ‘ M
28 08 ןירחאו N M M M M M M M ‘ M
23 08 םילכאה M M N N M M M N ‘ N
24 13 םילכא M M N N M M N N ‘ N
24 14 םילכא M M N N N M N N ‘ ‘
97 17 ןילכא N M M N M M M M ‘ N
69 27 םיסוראה M N N N N M N N N N
121 14 םילחגהו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
4 16 םיידרג M M M N N M M M ‘ M
25 20 םירבד M M M M M M M M ‘ M
34 05 םירבד M M M M M M M M ‘ M
36 18 םירבד M M M M M M M M ‘ M
86 19 םירבד M M M M M M M M ‘ M
15 05 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
30 15 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
32 26 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
35 10 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
39 01 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
52 06 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
53 10 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
54 17 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
56 27 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
57 30 ןירבד N M M M M M M M () M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
59 10 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
76 29 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ' M
79 15 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
82 01 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
84 08 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
87 20 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
92 16 ןירבד N M M M M M M M ‘ M
94 28 ןירבד N M M M M M M M () M
118 01 ןירבדה N M M M M M M M ‘ M
13 25 ןירניד N N [] N N N M M ‘ ‘
13 26 ןירניד N N ‘ N N () M M () M
16 11 ןיתיזה N M M M M M M M ‘ M
41 15 ןיתיז N M M M M M M M ‘ M
42 19 םיתיז M M - M M M M M () M
80 19 ןיתיז N M N M M M M M M ‘ M
117 28 םיתיז M M M M M M M M ‘ M
46 08 םירזל M M M M M M M M M M
109 21 םיבגח M M N M M M M M M ‘ M
109 23 םיבג ח N M M M M M M M ‘ ‘
109 20 ןיבגח N M N M M M M M M ‘ M
20 25 םירוח M M N N N N M N N N
21 29 םירוח M M N N N M N N ‘ N
22 04 םירוח M M N N N N N N ‘ N
97 15 םייחה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
54 18 םימחה M N N N N N N N N N
29 13 םידייהו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
1 28 םימיל M M ‘ M M M M M ‘ M
25 19 םינהכה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
25 20 םינהכה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
26 25 םינהכלש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
27 29 םינהכ M M M M M M M M ‘ M
27 03 םינהכ M M M M M M M M ‘ M
125 05 םינהכה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
62 27 םילכלו M M M M M M M M () M
5 18 םיגול M M N N N N N N ‘ M
33 04 םיספל M M M N N M N N ‘ M
23 08 םיקשמהו M M N N M M N N ‘ N
97 15 םיתמה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
114 15 םימותחנ M M M N N M N N ‘ N
68 26 ןיאושנה N N ‘ N N M N N ‘ N
1 27 ןישנה N M M M M M M M ‘ M
37 19 ןידיסלש N N N N N M N N N M
108 18 םיעלס M M ‘ M M M M M M M
2 04 ןידיעב N M M M M M [] M ‘ M
50 26 םידע M M M M M M M M () M
74 20 םידיע M M M M M M M M ‘ M
80 20 םיבנעו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
31 22 םיינעלש M M M M M M M M () M
60 20 םיינעל M M M M M M M M ‘ M
63 03 םיונעהו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
126 13 םיצעה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
8 07 םימצעה M M M M M M M M ‘ M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
61 22 םירישעל M M ‘ M M M M M ‘ M
115 21 םירופה M M M M M M M M () M
58 4 ןילפליפה N N N N N M N N ‘ N
57 29 םיחספ M M M M M M M M “ M
82 27 םיחספ M M M M M M M M ‘ ‘
118 29 םיעבצ M M M M M M M N N M
48 17 םירמצ - M M ‘ N N M M M ‘ M
2 06 םייבקמ M M M M M M M M ‘ M
4 14 םיבק M M M N N M N N N M
62 24 םיבק M M N N N M N N ‘ M
128 21 םישדק M M M M M M M M ‘ M
128 20 ןישדק N M M M M M M M M ‘ M
127 16 םיעלק M M M M M M M M ‘ M
127 16 םיעלקו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
128 21 םיעלק M M M M M M M M ‘ M
3 09 םיעבר M M M M N M M M ‘ M
55 21 םיקיקר M N N M N M N N M ‘ N
55 23 םיקיקר M N N M N M N N N M N
40 07 םיעשר M M ‘ M M M M M () M
113 11 ' מלש M M ‘ M M M M M () M
113 09 םימלש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
113 10 םימלש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
113 11 םימלש M M M M M () M M () M
114 13 םימלש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
114 14 םימלש M M ‘ M M M M M () M
64 07 םירמש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
38 26 םינשבו M M M M M M M M M M
104 20 םיצרשבו M M M M M M M M ‘ M
c. Other Nouns
4 13 םדאש M M M M M M M M ‘ M
5 22 םדא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
8 05 םדא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
67 19 םדא M M M () M M M M ‘ ()
97 16 םדא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
75 25 ןדא N M M M M M M M M M
75 27 םדא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
90 09 ןדא N M M M M M M M M ‘ M
95 03 םיעברא M M M M M M M M ‘ M
1 27 ןייד N N N N N N N N N N
125 07 ( ן)
יכד
N N
72 12 םינומשל M M ‘ M M M M M ‘ M
v. Adjectives
109 23 םירוהט M N N
111 28 ןירישכ N M M N N M M M ‘ N
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
M M N M M M ‘ M
107 09 םיאמט M M M N N M M N N M
109 20 םיאמט M M N M M M M M M ‘ M
109 22 םיאמט M M N M M M M M M ‘ ‘
110 25 ןירישכ N M M N N M M M N M

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
128 21 םילק M M M M M M M M ‘ M
B. Joining of לש to the Next Word
1=joined 2=separate “/”=split at end of line
12 22 רשעמ לש 2 1 2 / 2 M 2 1 1 2 2
14 30 הלכלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
14 02 אסכלש 1 1 / 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
25 20 םינהכ לש 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
26 25 םינהכלש 1 1 1 M / 2 2 1 1 2 2
30 18 המורתלש 1 1 2 1 () 2 1 1 2 2
31 21 תיבה לעב לש 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 () 2
31 22 םיינעלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 () 2
35 13 בהז לש 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 - 2
36 16 המורתלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
37 19 ןידיס לש 1 1 2 1 / 2 1 1 2 2
39 01 םינש לש 1 / 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
46 08 המורתלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
47 15 ןוליגליג לשמ 2 1 - / - 2 2 1 2 -
48 17 םירמצ לשמ 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
48 17 תיב לש 2 - - - - 2 - - 2 -
48 18 רועלשו 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
52 07 ינחלושלש 1 1 / M 1 2 2 1 - 2 -
52 08 1 תוסורגלש 1 1 / M 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
52 08
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
2 ןבא לש 2 1 1 M 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
53 11 1 תכתמלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
53 11 2 ילעבלשו 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
55 22 תיבלש 1 1 1 M 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
61 23 1 בק לש 2 / 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
61 23 2 תעברא לש / 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
64 04 םיתיז לש 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
77 08 תערוצמ לש 1 / 2 / 2 2 1 1 2 2
95 04 רחשלש 1 1 2 1 2 - 1 1 2 2
107 08 תמלש 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
108 18 ןבלש 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
111 02 תאטחלש 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
114 13 םימלשלש () 1 () () () () () () 2 ()
114 15 םימותחנ לש 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2
117 28 יקלוש לש 2 1 / / 2 2 1 1 - 2
118 29 םיעבצ לשו 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 - 2
C .Double Letters
17 13 הווהב 2 2 2
i. Vav
2 2 2 2 1 2 2
25 21 דלווב 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
113 09 דלוו 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
114 14 הדלוו 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 03 תסוו 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
4 12 הווקמה 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 ‘ 1
5 19 הווקמה 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
93 24 הלווע 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
66 16 הושבו 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
66 15 הוושבו 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 ‘ 1
131 07 תוושהל 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
125 07 לייא 2 2 2
ii. Yud
1 1 2 1 2 וי 1
132 10 היילא 2 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1 1 1
129 27 והיילא 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
130 05 והיילא 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
111 28 איילהאב 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 - 1
9 10 ןייניבה 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 () 1
107 08 ונייניב 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
105 01 ותייריבכ 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 ‘ 2
9 09 אייוגה 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 ‘ 1
4 16 םיידרג 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 03 הייד 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2
1 27 ןייד 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
41 17
1
ת(
י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
41 17
2
ת(
י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ()
42 18
1
ת(
י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ()
42 18
2
ת(
י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
42
1
20 תייז 2
M
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 () 1
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
42 20
2
ת(
י)
יז 1
M
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 () 1
43 23 ת ( י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ ()
43 24 ת ( י)
יז 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ ()
43 25 ת ( י)
יז 1 1 1 () 1 1 1 1 ‘ ()
43 26 ת ( י)
יז 1 1 1 () 1 1 1 1 ‘ ()
59 13 ת ( י)
יזכ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
60 14 תייזכ 2 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
98 19 תייזכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1
99 24 תיי זכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
100 27 ת ( י)
יזכ 1 1 () 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
100 28 תייזכ 2 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
100 01 תייזכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
101 03 תייזכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
102 13 ת ( י)
יזכ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
103 15 תייזכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
105 02 תייזכ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
106 07 תיזכמ 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
107 12 ייחב 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
115 18 איילח 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
115 18 איילחל 2 1 1 ‘ 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
37 23 ויופחמ 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
29 13 הוייםיד 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
45 5 דייים 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ ()
83 03 הייםיד 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
83 04 הייםיד 2 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
91 12 דייים 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
27 29 יימימ 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
87 22 ( י)
ימי 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
125 08 הייחבטמ 2 2 2 1 1 1 [] 2 1 1
7 29 ןיינימבו 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
7 30 ןיינימב 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
7 30 ן ( י)
ינימב 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
7 02 ןיינימבו 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 () 1
9 10 ןיינימה 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
107 08 וניינימ 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 () 2
112 08 ן ( י)
ינמה 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
28 07 הוולמ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
39 4 ם ( י)
ירצמה 1 2 1 1 2 M 2 2 1 ‘ 2
85 16 תומב ( י)
יתמ 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
32 28 הייתמ 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
99 22 ה ( י)
ינוחנ 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
101 05 ה ( י)
ינוחנ 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
104 25 היינוחנ 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
82 27 רייגתינש 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
67 21 דח ( י)
יתינש 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
37 19 ןידי ( י)
סלש 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
18 17 היירעה yy y v v v v v v ‘ v
21 01 הייריפ 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
112 04 ס ( י)
יפפ 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
113 12 ס ( י)
יפפ 1 2 2 2 1 1 סאיפפ 1 2 2
113 09 סייפפ 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
5 19 ומייקו 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
29 11 םו ( י)
יק 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 04 ה ( י)
יאר 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
58 4 םייחירב 2 2 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
21 01 בירוייה 2 1 ‘ 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
49 21 ה ( י)
יובשה 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 ‘ 1
49 23 1 ה ( י)
יובש 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 ‘ 1
49 23 2 ה ( י)
יובש 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 ‘ 1
116 24 היירוסבש 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1
4 17 הייעמש 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
126 10 איירש 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
15 08 םב ( י)
יתית 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
D. Plene and Defective Spellings
i. Yud
a. Nouns and Adjectives
98 21 אמירב y • • • • • • • • •
104 21 אירב y • • • • • • • • •
105 29 אוירב y • • • • • • y • •
67 18 אהייקלט y y y y y • • y y y
67 18 יק ( י)
לטיאה • • • • y • • • ’ •
15 05 ול ( י)
א • • • • y y • • • y
59 10 ול ( י)
א • • • • y • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
74 21 ול ( י)
א • • • • v • • • • •
74 21 ול ( י)
או • • • • v • • • • •
86 15 ול ( י)
א • • • y • • • • • •
130 05 ול ( י)
א • • • y y y • • • •
68 25 יתמ ( י)
א • • y y y • • y y y
32 27 רוס ( י)
א • y y y y y • • • y
67 18 רס ( י)
אב • y M y y y • y y y y
77 07 רוס ( י)
אב • y y y y y • y y •
69 27 םיסור ( י)
אה • y y y y • y y • y
130 03 ן ( י)
ב y • • • • y • • - -
130 04 ן ( י)
ב y • • • • • • • - -
9 10 בהיןיינ y • • • • • • • () •
107 08 ביוניינ y • • • • y • • • •
105 01 בכיותייר y • • • • y • • • •
79 17 בגהיהנ y y y y y y • y y •
40 07 גביםניה y y • y y • • • () •
40 07 היגביםנ y • • y • y • • () y
29 10 גיהט y y y • y y y • y •
31 23 הנ ( י)
ג • • y y y • • • • •
25 17 דכיירב y • • • • • • • • •
116 23 המיןומג y • • • • • • • • •
87 21 הת ( י)
יהש • y • y • y y y • y
92 16 ית ( י)
יהש • y y y y y y y y y
16 11 זהיןית y y y • y y y • • •
42 19 זיםית y
M
- • • • y y () •
64 04 זיםית y y • • • • y • - •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
117 28 זיםית y y y • • • y • • y
41 15 זיןית y y • • y • y y • •
80 19 זיןית y y y • • y y • • •
7 28 בחיור y y y y y y • y y •
93 24 ך ( י)
ריבחל • y y y y M y y y y y
30 18 חירוב y y y • • y y • • •
30 19 חירוב y y y • y y • • • y
118 01 חיףול y y y y y • • y • •
26 26 בילובט y • • • • • • • • •
27 03 רטיהפ y • y y y • • y y y
14 29 חינייהנ y • • • • • • • ‘ •
36 16 כיתורכ y • • • • • • • • •
74 20 כיית y y • y • y • • • •
9 11 ינ ( י)
שרכ • • y y y • • • y y
124 29 שכיהר y y • y • • • • [] y
124 01 שכיהר y y • y • • • • () y
110 25 שכיןיר y y • y • • • • y •
111 28 שכיןיר y y • y • • • • • •
76 04 אליו y • • • • • • • • •
69 28 לשיוב y • • • • • • • • •
33 01 הח ( י)
ל • • • y y • • • • •
111 29 לליתכש y • • • • y • • • •
87 23 תושע ( י)
ל • y • • • • • • y •
87 22 ליתורק y y y • • y • • y •
42 18 האמיל y y • y y y y y • y
42 21 האמיל y y • y y y y y () y
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
43 23 האמיל y y • y y y y y • ()
41 17 האמויל y y • y y y y y • ()
42 19 האמויל y y • y y y y y () y
42 20 האמויל y y • y y y y y () y
53 12 תוד ( י)
רגמה • • • y y y • • • •
56 28 מהירמג y •
M
y y • v • v •
3 09 מהיתוד y y • • y • • • • •
40 08 יד ( י)
מ • • • • • y • • • •
103 17 מיךתד y y y y y y y • y •
104 25 מיךתד y y y y y • y • y •
56 28 מהיתוט y y y • y y • • y •
71 10 הט ( י)
מה • y • • • • • • • •
27 29 יימי ( י)
מ • y • • • • • • • •
14 02 בלמין y • • • • • • • • •
30 19 מכין y y y y y y y y y •
9 10 מהיןיינ y y • • • • • • • •
7 29 מבויןיינ y y • • • • • • • •
7 30 מביןיינ y • • • • • • • • •
7 30 מביןינ y • • • • • • • • •
7 02 מבויןיינ y y • • • • • • () •
107 08 מיוניינ y • • • • • • • () •
120 12 ותצקימב y • • • • • • • • •
121 15 ןתצקימב y • • • • • • • • •
81 24 עמהיהס y y y y y y • y • y
56 25 םיל ( י)
קמו • y [] M y y y y y y y
109 21 משיהנש y •
M
• • • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
41 15 בנהיהל y y y y y • • • • •
76 03 הל ( י)
בנה • y y y y y • • • •
120 10 תול ( י)
בנ • y y y y y [] y • •
76 02 בניתול y y y y y y • • • •
104 20 תוליבנב y y • y y y • • • •
90 06 נביויוד y y y y y y • y • •
68 26 ןיאוש ( י)
נה • y • y y () • • y •
86 15 ןיאוש ( י)
נה • • • • • • • • • •
32 27 רת ( י)
הו • • • y • • • • y y
36 17 פסיוק y y y y y y y y • y
50 27 פסיתוק y y y y y y • y y y
2 04 עביןיד y • • • • • [] • • •
74 20 עיםיד y • • • • • • • • •
122 22 עויהיד y y y y y • y • • •
124 02 ןכתוד ( י)
ע • y • • y y • y • •
68 23 ומ ( י)
ע • y • • • • • • • •
70 05 ומ ( י)
ע • • • • • • • • • •
79 17 עים y • • • • • • • • •
109 22 עים y •
M
• • • • • • •
67 21 עיהמ y • • • • • • • • •
108 15 פיןויד y • • • y • • • • •
109 19 פכיןויד y • • • • y • • • •
58 4 פהיןילפל y • • • • • • • • •
81 28 פיוחס y • • • • • • • () •
11 20 תור ( י)
פו • - () y y () y y () y
21 01 פליהייר y • • • • • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
55 20 פיןת y y y y y y y • y •
55 22 פיןת y y y y y y y y y •
56 26 פיןת y y y y y y y y y •
72 14 ציצבית y
M
• • • • • • •
109 20 ר ( י)
צ • y y M y y • y y y y
125 07 רציהד y y y y y y • y y y
48 18 קילוב y y y y y y • y • •
21 01 רויהייב y • • • • • • • • •
45 09 חריתול y y • • • • • y • •
46 12 חריתול y y • • • • • y • •
58 4 םייחירב y y y M
• • y • • • •
31 20 תלוב ( י)
ש • y • • y • • • • •
62 27 וח ( י)
כשו • • • • y • • • • •
62 24 כשויוח y • • y y • • • • •
11 17 שיינ y
M
() y y () • • () •
12 22 שיינ y • • y y • • • • •
45 03 ינ ( י)
ש • • • y • • • • • •
68 24 ינ ( י)
ש • y • y • y • • • •
68 25 ינ ( י)
ש • y • y y M • • • • •
69 28 ינ ( י)
ש • • • y y • • • • •
70 04 ינ ( י)
שה • y • y • • • • • •
109 19 שיינ y • • y • • • • • •
112 06 נשהיהי y y y y y y • y y •
41 15 ינש ( י)
כב • • • y • • • • • -
42 19 ינש ( י)
כ • • • • y • • • () •
88 25 רע ( י)
ש • • • • • • • • y •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
88 27 רע ( י)
ש • • • • • • • • • •
61 22 משכיהט y y • • y y • • • •
27 01 רשהיהפ y y y y y y y y y y
28 05 רשהיהפ y y y y y y • y y •
73 19 חתכיהל y y • • • • • • y y
65 11 חתמיותל y y • y y • • • y •
21 03 תיןוק y y • • y y • • • •
119 08 תיןוק y y y • y y • • • •
b. Verb Prefixes
112 05 גיחל y y y
1. Pi`el
y y y • y y •
112 06 גיחל y y y y y y • () y •
16 12 דיורב y y • • • • • • • •
114 17 חשיוכת y y y • • y • • - •
23 12 טיםתרה y y • • • y • • • •
24 14 טשכיונרה y y • • • y • • • •
24 15 טיונרה y y y y y y • • • •
24 15 טשכיהתרה y y • • y M y • • • •
24 16 טיהתרה y y • • y y • • • •
101 04 התרה ( י)
ט • y • y y y y y y •
103 15 טיהתרה y y y y y y y • y •
100 02 טיהתאמ y y v • y y • • • •
102 11 טיהתאמ y y v • y • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
102 13 התאמ ( י)
ט • y v • y • • • v •
120 13 טשיאמ y y - y y • y y - •
90 06 נויוהוד y y y y y y • • • y
91 11 ניוד y y y y y • • y y y
64 06 ניהבק y • y • • • • • y •
116 24 עויורב y y y y y y y • y •
38 28 עויונ y • • • • • • • • •
91 12 פשיקפק y y y • y • • • • •
32 28 ןשר ( י)
פו • y y y y y y y • y
128 23 קויהשד y y • • y y • y • -
80 22 קישד y y • • y y [] y y •
81 23 קישד y y y • y y • y y •
128 23 קיהשד y y y • y y • y • -
110 27 קשיןחל y y y y y y y • y •
130 04 הבר ( י)
קו • y • y • • y y y •
130 02 רויהקח y y y y y y y y y y
122 21 רויאהוקח y y y y y y y y • y
34 08 רשיןקס y y y • y y y • y y
20 27 תיםתנק y y y • • • • • • •
20 28 תיםתנק y y y • • • • • • •
15 08 תיםבית y • • • • • • • • •
122 19 ניהלעב y y •
2. Niph`al
• • • • • • •
21 01 ניארב y • • • • • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
81 27 נשירייגת y • • • • • • • • •
34 05 ניהרמג y • • • • • • • • •
68 26 נשיהשרגת y • • • • • • • • •
69 27 נביהשרגת y • • • • () • • • •
45 06 ניאמט y y y y y y • • • •
122 23 ניהאמט y • • • y • • • • •
123 25 ניהאמט y • • • y • • • • •
123 27 ניהאמט y • • • y • • • • •
45 06 ניואמט y y y y y y • • • •
65 08 נויאמט y y [] • y • • • • •
25 21 נשיאמט y y y • y y • • • •
25 22 נשיאמט y y y • y y • • • •
26 27 נשיאמט y y
M
• y y • • • •
67 21 נשידחית y • • • • • • • • •
109 22 נשיושבכ y • • • • • • • - •
121 18 נשיהסנכ y • • • • • • • • •
18 20 ניןיסנכ y • y • • • • • • •
76 04 ניתרכמ y y • • • • • • • •
25 20 ניוענמ y • • • • • • • • •
26 25 ניוענמ y •
M
• • • • • • •
29 14 ניתאצמ y • • • • • • • • •
27 03 נויאצמ y • • • • • • • • •
126 13 נשיואצמ y y
M • • • • • • •
29 13 נשיתאצמ y • • • • • • • • •
90 08 ניהדנת y • • • • • • • • •
14 30 נשיולט y y - • y y • • y •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
37 22 נשיולט y y y y y y • • y •
95 03 נשיךסנת y • - • • • • • • •
90 09 ניתלענ y • • • • • • • • •
119 04 נשיתאש y y y y y y • • • •
121 17 נשיתאש y •
M
• • y • • • •
94 01 נשוילקס y y • • • y • • • •
122 23 ניארתס y • • • • • • • • •
123 25 ניהרתס y • • • • • • • • •
123 26 ניהרתס y • • • • • • • • •
26 26 נשילספ • •
M
• y y • • • •
48 20 ניקספ y • • • • • • • • •
31 21 תרצק ( י)
נ • • • • • • • • • •
50 25 נייתבש y • • • • • • • • •
50 25 נייתבש • y y y y y • y • y
50 26 נשיתבש y • [] • • y • • () •
50 26 נשיתבש y/- y [] y y • • y () y
59 12 1 לכא ( י)
ת • • • • • • • • • •
59 12 2 לכא ( י)
ת • • • • • • • • • •
19 22 אשנ ( י)
ת • y y • y • • • • •
32 25 תיערז y y y y y • • • • •
32 26 תיערז y y y • • • • • • •
15 08 תיאשנ y y • • • • • • • •
17 15 תיאשנ y y • • • • • • • •
17 16 תיאשנ y y • • • • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
27 03 ותוא ( י)
יש • • •
3. Qal Imperfect
• • • • • • •
17 15 תוילוט y y • • • • • • • •
17 16 תילוט y y • • • • • • • •
19 22 תיילט y y • • • • • • • •
19 21 דמל ( י)
נ • • y • • • • • • •
33 03 ייוניכש y • • • • • • • • •
33 03 כשיייונ y • • • • • • • • •
116 25 ישיהצר y • • • • • • • • •
3 08 השמויולידג y • •
4. Hif`il
• • • • • • •
88 28 הויוחינ y y • • • • • • () •
91 13 הויוחינ y •
M • • • • • • •
118 02 השיהאיש y y • • • • • • • •
18 17 היםתרת y y • • • • • • • •
28 09 הויורית y • • • • • • • • •
51 04 היטיס 1 y y v • • • • • • •
51 04 היטיס 2 y y v • • • • • • •
89 04 הוקש ( י)
הו • • • • • • • • • •
89 05 היאהוקש y • • • • • • • • •
5. Miscellaneous Verbs
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
40 12 מהיםימט y y • • • y • • y •
21 29 לטב ( י)
י • • y • y M
• • • • y
119 05 מיהת y • • • • • • • • •
c. Yud before Furtive Patah 1
80 21 רוזהיע y • • • • • • • () •
43 23 גונהיע y • • • • • • • • ()
66 14 פטמויח y y • y y y y y y •
66 13 פוטיח y • • • • • • • ‘ •
66 14 פוטיח y • • • • • • • () •
112 05 לגמיח y • • • • y • • • •
132 12 באוםת v • v
ii. Vav
• v v v v v v
33 P1 לה ( ו)
אב • • • • v' • • • • •
24 13 םילכ ( ו)
א • v v v • v • v v v
24 14 םילכ ( ו)
א • v v v v • • v v v
97 17 ןילכ ( ו)
א • • • v v • • v v v
23 08 םילכ ( ו)
אה • • • v v • • v v v
23 08 םילכ ( ו)
אה • • • v v • • v v v
1 See the introduction to ms. Kaufmann for a discussion of this patah.
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
22 04 אוות v • v v • v v v v v
74 20 אוות v • v () • v v v v v
118 02 גוהדגד v v v • v • • • v v
53 12 גווימל v v v v v v v • v v
19 23 תוד ( ו)
הל • v v v v v v v v v
39 02 חושד v v • • • • v • • •
39 03 חושד v • • • () • v • • •
39 04 חושד v v • • • • v • • •
39 05 חושד v v • • • • v • • •
40 06 חושד v v • • • • v • • v
40 07 חושד v v • • • • v • () •
40 08 חושד v • • • • • v • • •
36 15 חהוהדל v v v v • v v • v v
114 17 תויל ( ו)
ח • • • • • • • v • v
115 20 אייל ( ו)
ח • v v v v v v • v v
115 20 חלואייל v v v v v v v v v v
56 26 יר ( ו)
חו • • v M v v v v v - •
103 18 ר ( ו)
הט • • v • • • • • v •
51 30 טוהאמ v v v v v v v v v v
51 02 טוהאמ v v v v v • v v v •
97 14 טותאמ v v v v v v v v v •
97 15 טמותאמ v v v v v v v v v •
103 19 טותאמ v v v v v v v • v v
100 29 טוהתאמ v y v • y M y • • y •
77 06 רטוהפ v y y y y v • • y y
27 03 אישוות v v v v v v v • v v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
14 29 יוולכא v • • • • • • • • •
61 22 ישורקב v v • v v - v v - v
90 10 אריבוות v v • • • • • • • •
38 29 שיווב v v v v v • v v v v
38 25 כבווח v • • • • • v v • •
64 04 כוול v v v () v v v v • •
120 13 כוול v v v v v v v v • •
47 16 כוםל v v v v v v v v • v
121 15 כוםל v v v v v v v v • •
40 06 בלוא v v v v • v v v () v
116 24 בלוא v v • v v v v v • •
129 24 בלוא v v • • v v v v • v
64 04 גמוןילגל v v v v v v v v v v
70 03 מוהנפ v v v v v v • v v •
70 04 מוהנפ v v v v v v v v v •
31 24 למוא v • v v • • v v () •
31 24 למוא v • v • • • v v () •
54 19 נמהוהר v v v • v v v v v v
129 25 קמולב v v v v v • v v v v
89 01 שמותררח v v v v v • v v v v
89 03 שמותררח v • v v • () v v v v
120 13 סהותל v v v • • v v • • v
61 23 עוירמ v v v • • • • v v v
82 29 עהוהלר v v • • • • • • • •
38 25 עבוורש v v v v v v v v v v
124 02 קוונלב v y y • y y • y • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
83 02 תלה ( ו)
ק • • v • • v • • • •
54 15 ן ( ו)
טק • • • • • • v • • •
54 16 ן ( ו)
טקהו • • • • • • v • • •
121 14 טקהוותר v • v v • • v • • •
112 05 שארהוהנ v • v v v v v v • v
52 07 שלשוינחל v v
M
v v v • • • •
79 17 שהוןחל v • • v • • • • • v
13 25 הש ( ו)
לשב • • • • • • • • • •
13 26 הש ( ו)
לשב • • • • • • • • • •
30 15 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
34 06 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
35 10 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
36 17 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
37 21 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
82 01 הש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
112 05 םיש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
112 08 םיש ( ו)
לש • • • • • • • • • •
73 19 לשוםיש v • • • • • • • • •
5 18 לששותש v • • • v • • • • •
9 08 לשמוהש v • • • • • • • • •
67 18 משמוהנ v v • • v v v • • •
72 12 משלוםינ v • v • v v v • • v
92 19 משבויתע v v • v v v v v v v
21 02 תווה v • • • v • • • • v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
iii. Aleph
64 07 הומתסוא a • • • • • • • • •
89 04 הוקשהוא a • • • • • • • • •
89 05 הוקשיהא a • • • • • • • • •
114 13 הונלכאוא a • • • • • • • • •
122 21 הוקחירוא a • • • • • • • ‘ •
E. Heh with Second Person Perfect
8 06 התעמש h h h • h • • • • •
24 15 התרהיטשכ h h h • h h • • ‘ •
24 16 התרהיט h v h • h h • • ‘ •
87 21 הת ( י)
יהש h h h h h • • • ‘ •
92 17 התרזח h h h • • • • • • •
92 20 התעמש h h • • • • • • ‘ •
93 25 התאצמ h h h • h • • • • •
99 24 התיאר h • h • • • • • • •
100 29 התאמוט h h h h h M h • • • •
100 02 התאמיט h h h h h h • • • •
101 04 התרהט h h h h h h h • • •
101 06 התיאר h h • • • h • • • •
102 11 התאמיט h h h h h h • • • •
102 13 התאמט h h h h • h h • ‘ •
103 15 התרהיט h h m h h h h • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
103 17 התיאר h • • • • h • • • •
104 25 התיאר h • h • • • • • • •
107 10 תיאר • • h • • h • • • •
F. Heh and Aleph as Matres Lectiones
9 09 אייוגה a h h h h h h h ‘ h
32 29 הסרומ h a a h a h h h ‘ a
46 10 הנמ 1 h h h h h h h h ‘ a
46 10 הנמ 2 h h a h h h h h ‘ a
53 13 הלבטו h h ‘ h h h h h ‘ h
53 14 הלבטב h h h h h h h h h a
62 26 פגלא a h h h h a h h () h
90 10 טחא a •
M
• a a a a a a
93 24 המש h a h a a a a a ‘ a
111 28 איילהאב a h h h h h h a ‘ a
115 19 איילח a h a a h h h h ‘ a
115 19 איילוחל a h a ‘ h h h h ‘ a
116 24 היירוסבש h h h a h h h a ‘ a
116 24 אהשו a a h a h h h h ‘ a
122 23 ארתסינ a h h h h h h h ‘ h
125 08 הייחבטמ h a a a h a [] a a a
126 09 התימל h a h a h h a a ‘ a
126 10 איירש a a h a a a a a a a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
IV. Textual Traditions
A. Spelling of Names
a=ימש
i. יאמש ( תיב)
b=יימש c=יאמש
1 27 ימש a a c c c c c c c c
2 6 ימש a a b c c b c c c c
4 13 ימשו a a c c c b c c c c
5 20 ימש a a b c c b c c “ c
8 7 ימש תיב a a c “ a b a a “ a
9 10 ימש a a c c c c c c c c
10 12 ימש תיב a a c “ c b c “ “ c
10 15 ימש a a c c c b c c c c
11 18 ימש תיב a c M () “ “ () c “ () c
12 22 ימש תיב a a a “ c b c “ “ c
13 28 ימש a a c c c b c c c c
14 01 ימש תיב a a b c c b c “ “ c
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
14 02 ימש a a b c c b c c c c
14 03 ימש תיב a () b “ c b c “ “ c
15 04 ימש a a b c c b c c c c
15 06 ימש a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
16 10 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
17 14 ימש תיב a a a “ “ b c “ “ c
17 14 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
18 17 ימש תיב a a c “ “ b c “ “ c
18 20 ימש תיב a a c “ c b c “ “ c
19 24 ימש תיב a a c “ “ b c “ “ c
20 27 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
22 6 ימש תיב a a c c “ b c “ “ c
22 7 ימש תב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
23 10 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
24 13 ימש תיב a a c “ “ b c “ “ c
25 17 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
54 17 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c c “ c
59 10 ימש תיב a a “ “ c b c c “ c
59 11 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c c “ c
59 13 ימש תיב a a b M “ c b c c “ ללה
60 15 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
61 20 ימש תיב a a b M “ c b c c “ “
62 24 ימש תיב a a “ “ “ b c “ “ “
62 27 ימש תיב a a “ “ c b c “ () c
63 29 ימש תיב a a c “ “ b c “ “ c
63 1 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ () c
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
64 5 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
65 09 ימש תיב a a a “ c b c “ “ c
65 11 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
66 16 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
67 18 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
68 23 ימש תיב a b a “ c b c “ “ c
69 29 ימש תיב a a b “ c M b c c “ c
70 05 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
71 10 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
72 12 ימש תיב a b b “ “ b c “ “ c
72 14 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
72 15 ימש תיב a a “ “ “ () c “ “ c
73 18 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
74 22 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
75 25 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ c
76 01 ימש תיב a b b “ c b c “ “ “
76 02 ימש תיב a a c “ c b c “ “ “
77 05 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ “
77 08 ימש תיב a a b “ c b c “ “ “
78 11 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
78 13 ימש תיב a b b “ “ b c “ “ c
79 16 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
79 18 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
80 21 ימש תיב a a b M “ c b c “ “ c
80 22 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
81 24 ימש תיב a a c “ “ b c “ “ c
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
81 26 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
82 27 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ ()
83 02 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
83 04 ימש תיב a a b M “ “ b c “ “ c
83 05 יימש תיב b a b “ c b c “ () c
84 06 ימ ש תיב a a b M “ c b c “ “ c
84 09 ימש תיב a a b “ “ b c “ “ c
84 10 ימש תיב a a “ “ “ b c “ “ c
86 17 ימש תיב a a a “ “ b c “ “ c
ii. ללה ( תיב)
a=ללה b=לליה
1 28 ללה a a b a a a a a b a
2 06 ללה a a b a a a a a a a
3 11 ללה a a b a a a a a a a
5 20 לל הו a a b a a a a a “ a
9 08 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a a “ a
10 13 ללה תיבו a a a
17 13 ללה תיב a a a “ “ a a “ “ a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
M “ a () a a “ a
11 18 ללה תיבו a “ M () “ “ a a a () a
12 23 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a a “ a
14 01 ללה תיבו a a “ “ a a a “ “ a
15 04 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
15 05 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
15 08 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
17 15 ללה תיבו a a “ “ a a a “ “ a
18 19 ללה תיב a a b -- a a a “ “ a
19 23 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
20 26 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ () a
22 05 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
22 07 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
23 09 ללה תיב a a b “ a a a “ “ a
23 12 ללה תיב a a “ “ a a a “ “ a
24 16 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
59 11 ללה תיב a a “ “ a a a a “ “
59 12 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a a “ a
60 14 לל ה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a a “ a
60 16 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ a a a “ “ a
61 21 ללה תיבו a a “ “ a a a “ “ “
62 25 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
62 28 ללה תיבו a a “ “ “ a a “ () a
63 01 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
63 03 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
64 05 ל לה תיבו a a b “ a () a “ “ a
65 10 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
65 12 ללה תיבו a a b a “ a a “ “ a
66 14 ללה תיב a a b “ a a a “ () a
66 16 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
67 20 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
68 24 ללה תיבו a a “ “ “ M a a “ “ a
69 01 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
70 06 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a “ “ a
71 09 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
72 13 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
72 14 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
73 16 ללה תיבו a a a “ “ a a “ “ a
73 19 ללה תיבו a a “ “ “ a a “ “ a
74 23 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
75 26 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
76 01 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ “
76 02 לליה תיבו b a b “ a a a “ “ “
77 05 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ “
77 09 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ “
78 11 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ “
78 14 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a “ “ a
79 16 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
79 18 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
80 21 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a “ “ a
81 23 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ “ a
81 25 ללה תיב a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
82 28 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
83 02 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
83 04 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a “ “ a
83 06 ללה תיבו a a b “ a a a “ () a
84 07 ללה תיבו a a “ M “ “ a a “ “ a
84 09 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
85 11 ללה תיבו a a b “ “ a a “ “ a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
86 18 ללה תיבו a a b a “ a a “ “ a
י=יסוי
iii. יסוי
ה= הס וי
ף=ףסוי
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
3 10 יסוי ה ה י י י י י י י י
79 15 יסוי ה ה י י י י י י י י
122 19 ןהכה ףסוי ף ה י ף ף י י י י י
125 06 רזעוי . ב הסוי ה ה י י י י י י ף י
126 09 ( רזעוי . ב)
הסוי ה ה י י י י י י ף י
iv. רזעילא / רזעלא
1=רזעלא 2=רזעילא
“a” indicates ' א'
is present “-“ indicates that ' א'
has been elided
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
33 PA1 רזעל () 1- 2a 1a 1a 1- 1a 1a () 2a
35 11 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a () 2a
35 13 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a () 2a
57 01 רזעל ( הירזע ןב)
1- 1- 1a 1a 1a 1- 1a 1a () 2a
84 08 רזעל 1- 1- 2a 1a 1a 1- 1a 1a 1a 2a
86 17 רזעל 1- 1- 2a 1a 1a 1- 1a 1a 1a 1a
91 11 רזעילא 2a 2a 1a M 1a 1a 2a 1a 1a 1a 1a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
96 08 רזעלא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 1- 2a 1a 1a 2a
98 20 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
99 22 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
99 24 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
103 16 ' זעילא 2a 2a 2a M 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
108 17 ' זעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
111 03 ' זעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
113 10 ' זעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a () 2a
114 16 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
115 19 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
127 15 רזעילא 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a 2- 2a 2a 2a 2a
v. א’s and ה’s at the End of a Name ( א / הביקע,
א / הריתב etc.)
h=ה a=א ‘=abbreviated
120 10 אריתב a h h h h h [] h ‘ a
120 11 אריתב h h h ‘ h h h h h a
124 29 הריתב h h h h h a h h ‘ a
118 02 הדגדוג h a h h h a h h ‘ a
41 13 הסוד h a a a a a a a ‘ a
42 21 הסוד a a a a a a a a ‘ a
43 27 הסוד h a a a a a a a ‘ ()
44
M
02 אסוד
M
a a a a a a a a () a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
45 04 אסוד a a a a a a a a ‘ a
45 05 אסוד a a a a a a a a ‘ ()
46 08 אסוד a a a a a a a a ‘ a
46 11 אסוד a a a a a a a a ‘ a
47 14 אסוד a h a a a a a a ‘ a
47 16 אסוד a h a a a a a a ‘ a
48 19 אסוד a a a a a a a a a a
49 22 א סוד a h a a a a a a ‘ a
25 19 היננח h h h h h h h h ‘ h
27 29 היננח h h h h h h h h ‘ a
32 28 היתמ h h h h h h h h ‘ h
95 06 ( הינוחנ)
- h a h h h h a ‘ a
98 20 הינוחנ h h - h h h h a ‘ a
99 22 הינוחנ h h a h h a h a ‘ a
101 05 הינוחנ h h a h h a h a a a
104 25 הינוחנ h h a h h h h a a a
126 11 הימחנ h h h h h h h h ‘ a
10 15 ביקע
' ‘ h ‘ h a h h h ‘ a
13 26 הביקע h h ‘ h a h h h h a
26 24 הביקע h h h M h a h h h ‘ a
27 01 הביקע h h ‘ h a h h h ‘ a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
34 07 הביקע h h a h a h h h ‘ a
35 09 הביק ע h h ‘ h a h h h ‘ a
35 11 הביקע h ‘ ‘ h a h h h ‘ a
36 18 הביקע h h ‘ h a h h h ‘ a
37 23 הביקע h ‘ a h a h h h ‘ a
125 10 הביקע h h a h a h h h ‘ a
86 18 היבקע h h a h h h h h ‘ a
87 20 היבקע h () ‘ h h h h h () a
90 08 היבקע h h h h h h h h ‘ a
90 10 היבקע h h h h h a h h ‘ a
4 17 הייעמש h h h h h h h h h a
89 04 היעמש h h h h h h h h ‘ a
vi. Miscellaneous
a. ( א)
היננח/(
א)
הנינח
a= ( א)
היננח b= ( א)
הנינח
25 19 היננח a a a a a a b b b b
27 29 היננח a a b a a a b a b a
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
b. סניכר ה/
סניכרא
a=סניכרא h=סניכרה
41 13 סניכרא a a סוניקרה h h a h h a h
42 21 סניכרא a a סוניכרא h h a h h a h
43 27 סניכרא a h סוניכרא h h a h h a ()
48 19 סניכרא a a סוניקרא h h a h h h a
B. Conjunctive Vav’s
i. Connecting Two Clauses
2 2 השא לכ ( ו)
• v v • • v • • • •
2 3 תשמשמה ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
2 5 תטעממ ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
3 8 ולידגהשמו v v • • • v • • • v
17 13 ורזח ( ו)
• • • • • • • • v •
19 23 ורזח ( ו)
• • • • • • • • v •
22 05 ורזח ( ו)
• • • • • • • • v •
24 16 ורזח ( ו)
• • • • • • • • v •
31 24 אולמ ( ו)
• v v v v • v v () v
33 02 דצה ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • v
35 13 יחירפמו v v v v v v • v v v
36 14 דחאו v v v v v v v v • v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
42 19 ליהאמו v v v • • v • • () •
42 20 ליהאמו v () M v • • • • • () •
53 13 םידומ ( ו)
• • • • v v [] v • v
60 18 םידומ ( ו)
• v • v v • v v v v
64 06 וםידומ v v • v v v v v v v
67 20 ואוה הז יא v v • • • v • • v •
68 26 וןידומ v v • v v () v v v -
77 06 ןידומו v v v v v v v v v v
78 10 )(וןילכוא • v v • • • • • • •
85 12 ןידומו v v • v v v v v v v
85 13 העבר או v v • • • • • • • •
91 15 תעשבו v • v v v • • • • •
114 14 ןה ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
114 16 ןהו v • • • • • v v • •
115 19 ןה ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
115 21 ןה ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
125 05 םינהכה ( ו)
• v • • • • v v ש •
ii. Connecting Two Possibilities
3 10 השמח ( ו)
• • v • • • v v • •
9 08
2
ןיב(
ו)
• • • • • • v v • •
29 14 םאו v v • v v v v v • v
30 18 םאו v v • v v v v v • v
33 03 האופרל םאו v v • v v v v v v v
48 20 תיבו v • • • • • • • • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
51 04 קפסו v • • • • • • • • •
65 10 )(וםא • () • • • () • • • v
86 16 םא ( ו)
• • • v v • v v • v
94 26 ךישעמו v v • v v v v v • v
112 06 םאו v v • v v v v v v v
123 26 םאו v v • • v () v v v •
129 27 רהטלו v v v • v v v v - v
129 28 קחרל ( ו)
• • v • • • • • - •
iii. Between Disputants
1 28 ללה תיב ו v v • • • v • • • v
2 06 ללה • v • • • v • • • v
4 13 ימשו v v • • • v • • • v
9 08 ללה תיבו v v • • • v • • v v
10 13 ללה תיבו v v
M
v v • • • v •
10 15 ימש • • • • • • • • • •
10 15 ' ביקע 'ר
• v • • • v • • • •
11 18 ללה תיבו v v () v v () v v () v
11 19 ריאמ 'ר
• • () v v' () • • () •
12 23 ללה תיבו v v v • • v v v v v
13 26 הביקע 'רו
v v • • • v • • v •
13 28 ןופרט 'רו
v v • v v • • • • v
13 28 ימש • • • • • • • • • •
14 01 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
14 02 ימש • • • • • • • • • •
15 04 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
15 04 ימש • • • • • • • • • •
15 08 ללה תיבו v v • v • v v v • v
17 15 ללה תיבו v v v v v v v v v v
59 12 ללה תיבו v v v v v v v v v v
60 14 ללה תיבו v v
M
• • • v v v v
60 16 ללה תיבו v v
M v v v v v v v
61 21 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
62 25 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
62 28 ללה תיבו v v v v v v v v v v
63 01 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
63 03 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
64 05 ללה תיבו v v v • • () v v v v
65 10 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
66 16 ללה תיבו v v • • • v • • v v
67 20 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
68 24
ו
ללה תיב
v
v v •
M
v v v v v v
69 01 ללה תיבו v v v • • v v v v v
70 06 ללה תיבו v v
M
• • v v v v v
71 11 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
72 13 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
72 14 ללה תיבו v v • • v v v v v v
73 16 ללה תיבו v v v • • () v v v v
73 19 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
74 23 ללה תיבו v v v • • v v v v v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
75 26 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
76 02 ללה תיבו v v v • • v v v v v
77 05 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
77 09 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
78 11 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
78 14 ללה תיבו v v
M
• • v v v v v
79 16 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v • v
79 18 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
80 21 ללה תיבו v v
M
• • v v v v v
81 23 ללה תיבו v v • v v v v v v v
81 24 ללה תיב ( ו)
• v • • • v v v v v
81 26 ללה תיב ( ו)
• • • v v • v v v v
82 28 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
83 04 ללה תיבו v v
M
• • v v v v v
83 06 ללה תיבו v v v v v v v v v v
84 07 ללה תיבו v v v M v v M v v v v v
85 11 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
86 18 ללה תיבו v v • • • v v v v v
98 20 עשוהי 'ר(
ו)
• • v v v v v v
99 22 רזעילא 'רו
v • • v v v v v • v
iv. Miscellaneous
18 18 וריתת אל ( ו)
• v • • • v v v v v
40 09 תרצע דע ( ו)
• v v v v v v v () v
40 10 ידמו v • • v () • v v () v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
53 11 וילעבלש v v • • • v • • • •
65 08
ו
דרי
v
• • • • • v v • •
70 03 השע ( ו)
• • v M v v • v v v v
85 14 ותמו v • • • • • v v () •
88 27 םומ לעב ( ו)
• v • • • v • • • v
96 10 המ ( ו)
• • • • • • v v • v
105 29 רביאו v • • • • • v v • v
128 19 יפ לע ףא ( ו)
• • • • • • • • • v
38
v. Sequences
“v”=ו present “•”=ו absent ‘-‘=word not relevant or present
25-6 רפסמבו םינשבו המכחבו רשועבו חוכבו [ יאונב]
vvvvv vvvv- •••v- vvvv- vvvv- vvvvv •••vv vvvvv -••vv vvvvv
62 26-7 םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו [ אפגל]
vvv v•v v•v vvv vvv v•v vvv vvv () vvv
107 12 בקרו עבורו [ בור]
vv vv vv vv vv vv vv vv vv •v
108 13 בקרו עבורו [ בור]
vv vv vv vv vv vv vv vv vv vv
120 13-4 םילחגהו הנובלה תרוטקהו [ תלוסה]
v•v v•v v•v vvv vvv vvv vvv vvv vvv vvv
6 26 ךומסיו v • v
vi. Miscellaneous
• • • v v v v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
33 19 והניא v • • • • • • • • •
43 24 לע ( ו)
• v v M v v v v v v ()
43 26 לע ( ו)
• v v () v • v v v ()
74 23 ןאכ ןיא ( ו)
• • • • • v • • v v
97 17 לע ( ו)
• v v v v v v v • v
97 17
1
אמטל(
ו)
• v v v v v v v • v
97 17
2
אמטל(
ו)
• • • • • v • • v v
100 27 ףאו v • • • • v • • • •
102 09 ףאו v • • • • v • • () v
107 08 בור ( ו)
• v v v v v v v () v
127 14 לכה ( ו)
• v • v v v v v () v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
C. Phrasing, Extra Words, Names
“√” = same as base text
2 06 הלח ( ל)
בקמ • • • • • • • • L L
3 09 ( הלחב)
ןיבייח • • • • • • הלחב ' לחב • •
3 10 ןיה √ √ √ √ ןייה/ןיא
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
M √ √ ןיא √ √
4 13 םדא בייחש ( אלא)
• • • • • • • • אלא •
4 13 בייח םדאש √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ' דא 'ייחש
√
4 15 אלא • √ √ √ √ √ () () √ √
5 19 ( םימכח)
ומייקו • • • • • • • ' מכח ' ימכח •
5 22 ו ( י)
רבד • • y y y • • • y y
6 26 ךומסיו √ ךומסי √ ךמוס ךמוס ךומסי √ √ √ √
7 28 אהיש דע √ √ כ " א אלא √ √ √ √ √ כ " אא √
7 01 ו ( י)
רבד • • y • • • • • • y
8 05 לבוקמ ינא √ √ √ ינא לבוקמ ינא לבוקמ √ √ √ ' לבוקמ √
8 07 [ םימצעה]
ןמ √ √ ןיב ןיב √ √ √ √ √ √
11 17 םלשוריב םלשוריב - M () - - () - - () -
14 30 ויופח √ √ √ √ וייופח √ [] √ וינפד ויפוח
15 06 והלדתו d r r r r r r r r r
16 10 חאת t d t d d d t t d t
16 11 חאות t d t d d d t t d t
16 12 חאות t d () d d d t t ‘ t
17 14 והלדתו d r d r r r r r d r
18 17 ( ה"
בל)
ש"
ב • • • • • • ללה תיבל ה " בל • •
19 23 ךיל √ √ √ ךיתבותכב ךיתבותכב ךיל √ √ יכיל
בותכש
יכיל √

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
19 23 הלדתו d r d r r r r r d r
20 25 ומצע ... ובר √ √ √ √ √ √ ובר ... ומצע ובר ... ומצע √ √
22 05 והלדתו d r d r r r r r r r
23 11 םע בג √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ימע יבג √
24 16 ולו ךל √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ולוכל √
25 17 והלדתו d r d r r r r r r r
27 02 ונדמל √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונעמש √ √
27 04 ןה ןה ןה
א
ןי () ןיא ןא ןיא ןיא () ןה
27 04 וניאר √ √ √ √ √ √ יתיאר יתיאר √ √
28 05 אצ ( ו)
י • v • • • v v v v v
29 12 מתוחביו y y • y y y y y y y
30 17 השוא v y y y y y y y y y
31 21 ( איה)
ירה • • איה ירה • ירה איה איה ירה • איה ירה () איה ירה
31 22 ( איה)
ירה • • איה ירה • • איה ירה איה ירה איה ירה () •
32 27 רוסא ( אל)
• • • אל אל אל אל אל • אל
32 27 רתה ( אלו)
• • • אלו אלו אלו אלו אלו • •
32 28 עשוהי ( יבר)
• • • ' ר • • ' ר יבר ' ר ' ר
32 28 שפימה שפימה שיפמה שיפמה שיפמה סיפמה שפימה סיפמה סיפמה ' יפמה סיפמה
33 04 םיספל םיספל םיספל םיספל [ ה]
ןיספליא ןיספליא םיספלא ןיספל ןיספל ' יספלא םיספל
33 04 תוינורא תוינורא תוינרא תוינורא [ ה]
תוינרוא תוינריח תוינריע תוינרא תוינרא ' ינרא תוינורא
36 14 תודעה ןמ תודעה ןמ תודעל תודעה ןמ תודעל תודעל תודעה ןמ תודעל תודעל תודעה ןמ תודעל
38 25 הכ ( ו)
ז • • • v v • v v v v
44 28 [ אשמהו]
( םע)
עגמה ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ( ו)
םע ()
44 02 דורפ √ √ רורפ √ √ רורפ √ √ [] פ √
45 06 םא √ • √ • • √ √ √ √ √
46 07 נקוותב v v y v v v v v y y
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
47 15 ןוליגליגלשמ ןוליגליג לשמ ןילגלגלשמ ןילגלוגשמ ןוליגלג -לשמ
ןוליגלגשמ וילגלג לשמ ןוליגלג לשמ ןוליגלגלשמ ' וליגניג לשמ גל שמ
ןוליגל
47 17 תיב לש √ תיבבש
ש
תיבב תיבש תיבש √ תיבש תיבש √ תיבש
48 18 ראיג y y v y y y y y v v
49 21 עוקפה v v y y y y y y v y
53 12 תודרגמה תודרגמה תודרגמה [] תודירגמה תודירגמה תודירגמה תודרגמה תודרגמה ' וררגמה תוררגמ
55 20 תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוסירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג ' יסירג ןיצירג
55 20 תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוסירג תוסירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג ' יסירג ןיצירג
56 26 תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג תוסירג תוסירג תוצירג תוצירג תוצירג ' יסירג ןיצירג
61 20 רקבה ב ב פ פ פ ב פ פ פ ב
61 20 רקבה ב ב פ פ פ ב פ פ פ ב
61 20 רקבה ב ב פ פ פ ב פ פ פ ב
61 20 רקבויש ב ב פ פ פ רקוביש פ פ פ רקוביש
63 03 םיונעו םיונעו םיינעהו M ' יינעו םיינעהו םיינעהו םינעהו םיינעהו םיינעהו ' יינעו םיינעהו
67 19 רטופאוה x x • x x x x x • x
67 20 אוה הז יאו √ √ והזיא והז יא אוה הז יא √ אוה הז יא אוה הזיא והזיאו והזיא
70 05 זלהו √ √ √ וזלהו √ √ √ √ וזל וז הלהו
70 08 ול יא √ ול -יא
√ √ √ וליא √ ול יוא ול יוא ולא
70 09 ול יאו √ וליאו √ √ √ וליאו √ ול יואו ול יוא ולאו
77 06 ציבבה h h h t t h t t ‘ h
77 06 רטוהפ v y y y y v • • y y
78 12 " הבוטב אלשו הבוטב"
הבוטב ב אלא M הבוטב ב אלא ב אלא הבוטב הבוטב ' בוטב ב אלא
82 27 [ םיחספ]
ברע ברע ברע יברעב ברע ברע ברע ברע ברע יברעב יברע
87 24 [ ןירמוא]
והי והי והי אהי ורמאי ורמאי והי ורמאי ורמאי והי ויהי
88 29 [ תרויגה]
אל √ √ √ √ √ () √ √ () √
89 03 תימכרכב √ √ √ √ √ √ תימכרוכב תימכרוכב ' ימכוכב √
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
89 05 אמגכיד אמגכיד המכיד המגוד אמגוד המגוד המגיד אמגוד אמגוד ' מגוד אמגוד
91 11 ךנה ךנה דנה ךנה דנה דנה רנה דונה דונה ךנה ךנה
91 12 תרהטב √ √ √ תליטנב תליטנב √ √ √ ' ליטנב
√
91 13 ( ך)
דמלל • • • k k • • • k •
91 14 הדונמה √ √ √ הדנתמה הדנתמה √ √ √ ' דנתמה הדנתמה
91 14 ( ד"
ב)
ןילקוס • • • ד " ב+
ס ןיד תיב + ס • ס + ןיד תיב ס + ד"
ב ס + ד"
ב •
93 22 ירבד תא √ ירבדב ירבד √ √ ירבדב ירבדב ירבדב ירבד ירבדב
94 28 אבא √ √ הבא √ √ √ אבב א בב ' בב √
95 06 הימחנ הימחנ היינוחנ אינוחנ הינוחנ הינוחנ הינוחנ הינוחנ אינוחנ ' נוחנ אינוחנ
96 12 אהיש √ √ היהיש M √ √ √ √ √ ‘ היהיש
98 20 הינוחנ √ √ הימחנ √ √ √ √ אינוחנ ' ינוחנ אינוחנ
100 28 יהי יהי היהי אהי M אהי אהי M היהי אהי אהי () היהי
102 10 יהי יהי היהי אהי אהי אהי היהי אהי היהי () היהי
110 25
ה
אייליפ
ה
אייליפ איליפה הילופ היליפה היליפה איליפה אילפ אילפ ' יילפה אילפה
110 26 ורישכהו √ ור
ש
י
כ
תהו
√ √ √ √ √ √ וריתהו והורשכהו
112 04 ריזנ י תו y • • • • • • • • •
112 07 םוידחא √ √ √ • √ M • • • •
114 15 וראבתו b k b k k k k k b b
117 27 יינג ( י)
ס • • • • • y • • y •
117 27 סגניי ng ng ng gn gn ng ng gn gn gn
117 27 גנסיי yy yy a ay ay y ay ay yy ay
118 29 לשו √ √ לש לעו √ √ √ לש לעו לש לעו לעו √
119 06 בבהרי b b b k b k b b b b
121 16 אבא √ √ הבא א בב אבב √ אבב אבב √ √
122 21 הנח רוהש הנח רוהש הנהרוהש הנחרוהש הנרהרוהש רוהש ה הנ הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש ' נהרוהש הנהרוהש
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
123 24 הנחרוהש הנחרוהש הנחרוהש הנחרוהש הנרהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש ' נהרוהש הנהרוהש
123 27 הנח רוהש הנחרוהש הנהרוהש הנ רוהש הנרהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש הנהרוהש
124 01 הסיעה ( שו)
• ו שו M ו ו ו • • • ש
124 03 ןכ ( י)
תודע √ ןכיתודיע √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
125 06 יסוי 'ר
' ר ' ר ' ר ' ר ' ר ' ר ' ר ' ר • ' ר
125 07 הייצימק הייצימק אייצמק הייצמק יצמוק איצמוק אייצמק אייצמוק איצמוק ' צמק אצמק
125 07 ייצימקה h a h • a a a a ‘ a
125 07 צימקייה yy yy yy y y yy yy y ‘
125 07 הייצימ ( ו)
ק • • • v v • v v • •
125 08 קשמה h y h y y h h y y h
125 08 ןייכד ןייכד ןכד ןייכד ןכד ןכד ןאכד ןכד ןכד ןכד ןוניאד
ןייכד
126 11 הימחנ ( 'ר)
• • x • • • x x x •
126 11 הימחנ √ √ √ הימוחנ √ √ √ √ ' ינוחנ √
126 11 ילדב תיב ילדב תיב ילדב ולד תיב ילד יב ילד יב ילד תיב ילד תיב ילד תיב ילדמ ילד תיב
127 15 והיש והיש ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ ויהשכ
128 23 ה ( ו)
שדיק
• • • v • • • • • השודק
128 23 ה ( ו)
שדקו • • • v v • • • • השודקו
130 02 ה ( ו)
קחירו • • • • • • • ‘ v •
130 03 ןיב ןיב ןב ןב ןב ןב ןיב ןב ןב תב ינב
130 04 ןיב ןיב ןב ןב ןב ןב ןב ןב ןב תב ינב
131 08 תוקלחמה √ √ ' וקלחמה √ תקולחמה √ √ √ ' וקולחמה תוקו לחמה
131 09 םלועב √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ' לועל םהיניב
132 10 היילאו ו • • • • • ‘ • v v
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
D. Missing or Different Prepositions
4 13 כןושל k k k b k k k k k b
8 06 מירבד m k [] k k k k k k k
11 18 לכ ( ב)
• b M () b b () b b () b
11 19 לקש ( ב)
• b M () b b () b b () b
11 19 לקש ( ב)
ו • b M () b b () b b () b
12 23 בלכ b b b b b b b b b b
12 23 לקש ( ב)
• • • b b • b b b b
12 24 לקש ( ב)
ו • • • b b • b b b b
13 25 בהשלש b b • b b b b b b b
13 25 וברניד b • • b b () b b () b
13 26 בהשלש b b • b b () b b () b
13 27 ובתיעביר b • • b b • b b b b
13 27 ובתיעיבר b • • b b • b b b b
18 20 בהלחנ b L b L L L L L L L
24 15 לומצע L L L L L • L L • •
29 12 בוימתוח b m b b b b b b b b
33 12 כקסעתמ k k k k k k k k - •
59 13 תיזכ [ ב]
• ב • ב ב • • • ב ב
59 13 תבתוככ [ ב]
• ב • ב • • • • ב ב
60 14 תיזכ [ ב]
• ב • ב • • • • ב ב
72 12 לםינומש L • L • L L L L L •
81 25 בתילדרח b b L b b b b b b b
85 14
ל
יתש L • L • • • L L • •
87 20 בהעברא b b b b b b b b M b
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
87 21 ל'רשי L L L L L L L L b L
90 09 מ'ארשי m m b M b b m b b b m
92 16 בהעברא b b b b b b b b M b
108 17 כשמח k k b k k k k k b k
115 20
ב
רדא לכ
b
• • • b b b b () b
116 25 הצרייש ( כ)
• k k k k k k k • L
111 29 לתכשיל L L L L L L L L b ינפל
126 09 להתימ L L L L L L L L L b
E. Missing Definite Direct Object Marker
x=present “•”=absent
5 20 ירבד תא x x • • • x • • • x
6 24 ירבד תא x x x • • x • • • •
6 27 ירבד תא x • • x x x x x • •
7 01 ירבד תא x x • x x x x x • •
8 03 ירבד תא x x • • • x • • • •
29 10 הטיג תא x x • x x x x x x x
29 11 ורבוש תא x x • x x x x x x x
55 20 ןתיפ ( תא)
• • • • • • x x • •
55 22 ןתיפ תא x •
M
• • x • x • •
56 26 ןתיפ ( תא)
• x
M
• • x x x • •
71 07 ותשא תא x x x x x • x x x x
71 07 תשא תאו x x x • • x • • x x
73 17 ותוריזנ תא x x x • • x x x • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
89 01 תרויגה ( תא)
• x x x x x x x x x
90 07 ונורא תא x x x x x • x x x x
91 14 ונורא תא x x x x x x x x x •
93 22 ירבד תא 1 x x x x x x • • • •
93 22 ירבד תא 2 x - • x x - - - • -
103 18 ךתדימ ( תא)
• • • • • x x x • •
104 25 ךתדימ ( תא)
• • • • • x x x • •
110 23 ןריצ תא x x x x x x x x ' לא •
112 05 הנושארה תא x x x x x x x • x •
112 06 היינשה תא x x x x x x x • • x
114 14 הדלוו ( תא)
• • • • x M x • • • •
124 03 ןכתודע ( תא)
• • x • • • x x • •
F. Definite Articles
6 24 דיחי ( ה)
• h h h h h h h • h
8 07 תומצעה h • • • • • • • • •
9 09 תומצעה h • • • • • • • • •
18 18
ה
הרומח
h
h h h h h h h • h
29 12 טחמה h h h h h h h h h •
31 23 הנג ( ה)
• • h • • • • • • •
31 23 הנטק ( ה)
• • h • • • • • • •
33 04 םיספל ( ה)
• • h • • • • • • •
33 04 ' רא(
ה)
• • h • • • • • • •
33 PA1 בזה () h h h h h h h • h
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
34 PA2 בזה () h h h h • • h () h
36 15 הדלוחה h h h h h h h h h •
38 26 תורודה h h • h h h • • h h
40 09 תרצע ( ה)
• • • h h • h h () h
44 29 להא ( ה)
• h h h h h h h • ()
49 21 עיקפה h h • h h h h h h h
51 30 האמוט ( ה)
• • • h h h h h h •
51 01 הרהט ( ה)
ו • • • h h h h h h •
51 01 הרהט ( ה)
• • • h h h h h () •
51 02 האמוט ( ה)
• • • h h h h h () •
52 08 תועש ( ה)
• • h M h h h h h h •
76 03 הלבנה h h • h h h h h • h
88 26
ה
הדוקפ
h
• • • • • • • • •
89 01 ההחפש h • h • • • • • () •
89 01 תררחושמ ( ה)
• • • • • • • • h h
91 12 םיידי ( ה)
• • h • • • h h • •
92 18 ןיבורמ ( ה)
• h h h h M h h h h h
92 18 ןיבורמ ( ה)
• h h h h M h h h h h
93 21 ןיבורמה h h h h h h h h h h
93 23 ןיבורמה h h h h h h h h h h
104 23 רשבה h • • h h h h h • h
104 24 םצע ( ה)
• • • h h h h h • h
106 03 תומצע ( ה)
• • • () • • • h • •
106 04 רשב ( ה)
• h • h h h h h • h
106 05 תומצע ( ה)
• h • • • h • • • •
109 21 הנש ימ ( ה)
ש • • • • • • • h • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
109 21 הנושאר ( ה)
• • h M h h • h h - •
110 24 םילחוזה h h h h h h h h h •
117 28
ה
הרוי
h
h • • • h • • () h
119 05 שירמה h h • h h h h h h h
119 07 תאטחה h h • h h h h h h h
120 12 תאטחה h • • • • • • • • •
121 14 והתרוטק h h • h h h h h h h
121 17 הנטק ( ה)
• • • • • • h h • •
122 22
ה
החפשמ
h M
h • • • h • • • h
126 13 תומצעה h h h • h h h h h •
128 23 הנושאר ( ה)
• • • • • • h h • •
G. Elision
i. Aleph
‘•’=elided (either in pronunciation or writing)
14 01 ןימטמ • • a a a • a a a a
14 03 ןימטמ • • a a a • a a ‘ a
35 13 ( ה)
אצוי • • ‘ h • • h h ‘ t
57 02 ( ה)
אצוי • h []
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
M h • • h h ‘ h
118 03 ( ה)
אצוי • • h h h • h h ‘ h
40 12 םימטימה • • • a a a a a a a
41 14 ןיאמטמ a • a a a a a a a a
41 15 צחאי a a y a a a y y a a
42 19 צחאי a a יצח a a a y y a a

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
42 22 ןיאמטמ a • a a a a a a ‘ a
44 28 ןיאמטמ a • a a a a a a ‘ ()
45 06 ואמטינ a • a • a • a a a a
48 19 םימטמ • • a a a a a a ‘ a
76 03 םימטמ • • a a a a a a ‘ a
83 03 ( ה)
אמטמ • • • h h • h h h •
83 04 ( ה)
אמטמ • h • h h • h h ‘ •
83 06 ןימטמ • • a a a a a a () a
84 07 ןימטמ • • a M a a a a a a a
99 25 ונאיצמ a • • • • • • • ‘ •
101 07 ונ ( א)
יצמ • • a • • אצמ י ונ • • • •
106 03 םימטמ • • a • a a a a a a
117 26 ( ה)
אצמנו • t t t t t t t ‘ t
08 03 הדוהי h h h
ii. Heh
h h h h h h h
58 05 הדוהי h h [] h h h h h h h
66 13 הדוהי h h h h h h h h () h
76 29 הדוי • h h h h h h h h h
90 07 הדוהי h h
M
h h h h h h h
94 28 הדוהי h h h h h h h h h h
121 16 הדוהי
87 23 תושע ( ה)
ל • • • • • • h h • •
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
1 h h h h h • h h h h
121 16 הדוהי 2 h h h h h h h h () h
87 22 תורקי ( ה)
ל • • h h h • h h h h

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
116 23 מהןומגי h h a h h h a a h h
H. םשמ/םושמ
“•”=םשמ v=םושמ
4 17 • • • • v • v v v •
35 11 • • • v v v • v () v
35 12 1 • • • v v v • v () v
35 12 2 • • • v • v v v v v
36 14 • • • v v v v v v v
44 1 • • • • • • • v () •
66 13 • • v v v v v v () v
70 06 • • [] v v v [] v v v
86 17 • • v v v • v v () v
126 10 • • v v v v • v v v
20 26 ( ה"
ב)
ירבדכ k • k
I. ירבדכ/ירבד
k k k k k k k
22 7 ( ה"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
66 15 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
78 11 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k • k
79 18 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
80 20 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
81 25 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
83 03 ( ש"
ב)
ירבדכ k k k k k k k k k k
J. Sibilants
22 06 רחס ס שׂ ס שׂ ס שׂ ס ס ‘ ס
22 09 רחס ס שׂ ס שׂ ס שׂ ס ס ס ס
32 28 פימהשׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ ס שׂ ס ס ‘ ס
34 07 ובהושׂר שׂ ס ס ס ס צ ס שׂ ס ס
87 24 הררס ס שׂ ס שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
55 20 ירגצתו צ צ צ ס צ צ צ צ ס צ
55 20 ירגצתו צ צ צ ס ס צ צ צ ס צ
56 26 ירגצתו צ צ צ ס ס צ צ צ ס צ
98 21 כסהרוע ס שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
100 02 כסהרוע ס שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
100 04 כסהרוע ס שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
101 06 כשׂהרוע שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
101 08 כשׂהרוע שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ ()
102 10 כשׂהרוע שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ () שׂ
102 12 כשׂהרוע שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
102 14 כשׂהרוע שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ שׂ
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
K. Miscellaneous
25 23 ןיפיסומ ( ש)
• ש
ש
i. Shins
ש ש ש ש ש ש ש
26 27 ןיפיסומ ( ש)
• ש ש M ש ש ש ש ש ש ש
26 27 ףטנמ ( ש)
• • • אוהש • • אוהש אוהש ש •
07 28 ונממ √ √ √
ii. ונממ/ונמיה
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
07 29 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
07 02 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
33 01 הנממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
68 24 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונמה ונמיה ונמיה √
68 25 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונמה ונמיה ונמיה √
69 28 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונמה ונמיה () √
96 12 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √
100 27 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
100 28 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
100 02 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
101 05 ונ ממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונמה
102 09 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ ונמיה √ הנממ √
102 10 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
102 13 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √
103 16 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
105 01 ונממ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
iii. Patah. + yud diphthong ending
38 25 ונבאי ay y y y ay y ay ay () y
116 22 נתיי yy yy yy ay ay ay ay ay ay ay
116 25 נתיי yy yy ay M ay ay ay ay ay תנמ ay
117 27 גנסיי yy yy a ay ay y ay ay yy ay
124 04 ייכז yy yy yy ay ay ay ay ay ‘ ay
129 25 ייכז yy yy ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay
iv. Miscellaneous
4 14 עשתת t t h h t t t t ‘ h
5 18 שולששת t t t t t t t t ‘ t
13 28 עבראת t h h h h h h h ‘ h
62 24 תעברא -לש
t t t t t - t t ‘ t
15 07 אבשת t t t t t t t h ‘ h
31 20 עיגמ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ תעגמ
30 16 הנב ( ו)
יב v
31 24 ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןאכימ ןאכמ () ןאכמ
32 25 ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןכימ ןאכימ ןאכמ () ןאכמ
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
L. Mishnah Numbering
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1
2 1:2 1:2 1:1 1:1 ct. 1:1 1:1 ct.
2 1:3 1:3 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2
3 1:4 1:4 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3
5 1:5 1:5 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4
6 1:6 1:6 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5
7 1:7 1:7 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:6
8 1:8 1:8 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7
9 1:9 1:9 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8
11 1:10 1:10 1:9 1:9 () 1:9
12 1:11 1:11 1:9 ct. 1:10 1:9 1:10
14 1:12 1:12 1:10 1:11 1:10 1:11
15 1:13 1:13 1:11 1:12 1:11 1:12
17 1:14 1:14 1:11 ct. 1:13 1:12 1:12ct.
19 1:15 1:15 1:12 1:14 1:13 1:13
22 1:16 1:16 1:13 1:15 1:14 1:14
25 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1
26 2:2 2:2 2:1 2:2 2:2 2:1 ct.
26 2:3 2:3 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:2
28 2:4 2:4 2:3 2:4 2:4 2:3
30 2:5 2:5 2:4 2:5 2:5 2:4
32 2:6 2:6 2:5 2:6 2:6 2:5
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
34 2:7 2:7 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:6
35 2:8 2:8 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:7
36 2:9 2:9 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:8
37 2:10 2:10 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:9
38 2:11 2:11 2:10 2:11 2:11 2:10
40 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1
42 3:2 3:2 3:1 ct. 3:2 3:2 ()
44 3:3 3:3 3:2 3:3 3:3 3:2
46 3:4 3:4 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:3
46 3:5 3:5 3:3 ct. 3:5 3:4 ct. 3:3 ct.
47 3:6 3:6 3:4 3:6 3:5 3:4
48 3:7 3:7 3:5 3:7 3:6 3:5
49 3:8 3:8 3:6 3:8 3:7 3:6
50 3:9 3:9 3:7 3:9 3:8 3:7
52 3:10 3:10 3:8 3:10 3:9 3:8
52 3:11 3:11 3:9 3:11 3:10 3:9
54 3:12 3:12 3:10 3:12 3:11 3:10
56 3:13 3:13 3:11 3:13 3:12 3:11
57 3:14 3:14 3:12 3:14 3:13 3:12
59 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1
60 4:2 4:2 4:2 4:2 4:2 4:2
61 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:3
62 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4
62 4:5 4:4 ct. 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5
64 4:6 4:5 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:6
66 4:7 4:7-8 4:7-8 4:7-8 4:7-9 4:7-9
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
71 4:9 4:9 4:9 4:9 4:10 4:10
73 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:11 4:11
75 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:12 4:1
76 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1
79 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2
82 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:3
84 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4
85 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5
86 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6
88 5:7 5:7 5:6 ct. 5:7 5:7 5:6
90 5:8 5:8 5:6 ct. 5:8 5:8 5:6
91 5:9 5:9 5:7 5:9 5:9 5:7
94 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1
95 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2
96 6:3 6:3 6:2 ct. 6:3 6:3 6:2 ct.
97 6:4 6:4 6:2 ct. 6:4 6:4 6:2 ct.
98 6:5 6:5 6:3 ct. 6:5 6:5 6:3.
99 6:6 6:6-7 6:3 ct. 6:6-7 6:6-7 6:3 ct.
101 6:8 6:8-9 6:3 ct. 6:8 6:8-9 6:3 ct.
103 6:9 6:10 6:3 ct. 6:9 6:9 6:3 ct.
104 6:10 6:11 6:3 ct. 6:10 6:10 6:3 ct.
107 6:11 6:12 6:3 ct. 6:11 6:11 6:3 ct.
108 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1
109 7:2 7:2 7:2 7:2 7:2 7:2
110 7:3 7:3 7:3 7:3 7:3 7:3
110 7:4 7:4 7:4 7:4 7:4 7:4
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap
111 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5
112 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6-7 7:6
114 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:8 7:7
116 7:8 7:8 7:7 ct. 7:8 7:9 7:7 ct.
117 7:9 7:9 7:8-9 7:9 7:10 7:8-9
120 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1
121 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:2
123 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3
125 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:4
126 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5
127 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6
129 8:7 8:7 8:7 8:7 8:7 8:7
Kf P1 P2 Par Ox Cam Sas JTS Mun Nap

Section 4 - Side by Side Comparison of Ms. Kaufmann and the Modern Printing of הנשמ
תוידע
םירמוא םימכחו הברה םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ רמוא ללהו ןתעש ןייד םישנה לכ רמוא יאמש א א קרפ
'מוא
'מכחו
הברה םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןתעש ןייד ןישנה לכ 'מוא
ימש
תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל הדיקפמו הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל
: תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל הדיקפמו הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל
הדיקפמ די לעו תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפכ וז
ירה םידעב תשמשמה התעש היד תסו הל שיש השא לכ
הדיקפמ די לעו תעל תעמ די לע תטעממו הדיקפכ וז ירה ןידיעב תשמשמה התעש הייד תסוו הל שיש השא לכ ב
הצחמו בק אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל םירמוא םימכחו םייבקמ רמוא ללהו הלחל בקמ רמוא יאמש ב : הדיקפל
הצחמו בק אלא הז 'רבדכ
אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'וא
'מכחו
םייבקמ 'וא
ללה הלח בקמ 'מוא
ימש ג : הדיקפל
ג : ןיבייח דועו השמח ןירוטפ השמח רמוא יסוי יבר ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודמה ולידגהשמו הלחב םיבייח
ד : ןיבייח דועו השמח ןירוטפ
השמח 'מוא
הסוי 'ר
ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודימה ולידגיהשמו הלחב ןיבייח
םימכחו ןיבק העשת רמוא יאמשו ובר ןושלב רמול בייח םדאש אלא הוקמה ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ רמוא ללה
'מכחו
םיבק תעשת 'מוא
ימשו ובר ןושלכ 'מול
בייח םדאש הווקמה ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ 'וא
ללה
היעמש םושמ ודיעהו םילשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא
הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל םירמוא
הייעמש םשמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו ד : םהירבד תא םימכח ומייקו הוקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשלש ןוילטבאו
ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו ה : ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש ןוילטבאו
ה : םהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא ירהש וירבד לע דמוע םדא אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל הלטבל ללהו יאמש
ו : ןהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא ירהש
ורבד לע דמוע םדא אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל ןלטבל ללהו ימש
ירבד תא ןיד תיב הארי םאש ןיבורמה ירבדכ אלא הכלה ןיאו ליאוה ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד ןיריכזמ המלו
ירבד תא ןיד תיב הארי םאש ןיבורמה ירבדכ אלא הכלה ןיאו ליאוה ןיבורמה ןיב דיחי ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו

ןינמבו המכחב ונממ לודג היהיש דע ורבח ןיד תיב ירבד לטבל לוכי ןיד תיב ןיאש וילע ךומסיו דיחיה
ןיינימבו המכחב ונממ לודג אהיש דע וריבח ןיד תיב ירבד תא לטבל לוכי ןיד תיב ןיאש וילע ךומסיו דיחיה
ונממ לודג היהיש
דע וירבד לטבל לוכי וניא המכחב אל לבא ןינמב ןינמב אל לבא המכחב ונממ לודג היה
ונממ לודג אהיש דע ורבד תא לטבל לוכי וניא המכחב אל לבא ןינימב ןיינימב אל לבא המכחב ונממ לודג היה
ךכ םדאה רמאי םאש הלטבל ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד ןיריכזמ המל ןכ םא הדוהי יבר רמא ו : ןינמבו המכחב
ךכ םדא רמאי םאש ןלטבל ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד תא ןיריכזמ
המל ןכ םא הדוהי 'ר
'מא
ז : ןיינימבו המכחב
ןיב םינשמ ןיב םימצעה ןמ תומצע עבור םירמוא יאמש תיב ז : תעמש ינולפ שיא ירבדכ ול רמאי לבוקמ ינא
ןיב םינשמ ןיב םימצעה ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ימש תיב ח : התעמש 'לפ
שיא ירבדמ ול ורמאו לבוקמ ינא
םצעמ וליפא רמוא יאמש ןינמה בורמ וא ןינבה בורמ היוגה ןמ תומצע עבור םירמוא ללה תיבו השלשמ
םצעמ וליפא 'מוא
ימש ןיינימה בורמ וא ןייניבה בורמ איווגה ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ללה תיבו השולשמ
הרהטב ןירוש םירמוא ללה תיב
האמוטב ןיליכאמו הרהטב ןיפשו ןירוש םירמוא יאמש תיב המורת ינישרכ ח : דחא
הרהטב םירוש 'וא
ללה תיבו האמוטב ןיליכאמו הרהטב םיפשו םירוש 'וא
ימש תיב המורת ינשרכ ט : דחא
תועממ עלס ערופה ט : האמוטב םהישעמ לכ רמוא אביקע יבר דירצ ולכאי רמוא יאמש האמוטב ןיליכאמו ןיפשו
תועממ עלס ערופה י : האמוטב ןהישעמ לכ 'וא
'ביקע
'ר
דירצ ולכאי
'וא
ימש האמוטב ןיליכאמו םיפשו
ריאמ יבר תועמ לקשבו ףסכ לקשב םירמוא ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכב םירמוא יאמש תיב ינש רשעמ
ריאמ 'ר
תועמ לקשו ףסכ לקש 'וא
ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכ 'וא
ימש תיב םלשוריב יניש רשעמלש
יאמש תיב םלשוריב ינש רשעמ-לש
עלס טרופה י : ןיריתמ םימכחו ףסכה לע תוריפו ףסכ ןיללחמ ןיא
רמוא
ימש תיב םלשוריב יניש רשעמלש עלס טרופה אי : ןיריתמ 'מכחו
ףסכה לע תורפו ףסכ ןיללחמ ןיא 'וא
ףסכ םירניד השלשב םירמוא
םימכח ינפל םינדה תועמ לקשבו ףסכ לקשב םירמוא ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכב םירמוא
ףסכ ןירניד השלשב 'וא
'מכח
ינפל םינדה תועמ לקשו ףסכ לקש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכב 'וא
ירפסא העברא רמוא ןופרט יברו תועמ תיעיברב ףסכ תיעיברבו ףסכ םירניד השלשב רמוא אביקע יבר תועמ רנידבו
ירפסא תעברא 'וא
ןופרט 'רו
תועמ תיעיברבו ףסכ תיעבירבו ףסכ ןירניד
השלשב 'וא
הביקע 'רו
תועמ רנידבו
ללה תיבו ןיאמטמ יאמש תיב ויופח ולטנש הלכ-לש
אסכ אי : הדגנכ לכאיו תונחב הנחיני רמוא יאמש ףסכ
ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב ויופח ולטינש הלכלש אסכ בי : הדגנכ לכאויו תונחב הניחיני 'וא
ימש ףסכ

ףא רמוא יאמש ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןיאמטמ יאמש תיב הבירעב ועבקש אסכ אמט אסכ-לש
ןבלמ ףא רמוא יאמש ןירהטמ
ףא 'וא
ימש ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב הבירעב ועבקש אסכ אמט אסכלש ןיבלמ ףא 'מוא
ימש ןירהטמ
ילעב תמ הרמאו םיה תנידממ האבש השאה יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל ללה תיב ורזחש םירבד ולא בי : הב יושעה
ילעב תמ הרמאו םיה תנידממ תאבש השאה ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזחש ןירבד ולא גי : הב יושעה
ןמ האבה תחא יאמש תיב םהל ורמא דבלב ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל םירמוא ללה תיבו םביתת ילעב תמ אשנית
ןמ האבה תחא ימש תיב ןהל ורמא דבלב ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל 'וא
ללה
תיבו םביתית ילעב תמ אשנית
תורוהל ללה תיב ורזח הווהב אלא ריצקב ורבד אל םיה תנידממ האבה תחאו םיתיזה ןמ האבה תחאו ריצקה
תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח הווהב אלא ריצקב ורביד אל םיה תנידממ האבה תחאו ןיתיזה ןמ האבה תחאו ריצקה
ורמא התבותכ לוטת אלו אשנית םירמוא ללה תיבו התבותכ לוטתו אשנית םירמוא יאמש תיב יאמש תיבכ
ורמא הבותכ לוטית אלו אשנית 'וא
ללה תיבו הבותכ לוטיתו אשנית 'מוא
ימש תיב די : ימש תיב-ירבדכ
םיחאה ןיאש וניצמ ללה תיב םהל ורמא לקה
ןוממה תא וריתת אל הרומחה הורעה תא םתרתה יאמש תיב םהל
םיחאה ןיאש וניצמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא לקה ןוממה תא וריתת אלו הרומחה היירעה תא םתרתיה ימש תיב ןהל
ילטת רחאל יאשנית םאש הל בתוכ אוהש דומלנ התבותכ רפסמ אלהו יאמש תיב םהל ורמא היפ לע הלחנל ןיסנכנ
ילטית רחאל אשנת םאש הל בתוכ אוהש דמלנ התבותכ רפסמ אלהו ימש תיב ןהל
ורמא היפ לע הלחנב םיסנכינ
םוי ובר תא דבוע ןירוח ןב ויצחו דבע ויצחש ימ גי : יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל ללה תיב ורזח ךיל בותכש המ
םוי ובר
תא דבוע םירוח ןב ויצחו דבע ויצחש ימ הי : ימש תיב ירבדכ תודהל ללה תיב ורזח ךיל בותכש המ
אשיל םתנקת אל ומצע תאו ובר תא םתנקת יאמש תיב םהל ורמא ללה תיב ירבד דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא
אשיל םתנקית אל ומצע תאו ובר תא םתנקית 'מוא
ימש תיב ללה תיב ירבדכ דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא
( ח"
מ היעשי)
רמאנש היברו הירפל אלא םלועה
ארבנ אל אלהו לטביל לוכי וניא ןירוח תב לוכי וניא החפש
'נש
הייבירו הייריפל אלא םלועה ארבינ אל אלהו לטבי לוכי וניא םירוח תב לוכי וניא החפש
וימד יצח לע רטש בתוכו ןירוח ןב ותוא השועו ובר תא ןיפוכ םלועה ןוקת ינפמ אלא הרצי תבשל הארב והת אל
וימד יצח לע רטש בתוכו םירוח ןב ותוא השועו ובר תא ןיפוכ םלועה ןוקית ינפמ אלא הרצי
תבשל הארב והת אל

וניא םירמוא יאמש תיבו ללה תיב ירבדכ לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ די : יאמש תיבכ תורוהל ללה תיב ורזח
וניא 'וא
ימש תיב ללה תיב ירבדכ לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ וי : ימש תיב-ירבדכ
תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח
אוהש ינפמ יאמש תיב םהל ורמא המ ינפמ ללה תיב םהל ורמא סרח ילכ לעו ןיקשמה לעו ןילכואה לע אלא ליצמ
אוהש ינפמ ימש תיב ןהל ורמא המ ינפמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא סרח ילכ לעו םיקשמה לעו םילכאה לע אלא ליצמ
תיב םהל ורמא וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכוא םתרהט אלהו ללה תיב םהל ורמא ץצוח אמט ילכ ןיאו ץראה םע בג לע אמט
תיב ןהל ורמא וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכא םתרהיט אלהו ללה תיב ןהל ורמא ץצוח אמט ילכ ןיאו ץראה םע בג לע אמט
ללה תיב ורזח ולו ךל תרהט ילכה תא תרהטשכ לבא ונרהט ומצעל וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכוא ונרהטשכ יאמש
ללה תיב ורזח ולו ךל התרהיט ילכה תא התרהיטשכ לבא ונרהיט ומצעל וכותבש םיקשמו םילכא ונרהיטשכ ימש
וענמנ אל םינהכ -לש
םהימימ םירבד העברא דיעה םינהכה ןגס אנינח יבר א ב קרפ : יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל
וענמינ אל םינהכ לש םהימימ םירבד
העברא דיעה םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
ב קרפ : ימש תיב ירבידכ תודוהל
ותאמוט לע האמוט ןיפיסומש יפ לע ףא האמוטה באב אמטנש רשבה םע האמוטה דלוב אמטנש רשבה תא ףורשלמ
: ותאמוט לע האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא האמוטה באב אמטינש רשבה םע האמוטה דלווב אמטינש רשבה תא ףורשלמ
תמ אמטב אמטנש רנב םוי לובטב לספנש ןמשה תא קילדהלמ וענמנ אל םינהכ-לש
םהימימ אביקע יבר ףיסוה
תמ אמטב אמטינש רנב םוי לובטיב לספינש ןמשה תא קילדהלמ וענמינ אל םינהכלש םהימימ הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה ב
תיבל אצוי
רוע יתיאר אל ימימ םינהכה ןגס אנינח יבר רמא ב : ותאמוט לע האמוט ןיפיסומש יפ לע ףא
תיבל אצוי רוע יתיאר אל יימימ םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
'מא
ג : ותאמוט לע האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא
םירמוא םימכחו ורועב םינהכה ותואיש הפרט אצמנו רוכבה תא טישפמהש ונדמל וירבדמ אביקע יבר רמא הפרשה
'מוא
'מכחו
ורועב םינהכה ותואיש הפירט אצמינו
רוכבה תא שיטפמהש ונדמל וירבדמ הביקע 'ר
'מא
הפירשה
ןקז וב היהו םלשורי דצב היהש ןטק רפכ לע דיעה אוה ףא ג : הפרשה תיבל אצוי אלא היאר וניא וניאר אל
ןקז וב היהו 'שורי
דצב היהש ןטק רפכ לע דיעה אוה ףא ד : הפירשה תיבל אצי אלא היאר וניאר אל ןה
התא ךכרד יפל וריתהו םימכח ינפל השעמ אבו םימתוח םירחאו ודי בתכב בתוכו רפכה ינב לכל הולמ היהו דחא
התא ךכרד יפל וריתיהו ןימכח ינפל השעמ אבו ןימתוח ןירחאו ודי בתכב בתוכו רפכה ינב לכל הוולמ היהו דחא

ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמנש טחמ
לעו וימתוחב אלא טגה םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא בתוכ שיאהו הטיג תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל
ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמינש טחמה לעו וימתוחב אלא טגה םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא בתוכ שיאהו הטיג תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל
םרכב םימכח ינפל לאעמשי יבר רמא םירבד השלש ד : רוהט לכה שרפב תאצמנ םאו אמט רשבהו תורוהט םידיהו
םרכב 'מכח
ינפל לאעמשי 'ר
'מא
ןירבד השלש ה : רוהט לכה שרפב
תאצמינ םאו אמט רשבהו תורוהט םידייהו
לעו רובח הניא עבוכ ןימכ התיה םאו רובח איהש המורת-לש
קרי יבג לע הנותנ איהש הפורט הציב לע הנביב
לעו רוביח הניאו עבוכ ןימכ התיה םאו רוביח איהש המורתלש קרי יבג לע הנותנ איהש הפורט הציב לע הנבויב
הנג לעו םיינע-לש
איה ירה ואל םאו תיבה לעב-לש
איה ירה המקה םע הרצקנ םא המקל תעגמ השארו ריצקבש תלובש
הנג לעו םיינעלש ירה ואל םאו תיבה לעב-לש
ירה המקה םע תרצקנ םא המקל עיגמ השארו ריצקבש תלובש
ה : ערזת אל ואל םאו ערזת ןאכמ ולסו רצוב
אלמו ןאכמ ולסו רצוב אלמכ הב שי םא סירע תפקומ איהש הנטק
ו : ערזית אל ואל םאו ערזית ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ הב שי םא סירע תפקומ איהש הנטק
אסרומ סיפמה איתמ ןב עשוהי יבר ןשריפו רתיהו רוסיא אל םהב רמא אלו לאעמשי יבר ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש
הסרומ שפימה הייתמ ןב עשוהי ןשרפו רתהו רוסא םהב רמא אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
ינפל ורמא ןירבד השלש
םאו רוטפ ונכשי אלש קסעתמ םא תבשב שחנ דצה לעו רוטפ החל ונממ איצוהל םאו בייח הפ הל תושעל םא תבשב
םאו רוטפ וניכשיי
אלש קסעתמכ םא תבשב שחנ דצה רוטפ החל הנממ איצוהל םאו בייח הפ הל תושעל םא תבשב
אשמב ףא רמוא קודצ ןב רזעלא יבר בזה אשמב תואמטו תמה להאב תורוהט םהש תוינוריא ןיספל לעו בייח האופרל
תורוהט ןהש תוינורא םיספל לעו בייח האופרל
רסובהו םושה אביקע יבר ול הדוה אלו לאעמשי יבר רמא םירבד
השלש ו : ןתכאלמ הרמגנ אלש ינפמ תורוהט בזה
רשובהו םושה אביקע 'ר
ול הדוה אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש ז : ןתכאלמ הרמגינ אלש ינפמ
םירבד השלש ז : רומגי אל רמוא אביקע יברו ךשחתשמ רומגי רמוא לאעמשי יברש םוי דועבמ ןקסירש תולילמהו
ןירבד השלש ח : רומגי אל 'מוא
הביקע 'רו
ךשחתשמ רומגי 'וא
לאעמשי 'רש
םוי דועבמ ןקסירש
תולילמהו
ריעב השא תאצוי רזעילא יבר םושמ םינש עשוהי יבר םושמ דחאו רזעילא יבר םושמ םינש אביקע יבר ינפל ורמא
ריעב השא אוי רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש הביקע 'ר
ינפל ורמא
תורככ יבג לע תכלהמו הדלוח יפב ץרשה עשוהי יבר םושמ דחאו תודעל םילוספ םינוי יחירפמו בהז
-לש
תורכיכ יבג לע תכלהמו הדלוחה יפב ץרשה עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי יחירפמו בהז לש

ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוה םינש לע אביקע יבר רמא םירבד השלש ח : רוהט וקפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס המורת-לש
ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוה םינש לע הביקע 'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש ט : רוהט וקיפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס המורתלש
ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוהו השלש םירמוא ויהש העברא רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט אוהש םידייס -לש
לדנס לע ול
ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוהו השלש 'מוא
ויהש העברא רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט אוהש ןידיס לש לדנס לע ול
ןבל הכוז באה רמוא היה אוה ט : ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ אביקע יברש הז דצב הז וייופחמ םינש ולטנש אסכ לע ול
ןבל הכז באה 'וא
היה אוה י : ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ הביקע 'רש
הז דצב הז ויופחמ םינש ולטינש אסכ לע ול
שארמ תורודה ארוק
שארמ תורודה ארוק
( א"
מ היעשי)
ףא י : הנה ובושי יעיבר רודו
ףא אי : הנה ובושי יעיבר רודו
( םש)
רמאנש ץקה אוהו וינפל תורודה רפסמבו םינשבו המכחבו רשועבו חכבו יונב
'נש
ץקה אוה וינפל תורודה רפסמבו םינשבו המכחבו רשועבו חוכבו יאונב
רמאנו הנש תואמ עברא םתוא ונעו םודבעו
'נו
הנש תואמ עברא םתוא וניעו םודבעו
( ו"
ט תישארב)
רמאנש יפ לע ףא
'נש
יפ לע ףא
שדח רשע םינש בויא טפשמ שדח רשע םינש לובמה רוד טפשמ שדח רשע םינש -לש
םירבד השמח רמוא היה אוה
שדוח רשע םינש בויא טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש לובמה רוד טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש לש ןירבד השמח 'מוא
אוה
רשע םינש םנהיגב םיעשר טפשמ שדח רשע םינש אבל דיתעל גוגמו גוג טפשמ שדח רשע םינש םיירצמה טפשמ
רשע םינש םניהיגב םיעשר טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש אובל דיתעל
גוג טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש םירצמה טפשמ
תבש ידמו רמאנש תרצעה דעו חספה ןמ רמוא ירונ ןב ןנחוי יבר ושדחב שדח ידמ היהו
תבש ידמו 'נש
תרצע דע חספה ןמ 'וא
ירונ ןב ןנחוי 'ר
ושדחב שדוח ידמ היהו
( ו"
ס היעשי)
רמאנש שדח
'נש
שדוח
דציכ ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש להאב ןיאמטמה לכ א ג קרפ : ותבשב
דציכ ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש להאב םימטימה לכ ג קרפ : ותבשב
יצחכב עגונ וא תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז יצחכב עגונה תמבו ןאשונ וא הליבנה ןמ םיתיז יאצח ינשכב עגונה
יצחכב עגונ וא תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז יצחכב עגונה תמבו ןאשונ וא הליבנה ןמ ןיתיז יאצח ינשכב עגונה
יבר וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ םיתיז יאצח ינשכ לע ליהאמו וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז
'ר
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחו תייז יצחכ דע ליהאמו םיתיז יאצח ינשכ לע ליהאמו
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז

וא תיז יצחכ לעו וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכב עגונה לבא ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה ןב אסוד
וא תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכב עיגונה לבא ב : ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב אסוד
אסוד יבר הזב ףא ריאמ יבר רמא רוהט תיז יצחכ לעו וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ
סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
הזב ףא ריאמ 'ר
'מא
רוהט תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ
תומש ינשמ אמט דחא םשמ אוהש לכ ללכה הז להאה םע אשמהו אשמה םע עגמה ןמ ץוח אמט לכה ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ
תומש ינשמ אמט דחא םשמ אוהש לכ ללכה הז להא םע אשמהו עגמה ןמ ץוח אמט לכה ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ
ןומיסא לע ינש רשעמ ןיללחמ ףרטצמ םירמוא םימכחו סניכרה ןב אסוד יבר ירבד ףרטצמ וניא דורפ לכוא ב : רוהט
ןומיסא לע ינש רשעמ ןיללחמ ףרטצמ 'מוא
'כחו
אסוד 'ר
'בד
ףרטצמ וניא דורפ לכוא ג : רוהט
ואמטנ םא םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד תאטחל םידי ןיליבטמ ןיללחמ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד
ואמטינ םא 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
'בד
תאטחל םיידי ןיליבטמ ןירסוא 'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד
תולחר שמח ןירסוא םימכחו םירזל ריתמ אסוד יבר המורת-לש
קרי תבינקו חיטבא יעמ ג : ופוג אמטנ וידי
תוליחר שמח ה : םירסוא 'מכחו
םירזל ריתמ אסוד 'ר
המורתלש קרי תבינקו חיטבא יעמ ד : ופוג אמטינ וידי
לכ ד : ןהש לכ תולחר שמח םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר
ירבד זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזוזג
לכ ו : ןהש לכ תוזזוג תוליחר שמח 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
'רבד
זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג
יבר ירבד ןוליגלג -לשמ
ץוח תורוהט תועילקה לכ סרדמ םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד תמ אמט תואמט תולצוחה
'ר
'רבד
ןוליגליג לשמ ץוח תורוהט תועילקה לכ סרדמ 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד תמ אמט תואמט תולצוחה
אסוד יבר רוע-לשו
האמט גורא הלש לובק תיבש עלקה ה : םירמצ -לשמ
ץוח תואמט םלוכ םירמוא םימכחו אסוד
אסוד 'ר
רועלשו האמט גירא הלש לוביק תיב-לש
עלקה ז םירמצ לשמ ץוח תואמט םלוכ 'וא
'מכחו
אסוד
המורתב תלכוא היובשה ו : האמט הלש עיקפה תיב הרוהט הלש עבצא תיב קספנ ןיאמטמ םימכחו רהטמ סניכרה ןב
המורתב תלכוא היובשה ח : האמט הלש עוקפה תיבו הרוהט הלש עבצא תיב קספינ םימטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב
ינא הרוהטו יתיבשנ הרמאש השאה דציכ תלכוא הניאש היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי םירמוא םימכחו אסוד יבר ירבד
ינא הרוהטו יתבשינ הרמאש השאה דציכ תלכוא הניאש היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי
'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד

תוקיפס העברא ז : תלכוא הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא איהו תיבשנש םידע שי םאו ריתהש הפה אוה רסאש הפהש תלכוא
תוקיפס העברא ט : תלכוא הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא איהו תבשינש םידע שי םא תלכוא
דיחיה תושרב האמוט רבוע אמטהו דמוע רוהטה רבוע רוהטו דמוע אמטה דציכ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ עשוהי יבר
דיחיה תושרב האמוט רבוע אמטהו דמוע רוהטה רבוע רוהטהו
דמוע אמטה דציכ ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
ליהאה אל קפס ליהאה קפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס םיברה תושרב האמוטו דיחיה תושרב הרהט םיברה תושרב הרהטו
ליהאה אל קפס ליהאה קפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס םיברה תושרב האמוטו דיחיה תושרב הרהט םיברה תושרב הרהטו
ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ יבר םירבד השלש ח : ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ עשוהי יבר טיסה אל קפס טיסה קפס
ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
ןירבד השלש י : ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
טיסיה אל קפסו טיסיה קפס
ןבר םירבד העברא ט : ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ יבר תועש ןבא -לש
רמסמו תוסורג-לש
ןוראו ינחלושה רמסמ
ןבר ןירבד העברא אי : ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ קודצ 'ר
תועש ןבא לש רמסמו תוסורגלש ןוראו ינחלושלש רמסמ
אלבטו תוכתמ ילכ ימלוגו תודרגמה יולתו םיתב ילעב-לש
תוכתמ-לש
ינט יוסכ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ לאילמג
הלבטו תוכתמ ילכ ימלוגו תודרגמה יולתו םיתב ילעבלשו
תכתמלש ינט יוסכ ןירהטמ 'כחו
אמטמ 'אילמג
: רוהט ןטקהו אמט לודגה ןטק דחאו לודג דחא םינשל הקלחנש אלבטב לאילמג ןברל םימכח םידומו םינשל הקלחנש
: רוהט ןטקהו אמט לודגה ןטק דחאו לודג דחא םינשל הקלחנש הלבטב לאילמג ןברל 'כח
םידומ םינשל הקלחנש
תא ןיפקוז ןיאו תבשל בוט םוימ ןימחה תא ןינמוט ןיא יאמש תיב ירבדכ רימחמ לאילמג ןבר םירבד השלש י
תא ןיפקוז ןיאו תבשל בוט םוימ םימחה תא ןינמוט ןיא ימש תיב ירבדכ רימחמ לאילמג ןבר ןירבד השלש בי
ןיפוא ויה אל אבא תיב-לש
ןהימימ לאילמג ןבר רמא ןיקיקר אלא ןיצירג ןיתפ ןיפוא ןיאו בוט םויב הרונמה
תא ןיפוא ויה אל אבא תיבלש םהימימ לאילמג ןבר 'מא
םיקיקר אלא תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא ןיאו בוט םויב הרונמה
לארשי לע ןיליקמו ןמצע לע ןירימחמ ויהש ךיבא תיבל השענ המו ול ורמא ןיקיקר אלא ןיצירג ןיתפ
'ארשי
לכ לע םילקמו ןמצע לע ןירימחמ ויהש ךיבא תיבל םהל השענ המ ול ורמא םיקיקר אלא תוצירג ןתיפ
רמגומה תא ןיחינמו תוטמה ןיב ןידבכמ לקהל םירבד השלש רמא אוה ףא אי : ירחו ןיצירג ןיתפ ןיפוא תויהל
רמגימה תא םיחינמו תוטימה ןיב ןידבכמ לקהל ןירבד השלש 'מוא
אוה ףא גי : ירחו תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא תויהל
םימכחו ריתמ הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר םירבד השלש בי
: םירסוא םימכחו םיחספ ילילב סלוקמ ידג םישועו בוט םויב
'מכחו
ריתמ הירזע ןב רזעל 'ר
ןירבד השלש די : ןירסוא 'מכחו
םיחספ ילילב סלוקמ ידג ןישועו בוט םויב

יבר ןהלש םיחרב ןילפלפה תא ןיקחושו
בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמו הינרק ןיבש העוצרב האצוי ותרפ ןירסוא
'ר
ןהלש םייחירב ןילפליפה תא ןיקחושו בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמו הינרק ןיבש העוצרב אוי ותרפ ןירסוא
ןידרקמ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו ןיפצרקמ לבא הרובח השוע אוהש ינפמ בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמ ןיא רמוא הדוהי
ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
ןיפצרקמ לבא הרובח השוע אוהש ינפמ בוט םויב המהבה תא
ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
הדוהי
יאמש תיב בוט םויב הדלונש הציב ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ולא א ד קרפ : ןיפצרקמ אל ףא
ימש תיב
בוט םויב הדלונש הציב ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ולא ד קרפ : ןיפצרקמ אל ףא
הזו הז םירמוא ללה תיבו תבתוככב ץמחו תיזכב רואש םירמוא יאמש תיב לכאת אל םירמוא ללה תיבו לכאת םירמוא
הזו הז 'וא
ללה תיבו תבתוככ ץמחו תיזכ רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב לכאת אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו לכאת 'מוא
טחושה רוסא אוהש םידומ לכה הציבה ןמ אציש חורפאו תרתומ
איהש םידומ לכה בוט םויב הדלונש המהב ב : תיזכב
טחושה ב : תייזכ
רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי אל םירמוא ללה תיבו הסכיו רקדב רופחי םירמוא יאמש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח
רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב
ףועו היח
רקבה םיינעל רקבה םירמוא יאמש תיב ג : אוה ןכומ הריכ רפאש הסכיו רקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומו ןכומ
רקבה םיינעל רקבה 'מוא
ימש תיב ג : ןכומ הריכה רפאש הסכיו לקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ ןכומ
ןיבק העברא -לש
דחאו בק בק -לש
הדשה ירמוע לכ הטמשכ םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה וניא םירמוא ללה תיבו
םיבק תעברא -לש
תחא בק בק -לש
הדשה ירמוע לכ הטימשכ םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה וניא 'וא
ללה תיבו
םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו הפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה ד : החכש םירמוא ללה תיבו
החכש וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב וחכשו
םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה ד : החכש 'וא
ללה תיבו החכש וניא 'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו
ןיאו
שמוח ול ןיא םירמוא יאמש תיב יעבר םרכ ה : החכש םירמוא ללה תיבו החכש וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב וחכשו
ןיאו שמוח ול ןיא 'מוא
ימש תיב יעבר םרכ ה : החכש 'מוא
ללה תיבו החכש וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו
םיינעהו תוללוע ול שיו טרפ ול שי םירמוא יאמש תיב רועיב ול שיו שמוח ול שי םירמוא ללה תיבו רועיב ול
םיונעו תוללוע ול שיו טרפ ול שי
'מוא
ימש תיב ול שי 'מוא
ללה תיבו רועיב ול

בקנל ךירצ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב םילגלוגמ םיתיז -לש
תיבח ו : תגל ולוכ םירמוא ללה תיבו ןמצעל םידופ
בקנל ךירצ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב םילגלוגמ םיתיז -לש
תיבח ו : תגל ולוכ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ןמצעל ןידופ
לבטו דרי אמטנו רוהט ןמשב ךסה הרוהט איהש םירמש הומתסו הבקנ םאש םידומו בקנל
ךירצ םירמוא ללה תיבו
לבטו דריו אמטינו רוהט ןמש ךסה הרוהט איהש םירמש אהומתסו הבקינ םאש םידומו בקנל ךירצ 'וא
ללה תיבו
ותלחתמ אמט ןמש היה םאו ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ םירמוא ללה תיבו רוהט ףטנמ אוהש יפ לע ףא םירמוא יאמש תיב
ותליחתמ אמט ןמש היה םא ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'וא
ללה תיבו רוהט ףטנמ יפ לע ףא 'מוא
ימש תיב
חפוט ללה תיב םושמ רמוא הדוהי יבר חפוט הקשמ םירמוא ללה תיבו ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ םירמוא ש"
ב
חיפוט ללה תיב םשמ 'וא
הדוהי 'ר
חיפוט הקשמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
יימש תיב
איה המכו הטורפ הושבו הטורפב םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ רניד הושבו רנידב תשדקתמ השאה ז : חיפטמו
איה המכו הטורפ הושבו הטורפב 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ 'ניד
הוושבו רנידב תשדקתמ השאה ז : חיפטמו
ןירסוא ללה תיבו ןשי טגב ותשא תא אוה רטופ םירמוא יאמש תיב יקלטיאה רסיאב הנמשמ דחא הטורפ
ןירסוא ללה תיבו ןשי טגב ותשא תא םדא אוה רטופ 'מוא
ימש תיב יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ דחא הטורפ
םירמוא יאמש תיב
יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה הל ובתכש רחא המע דחייתנש לכ ןשי טג והזיא
'וא
ימש תיב יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה הל ובתכש רחאמ המיע דחיתינש לכ ןשי טג אוה-הז-יאו
לבא ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתנש ןמזב יתמיא ינש טג ונממ הכירצ םירמוא ללה תיבו ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניא
ןידומו ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתינש ןמזב יתמא ינש טג ונממ הכירצ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניא
תורצה תא ןיריתמ יאמש תיב ח : הב סג ובל-ןיאש
ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניא ןיסוריאה ןמ השרגתנ-םא
תורצה תא ןיריתמ ימש תיב ח : הב סג ובילש ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניאש םיסוראה ןמ השרגתינב
תיבו ןירישכמ יאמש תיב ומביתנ ןירישכמ ללה תיבו הנוהכה ןמ ןילסופ יאמש תיב וצלח ןירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל
ןירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל
ללה תיב אלו ללה תיבמ
םישנ אשילמ יאמש תיב וענמנ אל ןירישכמ ולאו ןילסופ ולאש יפ לע ףאו ןילסופ ללה
[
]
ולא תורהט םישוע תויהל וענמנ אל ןיאמטמ ולאו ןירהטמ ולא ויהש תואמטהו תורהטה לכו יאמש תיבמ םישנ אשילמ
[
]

רמאמ הנפומ הב השעו תויחא ילעבמ דחא תמ הנפומ דחאו תויחא יתשל םיאושנ םהמ םינש םיחא השלש ט
רמאמ
הנפומ הב השע תויחא ילעבמ דחא תמ הנפומ דחאו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ ןהמ םינש ןיחא השלש
: ולא בג לע
ותשא תא איצומ םירמוא ללה תיבו השא תוחא םושמ אצת הלהו ומע ותשא םירמוא יאמש תיב ינשה ויחא תמ ךכ רחאו
ותשא תא איצומ 'וא
ללה תיבו השא תוחא םשמ אצת זלהו ומע ותשא 'מוא
ימש תיב ינשה ויחא תמ ךכ רחאו
ותשא תא רידמה י : ויחא תשא לע ול יאו ותשא לע ול יא ורמאש איה וז הצילחב ויחא תשא תאו הצילחו טגב
ותשא תא רידמה י : ויחא תשא לע ול יאו ותשא לע ול יא ורמאש איה וז הצילחב ויחא תשא תאו הצילחו טגב
יאמש תיב דחאו םינמש רואל תלפמה תחא תבש םירמוא ללה תיבו תותבש יתש םירמוא יאמש תיב הטמה שימשתמ
ימש תיב דחאו םינומשל רוא תלפמה תחא תבש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תותבש יתש 'מוא
ימש תיב הטמה שימשתמ
יאמש תיב תבשה תלכלכ םיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב תיציצב ןידס ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןברקה ןמ ןירטופ
ימש תיב תבש
תלכלכ ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תיציצב ןידס ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןברקה ןמ ןירטופ
יאמש תיב ץראל אב ךכ רחאו ותוריזנ םילשהו הבורמ תוריזנ רדנש ימ אי : ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ
ימש תיב ץראל אב ךכ רחאו ותוריזנ תא םילשמהו הבורמ תוריזנ רזנש ימ י : ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ
ולא ותוא תודיעמ םידע יתכ יתש ויהש
ימ הלחתב ריזנ םירמוא ללה תיבו םוי םישלש ריזנ םירמוא
ולא ותוא תודיעמ םידיע יתיכ יתש ול ויהש ימ הליחתכ ריזנ 'וא
ללה תיבו םוי םישולש ריזנמ 'וא
םירמוא ללה תיבו תוריזנ ןאכ ןיאו תודעה הקלחנ םירמוא יאמש תיב שמח רדנש םידיעמ ולאו םיתש רדנש םידיעמ
'וא
ללה תיבו תוריזנ ןאכ ןיא תודעה הקלחנ 'וא
ימש תיב שמח רזנש םידיעמ
ולאו םיתש רזנש םידיעמ
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא םירמוא יאמש תיב קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש םדא בי : םיתש ריזנ היהיש םיתש שמח ללכב שי
האמוטה תא איבמ וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש ןדא אי : םיתש ריזנ אהיש םיתש שמח ללכב שי
ילוקמ םירבד השש רמוא הדוהי יבר א ה קרפ : האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה דצהו אוה לולח םדא םירמוא ללה תיבו
ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הדוי 'ר
ה קרפ : האמוטה תא איבמ ןוילעה דצהו אוה לולח םדא 'מוא
ללה תיבו
ו ןירהטמ יאמש תיב תולבנ םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב
הב אצויכ שי םא הלבנה תציב ןיאמטמ ללה תיב
הב אצויכ שי םא הלבנה תציב םימטמ לליה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תוליבנ םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב

ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפרט תציבב םידומו ןירסוא ללה תיב יאמש תיב ירבדכ הרוסא ואל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמנ
ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפורט הציבב ןידומו ןירסוא ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הרוסא ויאל םאו
תרתומ קושב תרכמינ
הילגר ימימכו הקורכ םירמוא ללה תיבו ןירהטמ יאמש תיב תערוצמ -לש
הרהט םדו תירכנ םד רוסיאב הלידגש
הילגר ימימכו הקורכ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תערוצמ לש הרהט םדו תירכנ םד רוסאב הלדגש
תמחה הבוטב אלא םילכוא ןיא םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ הבוטב אלשו הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא
הבוטב אלשו הבוטב ןילכוא ןיא 'מוא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הבוטב אלשו הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא
םירבד השש רמוא יסוי יבר ב : הרורצ הניאש יפ לע ףא םירמוא ללה תיבו תדמוע הרורצ םירמוא יאמש תיב
ןירבד השש 'וא
הסוי 'ר
ב : הרורצ הניאש יפ לע ףא 'וא
ללה תיבו תדמוע הרורצ 'וא
ימש תיב תמחה
ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ לכאנ וניאו ןחלשה לע הניבגה םע הלוע ףועה ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ לכאנ וניאו ןחלושה לע הניבגה םיע הלוע ףועה ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב
ילוקמ
ןיא םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ ןיי לע םיבנעו ןמש לע םיתיז ןימרות לכאנ וניאו הלוע וניא םירמוא
ןיא 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ
ןייה לע םיבנעו ןמשה לע ןיתיז ןימרות לכאנ אלו הלוע אל 'מוא
הסיעמה תורוש יתש שדיק םירמוא ללה תיבו תחא הרוש שדיק םירמוא יאמש תיב םרכבש תומא עברא ערוזה ןימרות
הסיעמה תורוש יתש שדיק 'וא
ללה תיבו תחא הרוש שדיק 'וא
ימש תיב םרכבש תומא עברא עירוזה ןימרות
רג ןיליבטמ ןיא םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ תילדרחב ןיליבטמ ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב
רג ןיליבטמ ןיא 'וא
ללה תיב ימש תיב ירבדכ תילדרחב ןיליבטמ ןיבייחמ ללה תיב ןירטופ ימש תיב
שרופכ הלרעה
ןמ שרופה םירמוא ללה תיבו ברעל וחספ תא לכואו לבוט םירמוא יאמש תיב םיחספ יברע רייגתנש
שרופכ הלרועה ןמ שרופה 'וא
ללה תיבו ברעל וחסיפ תא לכואו לבוט 'מוא
ימש תיב םיחספ ברע רייגתינש
םידיה תא אמטמ וניא תלהק ללה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד השלש רמוא לאעמשי יבר ג : רבקה ןמ
םידייה תא אמטמ הניא תלהק ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השלש 'וא
ןועמש 'ר
ג : רבקה ןמ
ןיאמטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ יאמש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ םידיה תא אמטמ םירמוא ללה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבדכ
ןימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ יימש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ םידייה תא אמטמ
'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב 'רבדכ

יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש רמוא רזעילא יבר ד : תורשעמל ןכו ןיאמטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ
יאמש תיב חצקה
ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ינש 'וא
רזעל 'ר
ד : תורשעמל ןכו םימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב חצקה
שביו חל אמטמ
םירמוא ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ םירמוא יאמש תיב הלבט אלש תדלוי םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו
שביו חל אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ 'וא
ימש תיב הלבט אלש תדלוי םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו
םיאושנה ותמ תויחא יתש ןיאושנ םהמ םינש םיחא העברא ה : שביו חל אמטמ אוהש בוזב תדלויב םידומו
ןיאושנה ותמו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ םהמ םינש
םיחא העבראו ה : שביו חל אמטמ אוהש בוזב תדלויב ןידומו
ומייקי יאמש תיב םושמ רמוא רזעילא יבר ואיצוי וסנכו ומדק םאו תומביתמ אלו תוצלוח ולא ירה תויחאל
ומייקי ימש תיב םשמ 'וא
רזעל 'ר
ואיצוי וסנכו ומדק םא תומביתמ אלו תוצלוח ולא ירה תויחאה-תא
םירבד העבראב ךב רוזח איבקע ול ורמא םירבד העברא דיעה לאללהמ ןב איבקע ו : ואיצוי םירמוא ללה תיבו
ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח היבקע ול ורמא םירבד העברא דיעה לאללהמ ןב היבקע ו : ואיצוי 'מוא
ללה תיבו
ינפל עשר
תחא העש תושעיל אלו ימי לכ הטוש ארקהל יל בטומ ןהל רמא לארשיל ןיד תיב בא ךשענו רמוא תייהש
ינפל עשר תחא העש תושעל אלו ימי לכ הטוש תורקיל יל בטומ ןהל 'מא
'רשיל
ןיד תיב בא ךשענו 'וא
התיהש
היה אוה ןירהטמ םימכחו קוריה םדו הדוקפה רעש אמטמ היה אוה וב רזח הררש ליבשב םירמוא ויהי אלש םוקמה
היה אוה ןירהטמ 'מכחו
קוריה םדו הדוקפה רעש אמטמ היה אוה ז : וב רזח הררס ליבשב ןירמוא והי אלש םוקמה
תא אל ןיקשמ ןיא רמוא היה אוה םירסוא םימכחו וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב וחינהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש ריתמ
אל םיקשמ ןיא 'וא
היה אוה ןירסוא 'כחו
וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב וחיניהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש ריתמ
םילשוריב התיהש תררחושמ החפש תימכרכב השעמ ול ורמא ןיקשמ םירמוא םימכחו תררחושמה החפש תא
אלו תרויגה
םלשוריב התיהש תררחושמ החפש תימכרכב השעמ ול ורמא ןיקשמ 'וא
'מכחו
תררחושמ החפשה תא אלו תרויגה
רמא ונורא תא ןיד תיב ולקסו ויודנב תמו והודנו הוקשה אמגוד םהל רמא ןוילטבאו היעמש הוקשהו
'מא
ח : ונורא תא ןיד תיב ולקסו ויודינב תמו והודינו אהוקשיה אמגכיד ןהל 'מא
ןוילטבאו היעמש אהוקשהו
ןב איבקעכ אטח תאריבו המכחב לארשימ םדא לכ ינפב תלעננ הרזע ןיאש הדנתנ איבקעש םולשו סח הדוהי יבר
ןב היבקעכ אטח תואריבו המכחב
'ארשימ
ןדא לכ לע תלענינ הרזעה ןיאש
הדנתינ היבקעש םולשו סח הדוהי 'ר

ונורא לע ןבא וחינהו ןיד תיב וחלש תמשכו םידי תרהטב קפקפש ךונח ןב רזעילא ודנ ימ תאו לאללהמ
ונורא לע ןבא וחיניהו ןיד תיב וחלש תמשכו םיידי תרהטב קפקיפש ךנה ןב רזעילא תא ודינ ימ תאו לאללהמ
יתייהש םירבד העבראב ךב רוזח ינב ונבל רמא ותתימ תעשב ז : ונורא תא ןילקוס ויודנב תמו הדנתמה לכש דמלמ
יתיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח ינב ונבל 'מא
ותתימ תעשבו ט : ונורא תא ןילקוס תמו הדונמה לכש דמלל
יתדמע ינא םיבורמה יפמ ועמש םהו םיבורמה
יפמ יתעמש ינא ול רמא ךב תרזח אל המלו ול רמא רמוא
לע יתדמע ינא ןיבורמ יפמ ועמש ןהו ןיבורמ יפמ יתעמש ינא ול 'מא
ךב התרזח אל המל-התאו
ול 'מא
'וא
זוחאלו דיחיה ירבד חינהל בטומ ןיבורמה יפמו דיחיה יפמ תעמש התא לבא ןתעומשב ודמע םהו יתעומשב
זוחאלו דיחיה ירבד תא חינהל בטומו ןיבורמה יפמו דיחיה יפמ התעמש התא לבא ןתעומשב ודמע ןהו יתעומשב
ואל היל רמא יב תאצמ הליע אמש ול רמא דיקפמ יניא ול רמא ךריבחל ילע דוקפ אבא ול רמא ןיבורמה ירבדב
ואל ול 'מא
יב
התאצמ הלווע המש דקפמ יניא ול 'מא
ךריבחל ילע דקפ אבא ול 'מא
ןיבורמה ירבד-תא
ןיאישמשו תונטקה תא םינאממש םירבד השמח דיעה אבב ןב הדוהי יבר א ו קרפ : ךוקחרי ךישעמו ךוברקי ךישעמ
ןיאישמשו תונטקה תא םינאממש ןירבד השמח דיעה אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
ו קרפ : ךוקחרי ךישעמו ךובירקי ךישעמ
בג לע ךסנתנש םוי םיעברא ןב ןייה לעו שפנה תא גרהש לע
םילשוריב לוגנרת לקסנשו דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא
יבג לע ךסנתינש םוי םיעברא ןב ןייה לעו שפנה תא גרהש לע םלשוריב לוגנרת לקסינשו דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא
רבא לע ילבבה רפכ שיא ןתנילא ןב אינוחנ יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה ב : תועש עבראב ברקש רחש-לש
דימת לעו חבזמה
רבא לע ילבבה רפכ שיא ןתנלא ןב הימחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ב : תועש עבראב ברקש רחשלש דימת לעו חבזמה
יחה ןמ המו רמוחו לק אלהו ול ורמא יחה ןמ רבא לע אלא ורמא אל רמוא רזעילא יברש אמט אוהש תמה ןמ
יחה םא המ אוה רמוחו לק אלהו ול ורמא ג : יחה ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל 'וא
רזעילא יברש אמט אוהש תמה ןמ
לע אלא ורמא אל םהל רמא אמט ונממ שרופה רבא היהיש ןיד וניא אמט אוהש תמה אמט ונממ שרופה רבא רוהט אוהש
אלא ורמא אל ןהל 'מא
אמט ונממ שרופה רבא אהיש ןיד וניא אמט אוהש תמה אמט ונממ שרופה רבא רוהט אוהש
אמטלו םדא אמטל ויתחתמ בשומו בכשמ השוע יחהש םיתמה תאמוטמ םייחה תאמוט הבורמ רחא רבד יחה ןמ רבא
אמטל םדא אמטל ויתחתמ בשומו בכשמ השוע יחהש םיתמה תאמוטמ םייחה תאמוט הבורמ רחא רבד ד : יחה ןמ רבא
רזעילא יבר יחה
ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תיזכ ג : אמטמ תמה ןיאש המ ןיקשמו םילכוא אמטל ףדמ ויבג לעו םידגב
רזעילא 'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ ה : אמטמ תמה ןיאש המ ןיקשמו ןילכא אמטל ףדמ ויבג לע םידגב

יברו רזעילא יברו אמטמ אינוחנ יבר יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע םירהטמ אינוחנ יברו עשוהי יברו אמטמ
'רו
רזעילא 'רו
אמטמ הינוחנ 'ר
יחה ןמ רביאמ שרופה הרועסכ
םצע םירהטמ הינוחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
אמטמ
רבא וניצמ םהל רמא יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תיזכ אמטל תיאר המ רזעילא יברל ול ורמא ןירהטמ עשוהי
רבאש ונאיצמ ןהל 'מא
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ אמטל התיאר המ רזעילא 'רל
ול ורמא ו : םירהטמ עשוהי
ול ורמא אמט היהי ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ יחה ןמ רבא ףא אמט ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה
ןמ
ול 'מא
אמט יהי ונממ שרופה רשב תייזכ יחה ןמ רבא ףאו אמט ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה ןמ
ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תיזכ אמטת ונממ שרופה
הרועשכ םצע תאמט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה רשב תיזכ תאמט םא אל
ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ אמטת ונממ שרופה הרועסכ םצע התאמיט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה רשב תייזכ התאמוט םא אל
ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטל תיאר המ אינוחנ יברל ול ורמא ונמיה שרופה הרועשכ םצע תרהט ןכש יחה
ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטל התיאר המ הינוחנ 'רל
ול ורמא ח : ונממ שרופה הרועסכ
םצע התרהט ןכש יחה
הרועשכ םצע יחה ןמ רבא ףא אמט ונממ שרופה הרועשכ םצע תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה ןמ רבא וניצמ םהל רמא יחה
הרועשכ םצע יחה ןמ רבא ףאו אמט ונממ שרופה הרועשכ םצע תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה ןמ רבאש וניצמ ןהל 'מא
יחה
ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ תאמט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע תאמט םא אל ול ורמא אמט היהי ונממ שרופה
ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ התאמט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע התאמיט םא אל ול ורמא אמט יהי ונממ שרופה
תיאר המ רזעילא יברל ול ורמא ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ תרהט ןכש יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטת
התיאר המ 'זעילא
'רל
ול ורמא ט : ונממ שרופה רשב תייזכ התרהיט ןכש יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטת
תוליבנב גהונ רשבהש תומצעה תאמוטמ רשבה תאמוט הבורמ םהל רמא םהינשב רהט וא םהינשב אמט וא ךיתדמ קולחל
תוליבנב גהונ רשבהש תומצעה תאמוטמ רשבה תאמוט הבורמ ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב רהט וא ןהינשב אמט וא ךתדימ
קולחל
רסח אמט רשבה רסח להאבו אשמבו עגמב אמטמ יוארכ רשב וילע שיש רבא רחא רבד תומצעב ןכ ןיאש המ םיצרשבו
רסח אמט רשבה רסח להאבו אשמבו
עגמב אמטמ יוארכ רשב וילע שיש רביא רחא רבד תומצעב ןכ ןיאש המ םיצרשבו
הבורמ םהל רמא םהינשב רהט וא םהינשב אמט וא ךיתודמ קולחל תיאר המ אינוחנ יברל ול ורמא רוהט םצעה
הבורמ ןהל
'מא
ןהינשב רהט וא ןהינשב אמט וא ךתדימ קולחל התיאר המ היינוחנ 'רל
ול ורמא י : רוהט םצע

תיזכ רחא רבד אמט ותיירבכ אוהו ונממ שרופה רבאו רוהט יחה ןמ שרופה רשבהש רשבה תאמוטמ תומצעה תאמוט
תייזכ רחא רבד אמט ותייריבכ אוהו ונממ שרופה רביאו רוהט יחה ןמ שרופה רשבהש רשבה תאמוטמ תומצעה תאמוט
לע ףא תומצע
בור רסח רוהט רשבה רסח להאבו אשמבו עגמב םיאמטמ תומצע בורו להאבו אשמבו עגמב אמטמ רשב
לע ףא תומצע עבור רסח רוהט רשב רסח להאבו אשמבו עגמב םימטמ תומצע עבורו להאבו אשמבו עגמב אמטמ רשב
בורו ונינב בור רוהט תיזכמ תוחפ אוהש תמה רשב לכ רחא רבד אשמבו עגמב אמטמ להאב אמטלמ רוהטש יפ
בור ונייניב בור רוהט תיזכמ תוחפ אוהש
תמה רשב לכ רחא רבד אשמבו עגמב אמטמ להאב אמטלמ רהטש יפ
םהל רמא םהינשב רהטל תיאר המ עשוהי יברל ול ורמא ןיאמט עבור םהב ןיאש יפ לע ףא תמ -לש
ונינמ
ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב רהטל תיאר המ עשוהי 'רל
ול ורמא אי : םיאמט עבור ןהב ןיאש יפ לע ףא *** תמלש וניינימ
עשוהי יבר דיעה א ז קרפ : בקרו עבורו בור וב ןיאש יחב ורמאת בקרו עבורו בור
וב שיש תמב םתרמא םא אל
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ז קרפ : בקרו עבורו בור וב ןיאש ייחב ורמאת בקרו עבורו בור וב שיש תמב םתרמא םא אל
םיעלס שמחכ
ןתוירחאב ןיבייח רמוא רזעילא יברש םולכ ןהכל וב ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ ןוידפ לע קודצ יברו
םיעלס שמחכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ ןוידיפ לע קודצ 'רו
ריצ לע קודצ יבר דיעה ב : ינש רשעמ-לש
ןוידפכ אלא ןתוירחאב ןיבייח ןיא םירמוא םימכחו ןב-לש
לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה ב : יניש רשעמ
ןוידיפכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
ןבלש
ג : ןריצ ולספ אל םירוהט םיבגח םע ושבכנש םיאמט םיבגח הנושאר הנשמש רוהט אוהש םיאמט םיבגח
ג : ןריצ תא ולספ אל םירוהט ןיבגח םע ושבכינש םיאמט םיבגח הנושאר הנש ימש רוהט אוהש םיאמט ןיבגח רצ
םימכח ינפל השעמ אבו אילפה תריבב היה השעמ םירשכ םהש םיפטונה לע וברש ןילחוז לע קודצ יבר דיעה
'מכח
ינפל השעמ אבו אייליפה תריבב היה השעמ ןירישכ ןהש םיפטונה לע וברש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה
השעמ אבו אילהאב היה השעמ םירשכ ןהש זוגא הלעב ןחלקש ןילחוז לע קודצ יבר דיעה ד : והורישכהו
השעמ אבו איילהאב היה השעמ ןירישכ ןהש זוגא ילעב ןחליקש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה ד : ורישכהו
ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטח-לש
ללק לע רדה שיא םיקי יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה ה : והורישכהו תיזגה תכשל-ינפל
ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטחלש ללק לע דידח שיא
םיקי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ה : ורישכהו תיזגה תכשילל

םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חלג םאש תוריזנ יתש רזנש ימ לע סייפפ יבר דיעה רהטמ רזעילא יברש אמט אוהש
םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חליג םאש תויריזנ יתש רזנש ימ לע סיפפ 'ר
דיעה רהטמ 'זעילא
'רש
אמט אוהש
יבר דיעה ו : ןינמה ןמ ול הלוע םישלש םויש אצי דחא רסח םישש םוי חליג םאו םישש םוי הינשה חלגמש
'ר
דיעה ו : ןינמה ןמ הלוע םישלש םויש אצי דחא םוי רסח םישש םוי חליג םאו םישש םוי היינשה תא חילגמ
םימכחו םימלש ברקי אל םימלש דלוש רמוא רזעילא יברש םימלש ברקיש םימלש -לש
דלו לע סייפפ יברו עשוהי
'מכחו
'מלש
ברקי אל םימלש דלוו 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלוו לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי
: גחב םימלש הדלו ונלכאו חספב הונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סייפפ יבר רמא ברקי םירמוא
: גחב םימלש הדלוו ונלכאו חספב אהונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ
ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סיפפ 'ר
'מא
ברקי 'מוא
ןתנו תוילוח וכתחש רונת לע ודיעה םה רהטמ רזעילא יברש תואמט ןהש םימותחנ -לש
תוכורא לע ודיעה םה ז
ןתנו תוילח וכתיחש רונת לע ודיעה ןהו רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
תואמט ןהש םימותחנ -לש
תובורא לע ודיעה ןה ז
דע םירמוא ויהש רדא לכב הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה םה רהטמ רזעילא יברש אמט אוהש אילוחל אילוח
ןיב לוח
דע ןירמוא ויהש רדא לכב הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
אמט אוהש איילוחל איילח ןיב לוח
ההשו אירוסב ןומגהמ תושר לוטיל ךלהש לאילמג ןברב השעמו יאנת לע הנשה תא םירבעמש ודיעה םה םירופה
אהשו היירוסבש ןומגיהמ תושר לוטיל ךלהש 'אילמג
ןברב השעמ ח : יינת לע הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה םירופה
דיעה ח : תרבועמ הנשה תאצמנו ינא הצור רמא אבשכו לאילמג ןבר הצרישכל יאנת לע הנשה תא ורבעו אבל
דיעה ט : תרבועמ הנשה אצמנו ינא הצור ןהל 'מא
אבשכו 'אילמג
ןבר הצרייש
יינת לע הנשה תא ורביעו אובל
ףולח םירמוא ויהש רוהט אוהש םיעבצ -לשו
אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש -לש
הרויה ףסומ לע יאנגס ןב םחנמ
ףוליח 'מוא
ויהש רוהט אוהש םיעבצ -לשו
אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש -לש
ארויה ףסומ לע ייגנס ןב םחנמ
תאשנש לארשי תב הנטק לעו טגב האצוי איהש היבא האישהש תשרחה לע אדגדוג ןב אינוחנ יבר דיעה ט : םירבדה
תאשינש 'ארשי
תב הנטק לעו טגב אוי איהש היבא האישיהש תשרחה לע הדגדוג ןב ןנחוי 'ר
דיעה ןירבדה
תאטחה לעו וימד תא ןתיש הריבב ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו השרוי הלעב התמ םאו המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל
תאטחה לעו וימד תא ןתיש הריבב ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו השרוי הלעב התימ םאו המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל
תולבנ םד לע אריתב ןב עשוהי יבר דיעה א ח קרפ
: חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ תרפכמ איהש םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה
תולבנ םד לע אריתב ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ח קרפ : חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ
תרפכמ איהש םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה

לע אביקע יבר ףיסוה ולוכ תא אמיטש ותצקמב אמט עגנש תאטח רפא לע אריתב ןב ןועמש יבר דיעה רוהט אוהש
הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה ולוכ תא אמיטש ותצקימב אמט עגנש תאטחה רפא לע הריתב ןב ןועמש 'ר
דיעה רוהט אוהש
יברו אבב ןב הדוהי יבר דיעה ב : םלוכ תא לספש םתצקמב םוי לובט עגנש םילחגהו הנובלהו תרוטקה-לעו
תלוסה
'רו
אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
דיעה ב : םלוכ תא לספש ןתצקימב םוי לובט עגנש םילחגהו הנובלה תרוטקהו תלוסה
הלעבנ אלש יפ לע ףא הפוחל הסנכנש ןויכ המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשנש לארשי תב הנטק לע ןהכה הדוהי
הלעבינ אלש יפ לע ףא הפוחל הסנכינש ןויכ המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש 'שי
תב הנטק לע ןהכה הדוהי
םידיעמ הידעו התחפשמ ינב הוקחרו ןולקשאב הנהרוהש תקונית לע בצקה ןב הירכז יברו ןהכה יסוי יבר דיעה
ןידיעמ הידיעו החפשמה ינב אהוקחירו ןולקשאב הנח רוהש תקונית לע בצקה ןב הירכז 'רו
ןהכה ףסוי 'ר
דיעה
האמטנ אלשו הרתסנ אלש ונימאה הנהרוהש םתא םינימאמ םא םימכח םהל ורמא האמטנ אלשו הרתסנ אלש התוא
האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ
אלש ונימאה הנחרוהש םתא םינימאמ םא 'מכח
ןהל ורמא האמטינ אלשו ארתסינ אלש התוא
ןב הדוהי יברו עשוהי יבר דיעה ג : הנהרוהש ונימאת לא האמטנ אלשו הרתסנ אלש םינימאמ םתא ןיא םאו
ןב עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה ג : הנח רוהש ונימאת לא האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש ןינימאמ םתא ןיא םאו
לאילמג ןב ןועמש ןבר רמא ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרשכ הסיעהש הנוהכל הרשכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע אריתב
'אילמג
ןבר 'מא
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל הרישכ הסיעה הנוהכל הרישכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע הריתב
קחרל םכל םיעמוש םינהכה ךכ לע ןיניד יתב בישוהל אלש יאכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזגש השענ המ לבא םכתודע ונלבק
קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה ךכ לע ןיד תיב בישוהל אלש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזגו השענ המ לבא ןכתודע
ונלבוק
ןוניאד אייחבטמ תיב הקשמ לעו ןכד אצמק ליא לע הדירצ שיא רזעוי ןב יסוי יבר דיעה ד : ברקל אל לבא
ןייכד הייחבטמ תיב הקשמ לעו יכד הייצימק לייא לע הדירצ שיא רזעוי ןב הסוי 'ר
דיעה ד : ברקל אל לבא
םיאישמש ילד תיב שיא הימחנ םושמ אביקע יבר דיעה ה : אירש יסוי היל ורקו באתסמ אתימב ברקידו ןייכד
תא ןיאישמש ילדב תיב שיא הימחנ םשמ הביקע 'ר
דיעה ה : איירש הסוי היל ןורקו באסמ התימל ברקי ידו
ו : רוהט לכהו םצע םצע טקלמ םימכח ורמא םיצעה רידב ואצמנש תומצע לע עשוהי יבר דיעה דחא דע יפ לע השאה
ו
: רוהט לכה םצע םצע טקלמ 'מכח
ורמא םיצעה רידב ואצמינש תומצעה לע עשוהי 'ר
דיעה דחא דע יפ לע השאה

ץוחבמ םינוב לכיהבש אלא תורזעל םיעלקו לכיהל םיעלק םישוע לכיהב םינוב ויהשכ יתעמש רזעילא יבר רמא
ץוחבמ םינוב לכיהבש אלא תורזעל םיעלקו לכיהל םיעלק ןישוע לכיהב םינוב והיש יתעמש רזעילא 'ר
'מא
יפ לע ףא םישדק ישדק םילכואו תיב ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןיבירקמש יתעמש עשוהי יבר רמא םינפבמ םינוב הרזעבו
יפ לע ףא ןישדק ישדק ןילכואו תיב ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןיבירקמש יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
םינפבמ םינוב תורזעבו
ז : אבל דיתעל השדקו התעשל השדק הנושאר השודקש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא ינש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש
ז : אובל דיתעל השדיקו התעשל השדיק הנושאר השודקש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא ינש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש
אמטל אב והילא ןיאש יניסמ השמל הכלה וברמ וברו וברמ עמשש יאכז ןב ןנחוי ןברמ ינא
לבוקמ עשוהי יבר רמא
אמטל אב והיילא ןיאש יניסמ השמל הכלה וברמ וברו וברמ עמשש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןברמ ינא לבוקמ עשוהי 'ר
'מא
רבעב התיה הפירצ תיב תחפשמ עורזב ןיקחורמה ברקלו עורזב ןיברוקמה קחרל אלא ברקלו קחרל רהטלו
רבעב התיה הפירצ תיב תחפשמ עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו עורזב ןיברוקמה תא קחרל אלא ברקלו קחרל רהטלו
רהטלו אמטל אב והילא ולא ןוגכ עורזב ןויצ ןב הברקו םש התיה תרחא דועו עורזב ןויצ ןב הקחרו ןדריה
רהטלו אמטל אב והיילא ולא ןוגכ עורזב ןויצ ןיב הברקו
םש התיה תרחא דועו עורזב ןויצ ןיב הקחירו ןדריה
קחרל אל םירמוא םימכחו תקולחמה תוושהל רמוא ןועמש יבר קחרל אל לבא ברקל רמוא הדוהי יבר ברקלו קחרל
קחרל אל 'מוא
'מכחו
תוקלחמה תא תוושהל 'מוא
ןועמש 'ר
קחרל אל לבא ברקל 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
ברקלו קחרל
בל בישהו רמוגו איבנה הילא תא םכל חלוש יננה
בל בישהו 'וגו
איבנה היילא תא םכל חלוש יכנא הנה
( 'ג
יכאלמ)
רמאנש םלועב םולש תושעל אלא ברקל אלו
'נש
םלועב םולש תושעל אלא ברקל אלו
: םתובא לא םינב בלו םינב לע תובא
:
םתובא לע םינב בלו םינב לע תובא

I. Format
Tosefta Eduyot
A Critical Edition
Introduction
The critical edition of the Tosefta on Eduyot makes use of three standard
witnesses to the text; ms. Erfurt, ms. Vienna and the first printing of the Tosefta which
was done along with the compendium of R. Isaac Alfasi) Rif (in Venice in 1522-3.
Following Professor Lieberman's path, MS Vienna serves as the base text for the
corrections. However, due to the many lacunae found in MS Vienna, it was deemed more
logical to run MS Vienna along side MS Erfurt so as to not have to create a composite
base text so frequently. 1 The right column is MS Vienna and the left MS Erfurt. The
critical notes consist only of the first printing of the Tosefta. There is one genizah
fragment of the Tosefta available, T-S Or. 1080 13.69, which covers tEd 1:5 - 2:5.
In an effort to facilitate the interpretation of the Tosefta, I have chosen to print on
the bottom of the page the mishnayot in Eduyot to which the particular Tosefta is related.
The text is that of the standard printed edition.
In addition, I have chosen to print on the bottom of the page parallels to the
Tosefta found elsewhere in Rabbinic literature. In several cases the language and
formulation were close enough to the Tosefta in Eduyot where one could have
1
See S. Lieberman’s comments in his introduction to the Tosefta of the second half of
the Order of Nashim (pg. ' ה)
where he explains his choice to present MSS Erfurt and
Vienna in parallel for a large section of tSot[.
685

convincingly argued that the source in question could have been used as a witness.
However, due to the difficulty in distinguishing between a variant text and a variant
tradition (which does not belong in critical notes to a text) I decided to print all of the
external material separately and let the reader decide.
II. Guide to Notations
MS Vienna
There are many lacunae in the text of MS Vienna on Eduyot .It is clear in a
number of places that the scribe could not read the text he had in front of him, but left
blanks in his own manuscript which correspond to the missing text. I have indicated
these intentional gaps with braces that straddle the gap ." { } "
I have used a colon to indicate places where the scribe left a blank indicating a
new halakah in the Tosefta. For the most part, the breaks correspond to those of MS
Erfurt (by means of which Zuckermandel numbered his Tosefta). There are, however, a
handful of exceptions and they can be identified by the colon which is present in the right
column but absent in the left. In two places there was a missing word in the same place
where there was a new halakah in MS Erfurt. In these cases, it is not clear if the scribe of
MS Vienna intended to leave both a gap for what he could not read and a break in the
text, or just a gap for what he could not read (or perhaps he did not realize something was
missing and simply meant to leave a break in the text). The edition assumes that he
meant both, but it is by no means certain.
Critical Notes
686

I have generally tried following Lieberman's usage in the critical notes, but have
differed in certain aspects which I believe make the text easier to read and interpret. Each
note consists of the line number in which the lemma from MS Vienna occurs followed by
the lemma, 2 a vertical line ( | ) and then the text as it appears in the other witness, either
the first printing (indicated by ד) or the one Genizah fragment (ג).
If a word is missing in the witness it is indicated by use of the empty parenthesis
(). If a word is missing in the base text, I cite the word which precedes it followed by the
vertical line and then that same word as it appears in the witness followed by the word
which was not found in the base text. For example:
The note reads:
687
י"
י רבד ואצמי אלו
י"
י רבד 'וגו
ואצמי אלו
'. וגו ואצמי ד
הניוו
י"
כ
ןושאר סופד
| ואצמי
Where MS Vienna is missing a section of or an entire line, I simply indicate that
there is a blank in MS Vienna with the use of the empty parentheses, (), and then cite the
text from the witness. (see line 10 on the first page of the text for an example).
When there is a parallel which appears more than one time in another corpus
(Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta) and it appears nearly identically in more than one place, the
source is cited once with the use of angled brackets to indicate variants within the parallel
sources. The numbers used correspond to the order in which they are marked at the
2 If the lemma occurs more than once in the line, a subscript will appear next to it to
indicate the number of the occurrence to which the note refers.

eginning of the note. For example (pg. 710):
ירבדכ גוהנל ומצע לע רימחהל הצורה ללה תיב ירבדכ הכלה םלועל ( ג"
לה ב"
פ הכוס ג"
ילה א"
פ תומבי
2
ללה תיב ילוקו יימש תיב ילוק ספותה ךלי ךשחב < ליסכהו > ליסכה 'מאנ
הז לע ללה תיב ירבדכו יימש תיב
2
2
< ןהילוקכ > ןוהילוקכ ללה תיב
ירבדכ םא < ןהירמוחכו > ןוהירמוחכו ןהילוקכ יימש תיב ירבדכ םא אלא עשר
2
. < ןהירמוחכו > ןוהירמוחכו
The source appears twice in the Tosefta. The word " ליסכה"
appears in the second source
(Sukkah 2:3) as "ליסכהו". The word ןוהירמוחכו (line 3) is written in the second source as
"ןהירמוחכו" etc.
III. Parallels
The citations of the mishnah of Eduyot are taken from the critical edition of the
mishnah, which is based upon MS Kaufmann. The Tosefta represents Lieberman where
available and Zuckermandel otherwise. The Bavli is based upon the Vilna edition, and
the Yerushalmi upon the Venice printing.
In the citations of parallel sources only the pieces of the text which are actually
parallel to the text of the Tosefta are quoted. In the case of citations in the Bavli and
Yerushalmi, the manner in which it is introduced (e.g. אנינת ימנ ןנא ףא , אינתהו),
when
relevant, is quoted. If the mishnah referred to is from Eduyot itself, the reader is advised
to refer to the critical edition of the mishnah for any parallels. The number which
precedes the citation of the parallel refers to the line number on which the relevant
Tosefta of Eduyot begins. If the text cited is not a true parallel, but is directly relevant, it
appears in smaller print.
The abbreviations used are:
688
2
1
ת)

IV. Zuckermandel's Edition
689
Talmud Bavli =
First printing of the Tosefta (Venice 1522-3) =
Midrash =
Talmud Yerushalmi =
Tosefta =
Zuckermandel's edition of the Tosefta remains the only complete work containing
a critical edition of the Tosefta .As he attests in his introduction, he worked under
harrowing financial conditions which severely constrained the amount of time he had
access to the manuscripts. Unfortunately, as a result, two issues mar Zuckermandel's
edition of Eduyot) and I assume other tractates as well). First, there are many errors in the
printed edition (whether they be due to the author or typesetter I don't know).
Furthermore, as he indicates in the notes to Eduyot he appears to have missed two full
leaves of MS Vienna when he copied out corrections from it. Below are a list of
corrections to MS Erfurt in Zuckermandel's edition. The page number/line number
before each entry corresponds to Zuckermandel's edition. The plain text is what MS
Erfurt actually contains and the text enclosed in “< >” is what is found in Zuckermandel.
If a word occurs more than once on that line a subscript indicates which one is being
cited.
ב
ד
מ
י
ת
< וסנכנשמ>
וסנכנתשמ 454/22
<
איצומ>
אצומ 454/23

690
454/24
אל
>
אלו
<
454/25
וענו
>
ענו
ןיאש
<
455/23
יספתתשכל
>
יסיפתתשכל
, <
ילוט
>
ילט
<
455/26
ץרא
>
ץראה
<
455/29
יקע
> '
אביקע
<
456/1
אעמשי
> '
לאעמשי
<
456/4
והמ
>
אוהמ
, <
רו
> '
ר

691
458/26
םימכח
>
מכח
,
אב
לה
<
459/1
אשמב
>
אשמבו
<
459/7
ר
> '
רל
,
זעילא
'
2
,<
וא
> '
מוא
'
2
<
459/31
םימכח
>
מכח
וציניו
<
460/2
רמוחו
>
מוחו

Appendix A
Talmudic Accounts of R. Gamliel’s Impeachment
Times New Roman Font ( הדגבא)
= Anonymous Layer
DBS David Font Bold ( äãâáà)
= Amoraic Layer
Courier Font ( הדגבא)
= Tannaitic Layer
Italics indicate uncertainty
729
. חכ-:
זכ
תוכרב ילבב . I
ןנבר ונת
עשוהי יבר ינפל אבש דחא דימלתב השעמ
הבוח וא תושר תיברע תלפת ול רמא
תושר היל רמא
לאילמג ןבר ינפל אב
הבוח וא תושר תיברע תלפת ול רמא
הבוח ול רמא
תושר יל רמא עשוהי יבר אלהו ול רמא
שרדמה תיבל ןיסירת ילעב וסנכיש דע ןתמה ול רמא
ןיסירת ילעב וסנכנשכ
הבוח וא תושר תיברע תלפת לאשו
לאושה דמע
הבוח לאילמג ןבר ול רמא
הז רבדב קלוחש םדא שי םולכ םימכחל לאילמג ןבר םהל רמא
ואל עשוהי יבר היל רמא
תושר יל ורמא ךמשמ אלהו ול רמא
ךב ודיעיו ךילגר לע דומע עשוהי היל רמא
וילגר לע עשוהי יבר דמע
וישכעו תמה תא שיחכהל יחה
לוכי תמ אוהו יח ינא אלמלא רמאו
יחה תא שיחכהל יחה לוכי ךאיה יח אוהו יח ינאש
לכ וננרש דע וילגר לע דמוע עשוהי יברו שרודו בשוי לאילמג ןבר היה
דמעו דומע ןמגרותה תיפצוחל ורמאו םעה
ליזינו הירעצנ המכ דע ירמא
הירעצ דקתשא הנשה שארב
הירעצ קודצ יברד השעמב תורוכבב
הירעצ ימנ
אכה
הירבענו את
היל םיקונ ןאמ
אוה השעמ לעב עשוהי יברל הימקונ
תובא תוכז היל תילד היל שינע אמליד אביקע יברל הימקונ
ארזעל ירישע אוהו רישע אוהו םכח אוהד הירזע ןב רזעלא יברל הימקונ אלא
היל קרפמ היל ישקמ יאד םכח אוה
חלפו לזא אוה ףא רסיק
יבל יחולפל היל תיא יאד רישע אוהו
היל שינע יצמ אלו תובא תוכז היל תיאד ארזעל ירישע אוהו

אתביתמ שיר יוהילד רמל היל אחינ היל ורמאו ותא
יתיב ישניאב ךילמיאו ליזיא והל רמא
והתיבדב ךילמאו לזא
ךל ןירבעמ אמלד היל הרמא
רבתיל רחמלו ארקומד אסכב אדח אמוי [ שניא שמתשל]
הל רמא
אתרויח ךל תיל היל הרמא
אתרויח ירד ירס ינמת היל ורדהאו אסינ היל שיחרתא הוה ינש ירס ינמת רב אמוי אוהה
הנש םיעבש ןב אלו הנש םיעבש ןבכ ינא ירה הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר רמאקד ונייה
סנכיל םידימלתל תושר םהל הנתנו חתפה רמושל והוקלס םויה ותוא אנת
אל ורבכ וכות ןיאש דימלת לכ רמואו זירכמ לאילמג ןבר היהש
שרדמה תיבל סנכי
ילספס המכ ופסותא אמוי אוהה
ïðáøå éàúñåã ïá óñåé àáà äá éâéìô ןנחוי יבר רמא
" éìñôñ äàî òáøà åôñåúà"
øîà ãç
" éìñôñ äàî òáù"
øîà ãçå
לארשימ הרות יתענמ םולשו סח אמלד רמא לאילמג ןברד היתעד אשלח אק הוה
אמטק ןיילמד ירויח יבצח הימלחב היל
וזחא
היל וזחאד אוה היתעד יבותיל איהה איה אלו
תינשנ םויב וב תוידע
הוה אמוי אוהה םויב וב ןנירמאד אכיה לכו
הושריפ אלש שרדמה תיבב היולת התיהש הכלה התיה אלו
ןנתד תחא העש וליפא שרדמה תיבמ ומצע ענמ אל לאילמג ןבר ףאו
שרדמה תיבב םהינפל ינומע רג הדוהי אב
730
םויב וב
להקב אבל ינא המ םהל רמא
להקב אבל התא רוסא לאילמג ןבר ול רמא
להקב אבל התא רתומ עשוהי יבר ול רמא
יבאומו ינומע אבי אל רמאנ רבכ אלהו לאילמג ןבר ול רמא
'ה
להקב
ןיבשוי ןה ןמוקמב באומו ןומע יכו עשוהי יבר ול רמא
תומואה לכ תא לבלבו רושא ךלמ בירחנס
הלע רבכ
ריבאכ דירואו יתשוש םהיתודותעו םימע תולבג ריסאורמאנש
םיבשוי
שירפ אבורמ שירפד לכו
תא בישא ןכ ירחאו רמאנ רבכ אלהו לאילמג ןבר ול רמא
ובש רבכו 'ה
םאנ ןומע ינב תובש
ימע תובש תא יתבשו רמאנ רבכ אלהו עשוהי יבר ול רמא
ובש אל ןיידעו
לארשי
להקב אבל והוריתה דימ
אנת
עשוהי יברל היסייפאו ליזיא הוה יכהו ליאוה לאילמג ןבר רמא
ןרחשמד היתיבד אתישאל והניזח היתיבל אטמ יכ
התא ימחפש רכינ התא ךתיב ילתוכמ ול רמא

םה המבו
םיסנרפתמ םה המב םימכח ידימלת לש ןרעצב עדוי התא יאש וסנרפ התאש רודל ול יוא ול רמא
םינוזנ
היב חגשא אל יל לוחמ ךל יתינענ ול רמא
סייפ אבא דובכ ליבשב השע
ןנברל והל אמילו ליזינ ןאמ ורמא
אנליזא אנא סבוכ אוהה והל רמא
אשרדמ יבל עשוהי יבר והל חלש
אנאו ךדמ חלש אדמ שיבלד ןאמל היל רמיי אדמ שיבל אלד ןאמו אדמ שבלי אדמ שיבלד ןאמ
הישבלא
ןנברל ורעצלו לאילמג ןברד ידבע ותיל אלד ילג וקורט ןנברל אביקע יבר והל רמא
והל רמא אבבא ףרט אתא והייבגל אנא ליזיאו םוקיאד בטומ עשוהי יבר רמא
רפא ךרפאו הרעמ ימ ךימימ הזמ ןב הזמל רמאי הזמ ןב אלו הזמ אל וניאשו הזי הזמ ןב הזמ
הלקמ
וחתפל םיכשנ התאו ינא רחמל ךדובכ ליבשב אלא ונישע םולכ תסייפתנ
עשוהי יבר אביקע יבר ול רמא
ןידירומ ןיאו שדקב ןילעמ ירימג הירבענ דיבענ יכיה ירמא
ייואנקל יתא אתבש אדח רמו אתבש אדח רמ שורדנ
אתבש אדח הירזע ןב רזעלא יברו יתבש אתלת לאילמג ןבר שורדל אלא
התיה הירזע ןב רזעלא
יבר לש התיה ימ לש תבש רמ רמאד ונייהו
הוה יאחוי ןב ןועמש יבר דימלת ותואו
. ול תורוכב ילבב . II
עזביא ליכאקד ידהב [ הפולק הברע הבורע ילייכ הירסנ]
ילסב ירעש היל אמר ארכוב היל הוה קודצ יבר
היתפיש
עשוהי יברד הימקל אתא
ץראה םעל רבח ןיב ונקליח םולכ היל רמא
ןה עשוהי יבר ול רמא
לאילמג ןברד הימקל אתא
ץראה םעל רבח ןיב ונקליח היל רמא
אל לאילמג ןבר היל רמא
ןה יל רמא עשוהי יבר אהו היל רמא
שרדמה תיבל ןיסירת ילעב ולעיש דע ןתמה ול רמא
לאשו לאושה דמע שרדמה תיבל וסנכנש ןויכ
ץראה םעל רבח ןיב ונקליח םולכ
ואל עשוהי יבר ל"
א
ןה יל ורמא ךמשמ אלהו לאילמג
ןבר ל"
א
ךב ודיעיו ךילגר לע דומע עשוהי
וילגר לע עשוהי יבר דמע
יח ךאיה יח אוהו יח ינאש וישכע תמה תא שיחכהל יחה לוכי תמ אוהו יח ינא ילמליא השעא ךאיה רמאו
יחה תא שיחכהל לוכי
דמעו דומע ןמגרותמה תיפצוחל ורמאו
םעה לכ וננירש דע וילגר לע דמוע עשוהי 'רו
שרודו דמוע ג"
ר היהו
731

[ ד-ז-ג,
ז]
732
א הכלה ד קרפ תוכרב ימלשורי
. III
תושר 'וא
עשוהי 'ר
הבוח 'וא
ג"
ר והמ ברעה תליפת ïîú ééðú אחא רב בקעי ר"
א
àúååâìô ïåðéàë àúååâìô ïéìéà ïééúà אנינח יבר 'מא
áøò ìù úøèåô äìéòð ïéà äáåç øîã ïàî
áøò ìù 'øèåô
äìéòð úåùø øîã ïàîå
דחא דימלתב השעמ
תושר היל רמא והמ ברעה תליפת עשוהי יבר תא לאשו אבש
הבוח היל רמא והמ ברעה תליפת לאילמג ןבר תא לאשו אב
תושר יל רמא עשוהי יבר אהו ול רמא
תאזה הכלהה תא לואשו דומע דעווה תיבל סנכאשכ רחמל ול רמא
רחמל
הבוח ול רמא והמ ברעה תליפת לאילמג
ןבר תא לאשו דימלת ותוא דמע
תושר יל רמא עשוהי יבר אה ול רמא
תושר רמוא אוה תא עשוהי 'רל
לאילמג ןבר רמא
ואל היל רמא
ךודיעיו ךילגר לע דומע ול רמא
ןמגרותה תיפצח 'רל
ורמאו םעה לכ וננירש דע וילגר לע דמוע 'שוהי
יברו שרודו בשוי לאילמג ןבר היהו
םעה
תא רטפה
וליחתה רמאו ליחתה רומא ןזחה ןוניז יברל ורמא
דימת ךתער הרבע אל ימ לע יכ ול ורמאו םהילגר לע םעה לכ ודמעו
תוביש ושאר לכ אלמתנו הנש הרשע שש ןב הבישיב הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר תא ונימו וכלה
ירשא ינממ רתוי םילודג
ןב אוהש אלא ינממ רתוי הרות ןב אוהש אל רמאו רעטצמו בשוי הביקע יבר היהו
הב תולתהל ימב דתי ול שיש םדא ירשא ויתבא ול וכזש םדא
ארזעל ירישע רוד היהש הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר לש ותדיתי התיה המ יכו
םש ויה ןילספס המכו
ïéãîåòä ïî õåç íéîëç éãéîìú ìù íù åéä íéìñôñ íéðåîù רמא יסיס ןב בקעי יבר
øãâä éøåçàì
øãâä éøåçàì ïéãîåòä ïî õåç íù åéä úåàî ùìù רמא ןובא 'ריב
יסוי יבר
הבישיב הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר תא ובישוהש םויב ןמת ןנינתד ייכ
םרכב םימכח ינפל הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר שרד שרדמ הז ןנינת ןמת
הנביב
םרככ תורוש תורוש ןייושע ויהש םימכח ידימלת וליא אלא םש היה םרכ יכו
ותיבב וסייפל דחאו דחא לכ לצא לאילמג ןבר
ול ךלה דימ
ןיטחמ דיבע ביתי היחכשא עשוהי 'ר
יבג לזא
ייח תא ןיליא היל רמא
ךיל יתינענ ול רמא וסנרפ התאש רודל ול יוא יעדימ יעב תא ןודכ דעו היל רמא
הוה אביקע יבר ןירמד תיאו רצק דח הירזע ןב רזעלא יבר יבג ןוחלשו
ימ ךימימ הזמ ןב הזמל רמיי הזמ ןב אלו הזמ אל וניאש ימ הזי הזמ ןב הזמ אוהש ימ ול רמא
הלקמ רפא ךרפאו הרעמ
אלא ותלודגמ ותוא ודירוה אל ןכ יפ לע ףא ג"
ר לש וחתפל םיכשנ םתאו ינא םתיצרתנ ול רמא
ןיד תיב בא ותוא ונימ

Appendix B
Joint Citations of mEd with Baraitot
Below are the cases of joint Mishnah and baraita citations not discussed in the text
above with brief comments.
: בכ – . בכ הגיגח ילבב ( 1
לעו םילכאה לע אלא ליצמ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב ללה תיב ירבדכ לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ [ וי:
א תוידע]
ץראה םע בג לע אמט אוהש ינפמ ימש תיב ןהל
ורמא המ ינפמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא סרח ילכ לעו םיקשמה
ימש תיב ןהל ורמא וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכא םתרהיט אלהו ללה תיב ןהל ורמא ץצוח אמט ילכ ןיאו
תיב ורזח ולו ךל התרהיט ילכה תא התרהיטשכ לבא ונרהיט ומצעל וכותבש םיקשמו םילכא ונרהיטשכ
תיב םכירבדמ ינשוב עשוהי יבר רמא אינת [ בי-אי:
ה תולהא אתפסות]
. ימש תיב ירבידכ תודוהל ללה
ןיקשמ אלמ ןיגול ? רוהט קצבו העבש ןיאמט הבירעו השא הבירעב השל השא רשפא ! יאמש
ול רמא יאמש תיב ידימלתמ דחא דימלת ול לפטנ ? ןירוהט ןיקשמו העבש תאמוט אמט [ ןיגול]
ול רמא ? ץצוח וניא וא ץצוח אמט ילכ ול רמא . רומא ול רמא . יאמש תיב לש ןמעט ךל רמוא
םולכ אמט ול רמוא התא םאו . אמט ול רמא ? רוהט וא אמט ץראה םע לש ילכ . ץצוח וניא
והזו אמט ךלשו רוהט ילש ךל רמוא אמט ול רמוא התא םאש אלא דוע אלו ? ךילע חיגשמ
םכל יתינענ רמא יאמש תיב ירבק לע חטתשנו עשוהי יבר ךלה דימ . יאמש תיב לש ןמעט
וימי לכ ורמא . המכו המכ תחא לע תושרופמ ךכ םכלש תומותס המו יאמש
תיב תומצע
. ויתוינעת ינפמ ויניש ורחשוה
tAh 5:11-12 and the baraita cited in bHag stem from one source, although there are a
number of additions in the Bavli version at the end. The extended description of R.
Yehoshua’s recanting and repentance appears in tAh as follows:
. יאמש תיב תומצע םכל יתימנ עשהי 'ר
רמא דומלתה ירבדכ הנוש תויהל עשהי 'ר
רזח
: זמ אעיצמ אבב ילבב ( 2
רשעמ אתפסות]
. ןיללחמ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו אסוד 'ר
ירבד ןומיסא לע ינש רשעמ ןיללחמ [ ג:
ג תוידע]
. ץחרמה תיבל ןמיסב תונתינה תועמ לע ןיללחמ ןיאש ןיושו . [ ד:
א ינש
The entire joint citation here may simply be a different version of tMS 1:4, although
there the opinions of the Sages and R. Dosa are reversed; if the first part is in fact mEd
3:3, the expression " ןירסוא םימכחו"
has been expanded to " ןיללחמ ןיא םירמוא םימכחו"
.
733

יכו ? זלה יברע הל השע המ יכו : אסוד יבר רמא
Here, the addition of the baraita is not marked.
. אפ ןיטיג = : ול תובותכ ילבב ( 3
. אסוד 'ר
ירבד המורתב תלכוא היובשה [ ח:
ג תוידע]
? הנוהכה ןמ הלספ הידד ןיב הל ךעימש ינפמ
. דק תוחנמ=.
זע תבש ילבב ( 4
תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תוליבנ םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הדוי 'ר
[ א:
ה תוידע]
אלא ואמט אל ללה תיב ואמטשכ ףא הדוהי יברב יסוי יבר רמא [ ה:
ב תוידע אתפסות]
םימטמ לליה
. תיזכ לע דומעלו שורקל לוכיו
ליאוה , תיעיבר וב שיש םדב
This entire citation appears in tEd 2:5; there is no way to determine whether the
Bavli’s citation is entirely from the Tosefta or if it is a combination of mEd and tEd.
. וט ןטק דעומ ילבב ( 5
רמוא הדוהי יבר ונורא תא ןילקוס ןיד תיב תמש הדונמ
. סבכלו רפסל ןירוסא ןיערוצמו ןידונמ
. ונורא לע הלודג ןבא ןיחינמו ןיחלוש ןיד תיב אלא ןכע לש ולגכ םינבא לג וילע ודימעיש אל
. [ ח:
ה תוידע]
ונורא תא ןילקוס ןיד תיב ויודינב תמו הדנתמה לכש ךדמלל
Here, mEd has been worked into a baraita as a lesson to be derived from the law of the
baraita. Alternatively, one might argue that the baraita does not appear to recognize
the existence of mEd and that the text of mEd may have been influenced by this
baraita.
: גק תוחנמ ילבב ( 6
עשוהי יבר רמאו [ ב:
ג תוידע אתפסות]
רוהט אוהש תולבנ םד לע אריתב
ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ א:
ח תוידע]
ןיעקוש םילגר ילוע ויהו , ךלמ לש אירטסיאב תויראל תואידורע ןירחונ ויהו השעמ : אריתב ןב
! רבד םהל ורמא אלו םדב ןהיתובוכר דע
Here again (as in #4), the entire citation appears in tEd.
. אע ןישודיק ילבב ( 7
תרחא דוע עורזב ןויצ ןב הקחירו ןדריה רבעב התיה הפירצה תיב תחפשמ אנינת ימנ ןנא ףא [ ז:
ח תוידע]
ולא ןוגכ [ ילבבה ירבד]
> ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל אב והילא ולא ןוגכ עורזב ןויצ ןב הבריקו התיה
וצר אלו
התיה תרחא דוע [ ד:
ג תוידע אתפסות]
אנאת < . העמטנ העמטנש התחפשמ לבא ןיעדיד
734

הל ירמאו>
עובשב תחא םעפ ןהידימלתלו םהינבל ותוא םירסומ םימכח לבא התולגל םימכח
. < עובשב םימעפ
Once again, both parts of the citation are found in tEd, but here the Bavli clearly
separates the two with an Aramaic inference from the mishnah and follows by
marking the next citation as a tannaitic comment on the first part. Thus it is clear that
the Bavli is citing the mEd followed by tEd.
The next two examples are somewhat different than the rest of the citations but
are worthy of note:
. דק ןילוח ילבב ( 8
םע הלוע ףוע ןהמ תחא וזו ה"
ב ירמוחמו ש"
ב ילוקמ םירבד השש : רמוא יסוי יבר אינתהו [ ב:
ה תוידע]
! לכאנ אלו הלוע אל םירמוא
ללה
תיבו
יאמש
תיב
ירבד לכאנ וניאו ןחלושה לע הניבגה
Here the Bavli is probably interpolating its own note, " ןהמ תחא וזו"
, in the middle to
avoid the trouble of citing the first case; in effect it cites the introduction to the
mishnah followed by the second of R. Yose’s cases.
: זל םיחספ ילבב ( 9
הטילחה [ ו:
א הלח הנשמ]
. ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב הסיעמה [ ו:
א הלח = ב:
ה תוידע]
יביתימ
הסיעמה ? הטילחה והזיאו הסיעמה והזיא [ ב-א:
א הלח אתפסות האר]
. ןירטופ ללה תיבו ןיבייחמ יאמש תיב
הזו הז ויבא םושמ רמוא יסוי יברב לאעמשי יבר
. חמק יבג לעש ןישלגומ הטילחה ןישלגומ יבג לעש חמק
. בייח רונתב
רוטפ ספליאב ןאשע הז דחאו הז דחא םירמוא םימכחו בויחל הזו הז הל ירמאו רוטפל
Here the mishnah and baraita are cited without anything marking the transition. Here
one can assume that the entire mishnah is being cited from mHal (and not mEd)
because the second portion, " הטילחה"
, is not found in mEd.
735

Appendix C
Combined Mishnah-Tosefta Text
Below is the text of the Tosefta interleaved with the text of the mishnayot to
which the various pericopae relate. The Tosefta text is in the larger font size.
Sections of the Tosefta which do not relate directly to anything found in the mishnah
are in bold text. Sections of the Mishnah upon which the Tosefta does not comment at
all are in a smaller font.
א קרפ תוידע אתפסות
ירבדמ רבד שקבמ םדא אהיש העש הדיתע ורמא הנביב םרכב םימכח וסנכנשמ
[ a1:1]
יתחלשהו י"
י םאנ םיאב םימי הנה ןכל 'נש
אצומ וניאו םירפוס ירבדמ איצומ וניאו הרות
ןופצמו םי דעו םימ 'ענו
י"
י ירבד עמשל םא יכ םימל אמצ אלו םחלל בער אל ץראל בער
י"
י רבד ץקה הז י"
י רבד האובנ וז י"
י רבד ואצמי אלו י"
י רבד תא שקבל וטטושי
חרזמ דעו
יאמשמו לליהמ ליחתנ ורמא וריבחל המוד הרות ירבדמ רבד אהי אלש
אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
הברה םימיל וליפא הדיקפל הדיקפמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןתעש ןייד ןישנה לכ 'מוא
ימש [ ב-א:
א הנשמ]
תסוו הל שיש השא לכ [ ב]
. תעל תעמ די לע תטעממ הדיקפל הדיקפמו הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לע תטעממ תעל תעמ אלא הז ירבדכ
. הדיקפל הדיקפמ די לעו תעל תעמ די לע תטעממו הדיקפכ וז ירה ןידיעב תשמשמה התעש הייד
הצחמו בק אלא הז 'רבדכ
אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'וא
'מכחו
םייבקמ 'וא
ללה הלח בקמ 'מוא
ימש [ ג:
א הנשמ]
דועו השמח ןירוטפ השמח 'מוא
הסוי 'ר
ןיבייח םיעבר תשמח ורמא תודימה ולידגיהשמו הלחב ןיבייח
. ןיבייח
הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
םיבקמ 'מוא
לליהו הלח בקמ 'מוא
יאמש
[ b1:1]
ידכ
םכתסיע המכו םכתסיע ידכ הלח םכיתוסירע תישאר 'נש
הלחב בייח הצחמו בק אלא
: הפיאה תירישע רמועהו 'נש
רמועכ רבדמ תסיע המכו רבדמ תסיע
הצחמו בק ןהש ןרופיצב םיעבר שמח ןהש תורבדמ דועו םיעבר העבש םימכח ורעיש [ 1:2]
: תימלשורי
תעשת 'מוא
ימשו ובר ןושלכ 'מול
בייח םדאש הווקמה ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ 'וא
ללה [ ד:
א הנשמ]
םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ םיידרג ינש ואבש דע אלא הז ירבדכ אלו הז ירבדכ אל
'מוא
'מכחו
םיבק
. ןהירבד תא ומייקו הווקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ םיגול תשולשש ןוילטבאו הייעמש םשמ ודיעהו
'מוא
יאמש הוקמה תא ןילסופ גול רשע םינש לש ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ 'מוא
לליה [ a1:3]
הז ירבדכ אל 'מוא
'מכחו
הוקמה תא ןילסופ גול הששו םישלש
לש ןיבואש םימ ןיה אלמ
םיידרג ינש ואבש השעמ הוקמה תא ןילסופ ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשלש אלא הז ירבדכ אלו
ןיבואש םימ ןיגול תשלשש ןוילטבאו היעמש םושמ ודיעהו םלשוריבש תופשאה רעשמ
םהירבד תא 'מכח
ומייקו הוקמה תא ןילסופ
ורבד לע דמוע םדא אהי אלש םיאבה תורודל דמלל ןלטבל ללהו ימש ירבד תא ןיריכזמ
המלו [ ה:
א הנשמ]
.
ןהירבד לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא ירהש
736

ידרג אלא הדירי תונמוא ךל ןיא אלהו ןתונמוא םשו ןהיתומוקמ םש ורכזוה המלו [ b1:3]
םהירבד
לע ודמע אל םלועה תובא המ אלא תופשאה רעשכ םלשוריב יוזב םוקמ ךל ןיאו
: העומש םוקמב ורבד לע םדא דימעי אלש המכו המכ תחא לע העומש םוקמב
הארי םאש ןיבורמה ירבדכ אלא הכלה ןיאו ליאוה ןיבורמה ןיב דיחי ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המלו [ ז-ו:
א הנשמ]
ונממ
לודג אהיש דע וריבח ןיד תיב ירבד תא לטבל לוכי ןיד תיב ןיאש וילע ךומסיו דיחיה ירבד תא ןיד תיב
ורבד תא לטבל לוכי וניא המכחב אל לבא ןינימב ןיינימב אל לבא המכחב ונממ לודג היה ןיינימבו המכחב
ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד תא ןיריכזמ המל ןכ םא הדוהי 'ר
'מא
[ ז]
. ןיינימבו המכחב ונממ לודג אהיש דע
. התעמש 'לפ
שיא ירבדמ ול ורמאו לבוקמ ינא ךכ םדא רמאי םאש ןלטבל
ןלטבל אלא ןיבורמה ןיב דיחיה ירבד ורכזוה אל ןיבורמה ירבדכ הכלה םלועל
[ a1:4]
העש ןהל ךרצית אמש אלא ןיבורמה ןיב דיחי ירבד ורכזוה אל 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
[ b1:4]
ןהילע וכמסיו
'מא
הזו אמט 'מוא
הזש ךותמ אלא םיבורמה ןיב דיחי ירבד ורכזוה אל 'מוא
'מכחו
[ c1:4]
: התעמש רזעילא 'ר
ירבדכ ול ורמא רזעילא 'ר
ירבדכ אמט 'מא
הז רוהט
אל ול רהיטו םכחל לאשנ רחא םכחל לאשי אל ול אמיטו דחא םכחל לאשינ [ 1:5]
םכח שי םא רהטמ דחאו אמטמ דחא ריתמ דחאו 'סוא
דחא םינש ויה רחא םכחל לאשי
ירבדמ
רבד 'מוא
החרק ןב עשוהי 'ר
רימחמה רחא ןיכלוה ואל םאו ול ןילאשנ רחא
: לקימה רחא ןיכלוה םירפוס ירבדמ רימחמה רחא ןיכלוה הרות
בורמ איווגה ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ללה תיבו השולשמ ןיב םינשמ ןיב םימצעה ןמ תומצעה עבור 'וא
ימש תיב [ בי-ח:
א הנשמ]
האמוטב ןיליכאמו הרהטב םיפשו
םירוש 'וא
ימש תיב המורת ינשרכ [ ט]
. דחא םצעמ וליפא 'מוא
ימש ןיינימה בורמ וא ןייניבה
עלס ערופה [ י]
. האמוטב ןהישעמ לכ 'וא
'ביקע
'ר
דירצ ולכאי 'וא
ימש האמוטב ןיליכאמו םיפשו הרהטב םירוש 'וא
ללה תיבו
ףסכ ןיללחמ ןיא 'וא
ריאמ 'ר
תועמ לקשו ףסכ לקש 'וא
ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכ 'וא
ימש תיב םלשוריב יניש רשעמלש תועממ
לקש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תועמ עלסה לכב 'וא
ימש תיב םלשוריב יניש רשעמלש עלס טרופה [ אי]
. ןיריתמ 'מכחו
ףסכה
לע תורפו
ףסכ תיעבירבו ףסכ ןירניד השלשב 'וא
הביקע 'רו
תועמ רנידבו ףסכ ןירניד השלשב 'וא
'מכח
ינפל םינדה תועמ לקשו ףסכ
תיב ויופח ולטינש הלכלש אסכ [ בי]
. הדגנכ לכאויו תונחב הניחיני
'וא
ימש ףסכ ירפסא תעברא 'וא
ןופרט 'רו
תועמ תיעיברבו
ימש ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש תיב הבירעב ועבקש אסכ אמט אסכלש ןיבלמ ףא 'מוא
ימש ןירהטמ ללה תיבו ןימטמ ימש
. הב יושעה ףא 'וא
תמ הרמאו םיה תנידממ תאבש השאה ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזחש ןירבד ולא [ גי:
א הנשמ]
ימש תיב ןהל ורמא דבלב ריצקה ןמ האבב אלא ונעמש אל 'וא
ללה תיבו םביתית ילעב תמ אשנית ילעב
ורזח הווהב אלא ריצקב ורביד אל םיה תנידממ האבה תחאו ןיתיזה ןמ האבה תחאו ריצקה ןמ האבה תחא
. ימש תיב ירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב
התאב םלועב םולשו הניבל וניב םולש םיה תנידמל הלעבו איה הכלהש השאה [ a1:6]
וניב ןיביר םלועב המחלמו הניבל וניב םולש םבייתת ילעב תמ אשנית ילעב תמ הרמאו
םיעורק הידגבש ןיב הכוב הניאש ןיב הכוב ןיב ילעב תמ הרמאו התאב םלועב םולשו הניבל
הכוב התאב ןכ םא אלא תנמאנ הניא םלועל 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
תנמאנ ןיעורק הידגב ןיאש ןיב
אשנית אל תחקיפ התיה אלש וזו אשנית תחקיפ התייהש וז ןכ םא ול ורמא ןיעורק הידגבו
737

לכ אלהו יאמש תיב ןהל ורמא דבלב ריצקה ןמ אבה אלא ונעמש אל 'מוא
לליה תיבו [ b1:6]
אצי ריצב אבו םיטיח ריצק אצי ןיטיח ריצק אבו םירועש ריצק אצי ריצק הנשה תומי
ריצק הנשה תומי לכ ואצמנ קיסמ אבו ריצבה
תיב ןהל ורמא הבותכ לוטית אלו אשנית 'וא
ללה תיבו הבותכ לוטיתו אשנית 'מוא
ימש תיב [ די:
א הנשמ]
םיחאה ןיאש וניצמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא לקה ןוממה תא וריתת אלו הרומחה היירעה תא םתרתיה ימש
רחאל אשנת םאש הל בתוכ אוהש דמלנ התבותכ רפסמ אלהו ימש תיב ןהל ורמא היפ לע הלחנב םיסנכינ
. ימש תיב ירבדכ תודהל ללה תיב ורזח ךיל בותכש המ ילטית
יאמש תיב ןהל ורמא היפ לע הלחנל םיסנכנ ןיחאה ןיאש וניצמ לליה תיב ןהל ורמא [ c1:6]
ךיתבותכב בותכש המ ילט רחאל אשניתו יסיפתתשכל הב בותכש דומלנ התבותכ רפסמ
: יאמש תיב ירבדכ תורוהל לליה תיב
ורזחו יאצו
'מוא
ימש תיב ללה תיב ירבדכ דחא םוי ומצע תאו דחא םוי ובר תא דבוע םירוח ןב ויצחו דבע ויצחש ימ [ וי-הי:
א הנשמ]
הייריפל אלא םלועה ארבינ אל אלהו לטבי לוכי וניא םירוח תב לוכי וניא החפש אשיל םתנקית אל ומצע תאו ובר תא םתנקית
וימד יצח לע רטש בתוכו םירוח ןב ותוא השועו ובר תא ןיפוכ םלועה ןוקית ינפמ אלא הרצי תבשל הארב והת אל 'נש
הייבירו
םילכאה לע אלא ליצמ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב ללה תיב ירבדכ לכה לע ליצמ סרח ילכ [ וי]
. ימש תיבירבדכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח
אמט ילכ ןיאו ץראה םע בג לע אמט אוהש ינפמ ימש תיב ןהל ורמא המ
ינפמ ללה תיב ןהל ורמא סרח ילכ לעו םיקשמה לעו
ומצעל וכותבש םיקשמו םילכא ונרהיטשכ ימש תיב ןהל ורמא וכותבש ןיקשמו םילכא םתרהיט אלהו ללה תיב ןהל ורמא ץצוח
. ימש תיב ירבידכ תודוהל ללה תיב ורזח ולו ךל התרהיט ילכה תא התרהיטשכ לבא ונרהיט
[ ד-א:
ב הנשמ]
רשבה םע האמוטה דלווב אמטינש רשבה תא ףורשלמ וענמינ אל םינהכ לש םהימימ םירבד העברא דיעה םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
תא קילדהלמ וענמינ אל םינהכלש םהימימ הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה [ ב]
. ותאמוט לע האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא האמוטה באב אמטינש
יימימ םינהכה ןגס היננח 'ר
'מא
[ ג]
. ותאמוט לע האמוט ול ןיפיסומ יפ לע ףא תמ אמטב
אמטינש רנב םוי לובטיב לספינש ןמשה
ורועב םינהכה ותואיש הפירט אצמינו רוכבה תא שיטפמהש ונדמל וירבדמ הביקע 'ר
'מא
הפירשה תיבל אצוי רוע יתיאר אל
היהו דחא ןקז וב היהו 'שורי
דצב היהש ןטק
רפכ לע דיעה אוה ףא [ ד]
. הפירשה תיבל אצי אלא היאר וניאר אל ןה 'מוא
'מכחו
תא תבתוכ השאהש דמל התא ךכרד יפל וריתיהו ןימכח ינפל השעמ אבו ןימתוח ןירחאו ודי בתכב בתוכו רפכה ינב לכל הוולמ
אמט רשבהו תורוהט םידייהו ןיכסהש רשבב תאצמינש טחמה לעו וימתוחב אלא טגה םויק ןיאש ורבוש תא בתוכ שיאהו הטיג
. רוהט לכה שרפב תאצמינ
םאו
םיברה תושרב עדרפצהו ץרשה ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ אביקע 'ר
םירבד השש [ 1:7]
ץראה ןמ שוג הליבנה ןמ םצעו תמה ןמ םצע הליבנה ןמ תיזכו תמה ןמ תיזכ ןכו
אמט דחא ןיליבש ינש םימעה ץראמ שוג הרהט ץראמ שוג סרפה תיבמ שוג הרהט
'מכחו
אמטמ אביקע 'ר
תוקיפס השש ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ אביקע 'ר
רוהט דחאו
ינשמ תומצע עבור םיתמ ינשמ םד תיעיבר םיתמ ינשמ תלוגלוגהו הרדשה ןירהטמ
: ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ אביקע 'ר
םיתמ ינשמ יחה ןמ רבא םיתמ
איהש המורתלש קרי יבג לע הנותנ איהש הפורט הציב לע הנבויב םרכב 'מכח
ינפל לאעמשי 'ר
'מא
ןירבד השלש [ ה:
ב הנשמ]
םאו תיבה לעב-לש
ירה המקה םע תרצקנ םא המקל עיגמ השארו ריצקבש תלובש לעו רוביח הניאו עבוכ ןימכ התיה םאו רוביח
אל ואל םאו ערזית ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ ןכימ ולסו רצוב אולמ הב שי םא סירע תפקומ איהש הנטק הנג לעו םיינעלש ירה ואל
.
ערזית
738

שפימה הייתמ ןב עשוהי ןשרפו רתהו רוסא םהב רמא אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
ינפל ורמא ןירבד השלש [ ו:
ב הנשמ]
אלש קסעתמכ םא תבשב שחנ דצה רוטפ החל הנממ איצוהל םאו בייח הפ הל תושעל םא תבשב הסרומ
. ןתכאלמ הרמגינ אלש ינפמ תורוהט ןהש תוינורא םיספל לעו בייח האופרל םאו רוטפ וניכשיי
ןב עשוהי ןשריפו רתיהו רוסיא ןהל 'מא
אלו לאעמשי 'ר
ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש [ 1:8]
בייח ןישוע םיאפורהש ךרדכ הפ הל תושעל וא הפלוקל םא תבשב אסרומ סיפימה איתמ
: רוטפ החל הנממ איצוהל םא
דועבמ ןקסירש תולילמהו רשובהו םושה אביקע 'ר
ול הדוה אלו 'אעמשי
'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש [ ז:
ב הנשמ]
. רומגי אל 'מוא
הביקע 'רו
ךשחתשמ רומגי 'וא
לאעמשי 'רש
םוי
'רו
ךשחתשמ רומגי
'מוא
לאעמשי 'ר
םוי דועבמ ןקסירש תולילמהו רסובהו םושה[
1:9]
: לאעמשי 'ר
ירבדכ וגהנ םינהכ לבא רומגי אל 'מוא
אביקע
'ר
םשמ םינש עשוהי
'ר
םשמ דחאו רזעילא 'ר
םשמ םינש הביקע 'ר
ינפל ורמא ןירבד השלש [ ח:
ב הנשמ]
הדלוחה יפב ץרשה עשוהי 'ר
םשמ דחאו תודעה ןמ ןילוספ םינוי יחירפמו בהז לש ריעב השא אוי רזעילא
. רוהט וקיפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס המורתלש תורכיכ יבג לע תכלהמו
עשוהי 'ר
םושמ דחאו 'עילא
'ר
םושמ םינש אביקע 'ר
ינפל ורמא םירבד השלש [ 1:10-12]
: הרהט אלו האמוט אל לוספ אלו רשכ אל רתיה אלו רוסיא אל ןהל 'מא
אלו
'ר
רתיה אלו רוסיא אל הב 'מא
אלו בהז לש ריעב תאצל אוהמ השא רזעילא 'ר
םושמ םינש
: ןירסא 'מכחו
ריתמ 'זעילא
'מכחו
רישכמ 'זעילא
'רו
לוספ אלו רשכ אל ןהב 'מא
אלו תודעל ןה המ םינוי יחירפמ
: ןילסופ
עגנ קפס המורת לש תורככ יבג לע תכלהמ הדלוחו הדלוח יפב ץרשה עשוהי 'ר
םושמ דחא
: רוהט קפס אמט יאדו 'מוא
'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'רו
רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
עגנ אל קפס
אוהש ןידיס לש לדנס לע ול ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוה םינש לע הביקע 'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש [ ט:
ב הנשמ]
םינש ולטינש אסכ לע ול ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוהו השלש 'מוא
ויהש העברא
רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ הביקע 'רש
הז דצב הז ויופחמ
ול ודוה השלש ןירמוא ויה הנושארבש העברא וירישו העברא ותליחתש רונת [ a1:13]
ודוה אלו
תבשב וב ןיאצויו וב תצלוח השאו סרדמ אמטש ןידייס לשו ץע לש לדנס [ b1:13]
: ול
אוהש ןידיס לש לדנס לע ול ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוה םינש לע הביקע 'ר
'מא
םירבד השלש [ י:
ב הנשמ]
םינש ולטינש אסכ לע ול ודוה אל דחא לעו ול ודוהו השלש 'מוא
ויהש העברא רונת יריש לעו סרדמ אמט
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ הביקע 'רש
הז דצב הז ויופחמ
ןבל הכוז באה םירבד השמחב הדגה ןימכ ןשרוד אביקע 'ר
היה םירבד השמח [ 1:14-15]
ויהש וניצמ ןכיה אביקע 'ר
ןהל 'מא
ומצעל הכוז ךליאו ןאכימ ול הכוז קרפה דע 'מוא
'מכחו
וחקפתנ קרפה עיגהשכו קרפה דע ןישרח ויהשו וטשפתנ קרפה עיגהשכו קרפה דע ןירגח
ואל ול ורמא העש התוא דע ול הכוז ךאיה וחתפתנ קרפה עיגהשכו קרפה דע ןימוס ויהשו
ורמא העש התוא דע ול הכוז ךאיה וחקפתנ קרפה עיגהשכו קרפה דע ןיטשופ ויהש וניצמ יכ
קרפה דע ןיחקיפ ויהשכו ורגחתנ קרפה עיגהשכו קרפה דע ןיטשופ ויהש וניצמ יכ אל ול
739

ףא ץקה וינבל תורודה רפסמ דבלב העש התוא דע ול הכוז ןיא אה ומתסנ קרפה עיגהשכו
ארוק 'אנש
תורודל אלא הנומ וניא אלא םוקמה ינפל הרעשה טוחכ תולילהו םימיהש יפ לע
ובושי יעיבר רודו 'נש
הנש תואמ עברא םתוא ונעו םודבעו 'נש
יפ לע ףא שארמ תורוד
: הנה
תא ול ןימילשמ הכז םדא לכ ראשו תורוד ינש וליא אלמא ךימי רפסמ תא 'מוא
אוה ירה
אל ויתונש לע ול ןיפיסומ הכז 'מוא
'מכחו
אביקע 'ר
ירבד ןהמ ול ןיתחופ הכז אל ויתונש
הנש הרשע שמח ךימי לע יתפסוהו 'מוא
אוה ךאיה אביקע 'רל
ול ורמא ןהמ ול ןיתחופ הכז
והישאי דוד תיבל דלונ ןב הנה 'מוא
אוה ירה אביקע 'ר
ןהל 'מא
ול ופיסוה ולשמ ןהל 'מא
אל אלהו היקזחמ דוד תיבל דלונ ןב הנה רמאנ יכו ול ורמא םלועל אב
אל השנמ ןיידעו ומש
: דוד לכ תיבמ ןיבו היקזחמ ןיב דוד תיבל דלונ ןב הנה אלא 'מאנ
שדוח רשע םינש בויא טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש לובמה רוד טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש לש ןירבד השמח 'מוא
אוה ףא [ אי:
ב הנשמ]
היהו 'נש
שדוח רשע םינש םניהיגב םיעשר טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש אובל דיתעל גוג טפשמ שדוח רשע םינש םירצמה טפשמ
. ותבשב תבש ידמו 'נש
תרצע דע חספה ןמ 'וא
ירונ ןב ןנחוי 'ר
ושדחב שדוח ידמ
ינשכב עגונה דציכ ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
תיבה ךותל ןסינכהו וקלחנש להאב םימטימה לכ [ ד-א:
ג הנשמ]
ליהאמו וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחכו תיז יצחכב עגונ וא תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמו תיז יצחכב עגונה תמבו ןאשונ וא הליבנה ןמ ןיתיז יאצח
עיגונה לבא [ ב]
. ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב אסוד 'ר
וילע ליהאמ תיז יצחו תייז יצחכ דע ליהאמו םיתיז יאצח ינשכ לע
ריאמ 'ר
'מא
רוהט תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכ לע ליהאמ וא תיז יצחכ לע וילע ליהאמ רחא רבדו תיז יצחכב
אמט דחא םשמ אוהש לכ ללכה הז להא םע אשמהו עגמה ןמ ץוח אמט לכה ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ סניכרא ןב הסוד 'ר
הזב ףא
אסוד 'ר
ירבד ןומיסא לע ינש רשעמ ןיללחמ
ףרטצמ 'מוא
'כחו
אסוד 'ר
'בד
ףרטצמ וניא דורפ לכוא [ ג]
. רוהט תומש ינשמ
קרי תבינקו חיטבא יעמ [ ד]
. ופוג אמטינ וידי ואמטינ םא 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
'בד
תאטחל םיידי ןיליבטמ ןירסוא 'מכחו
. םירסוא 'מכחו
םירזל ריתמ אסוד 'ר
המורתלש
שמח
'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד
'ר
'רבד
זגה תישארב תובייח סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג תוליחר שמח [ ה:
ג הנשמ]
. ןהש לכ תוזזוג תוליחר
זגה תישארב תובייח םיעלס שמחו םיעבש ןהש סרפו הנמ הנמ תוזזוג םילחר שמח [ a1:16]
ןהש לכ תוזזוג תוליחר שמח 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד
ץוח 'מוא
'מכחו
התפילקכו הומכ ןילכוא הציבכ 'מוא
אסוד 'ר
'מוא
ןתנ 'ר
[ b1:16]
: התפילקמ
'ר
'רבד
ןוליגליג לשמ ץוח תורוהט תועילקה לכ סרדמ 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד תמ אמט תואמט תולצוחה לכ [ ז-ו:
ג הנשמ]
רהטמ סניכרא ןב אסוד 'ר
רועלשו האמט גירא הלש לוביק תיב-לש
עלקה [ ז]
. םירמצ לשמ ץוח תואמט םלוכ 'וא
'מכחו
אסוד
. האמט הלש עוקפה
תיבו הרוהט הלש עבצא תיב קספינ םימטמ 'מכחו
תלכוא הניאש היובש שיו תלכוא היובש שי 'מוא
'מכחו
אסוד 'ר
ירבד המורתב תלכוא היובשה [ ח:
ג הנשמ]
הניא ינא הרוהט תרמוא איהו תבשינש םידע שי םא תלכוא ינא הרוהטו יתבשינ הרמאש השאה דציכ
. תלכוא
'מוא
איהו תיבשנש םידע
שי םא תלכוא וז ירה ינא הרוהטו יתיבשנ הרמאש השאה [ 1:17]
:
תלכוא הניא ינא הרוהט
740

דמוע רוהטה רבוע רוהטהו דמוע אמטה דציכ ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
תוקיפס העברא [ ט:
ג הנשמ]
םיברה תושרב האמוטו דיחיה תושרב הרהט םיברה תושרב הרהטו דיחיה תושרב האמוט רבוע אמטהו
'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
טיסיה אל קפסו טיסיה קפס ליהאה אל קפס ליהאה קפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס
. ןירהטמ
רוהטה רבוע רוהטהו דמוע אמטה ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
תוקיפס עברא [ 1:18]
דיחיה תושרב הרהט םיברה תושרב הרהטו דיחיה תושרב האמוט רבוע רוהטהו דמוע
אל קפס טיסה קפס ליהאה אל קפס ליהאה קפס עגנ אל קפס עגנ קפס 'ברה
'שרב
האמוטו
: ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ עשוהי 'ר
טיסה
ב קרפ תוידע אתפסות
רזעילא 'ר
רוצרצ לש קורסמ ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
םירבד העברא [ 2:1]
רמסמב ועבקש םימותחנ לש ףד ריואב אמטמ 'מוא
'מכחו
ריואב אמטמ ןיא 'מוא
'ר
םומיאה לע לוענמ ןיאמטמ
'מכחו
רהטמ רזעילא 'ר
הרוקב וא שירמב רביחש
רזעילא 'ר
אילוחל אילוח ןיב לוח ןתנו תוילח וכתיח ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ רזעילא
: לארשיב תוקולחמ ובר וילעש יאנכע לש רונת ארקנ היהו ןיאמטמ 'מכחו
רהטמ
קודצ 'ר
תועש ןבא לש רמסמו תוסורגלש ןוראו ינחלושלש רמסמ ןירהטמ םימכחו אמטמ קודצ 'ר
ןירבד השלש [ די-י:
ג הנשמ]
תודרגמה יולתו םיתב ילעבלשו תכתמלש ינט יוסכ ןירהטמ 'כחו
אמטמ 'אילמג
ןבר ןירבד העברא [ אי]
. ןירהטמ 'מכחו
אמטמ
אמט לודגה ןטק דחאו לודג דחא םינשל הקלחנש הלבטב לאילמג ןברל 'כח
םידומ םינשל הקלחנש הלבטו תוכתמ ילכ ימלוגו
תא ןיפקוז ןיאו תבשל בוט םוימ םימחה תא ןינמוט ןיא ימש תיב ירבדכ רימחמ לאילמג ןבר ןירבד
השלש [ בי]
. רוהט ןטקהו
תוצירג ןתיפ תא ןיפוא ויה אל אבא תיבלש םהימימ לאילמג ןבר 'מא
םיקיקר אלא תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא ןיאו בוט םויב הרונמה
. ירחו תוצירג ןתיפ ןיפוא תויהל 'ארשי
לכ לע םילקמו
ןמצע לע ןירימחמ ויהש ךיבא תיבל םהל השענ המ ול ורמא םיקיקר אלא
'מכחו
םיחספ ילילב סלוקמ ידג ןישועו בוט םויב רמגימה תא םיחינמו תוטימה ןיב ןידבכמ לקהל ןירבד השלש 'מוא
אוה ףא [ גי]
בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמו הינרק ןיבש העוצרב אוי ותרפ ןירסוא 'מכחו
ריתמ הירזע ןב רזעל 'ר
ןירבד השלש [ די]
. ןירסוא
ןיפצרקמ לבא הרובח השוע אוהש ינפמ בוט םויב המהבה תא ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
הדוהי 'ר
ןהלש םייחירב ןילפליפה תא ןיקחושו
. ןיפצרקמ אל ףא ןידרקמ ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
לכאת 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב הדלונש הציב ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ולא [ א:
ד הנשמ]
. תייזכ הזו הז 'וא
ללה תיבו תבתוככ ץמחו תיזכ רואש 'מוא
ימש תיב לכאת אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו
לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד עבראו םירשע [ a2:2]
ונב תא רידמ םדא 'מוא
לליה תיבו ריזנב ונב תא רידמ םדא ןיא 'מוא
יאמש תיב [ b2:2]
ריזנב
המאו איה לכאית רזעילא 'ר
םושמ 'רמוא
םירחא בוט םויב הדלונש הציב [ 2:2]
רפע ול היה ןכ םא אלא טוחשי אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו הסכיו לקדב רופחי 'מוא
ימש תיב בוט םויב ףועו היח טחושה [ ה-ב:
ד הנשמ]
וניא 'וא
ללה תיבו רקבה םיינעל רקבה 'מוא
ימש תיב [ ג]
. ןכומ הריכה רפאש הסכיו לקדב רופחיש טחש םאש םידומ ןכומ
החכש וניא 'וא
ימש תיב וחיכשו םיבק תעברא -לש
תחא בק בק -לש
הדשה ירמוע לכ הטימשכ םירישעל ףא רקבויש דע רקבה
'מוא
ללה תיבו החכש וניא 'מוא
ימש תיב וחכשו םילכלו רקבלו שידגלו אפגל ךומס אוהש רמועה [ ד]
. החכש 'וא
ללה תיבו
תוללוע ול שיו טרפ ול שי 'מוא
ימש תיב ול שי 'מוא
ללה תיבו רועיב ול ןיאו
שמוח ול ןיא 'מוא
ימש תיב יעבר םרכ [ ה]
. החכש
.
תגל ולוכ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ןמצעל ןידופ םיונעו
741
c

םאש םידומו בקנל ךירצ 'וא
ללה תיבו בקנל ךירצ וניא 'וא
ימש תיב םילגלוגמ םיתיז לש תיבח [ ו:
ד הנשמ]
ףטנמ יפ לע ףא 'מוא
ימש תיב לבטו דריו אמטינו
רוהט ןמש ךסה הרוהט איהש םירמש אהומתסו הבקינ
ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
יימש תיב ותליחתמ אמט ןמש היה םא ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'וא
ללה תיבו רוהט
. חיפטמו חיפוט ללה תיב םשמ 'וא
הדוהי 'ר
חיפוט הקשמ 'וא
ללה תיבו
רוהט דרויו תתושש יפ לע ףא 'מוא
יאמש תיב לבטו דרי אמטנו רוהט ןמש ךסה [ d2:2]
רוהט ןכימ תוחפ אמט ןטק רבא תכיס ידכ 'מוא
לליה תיבו
לכאש ויתיאר תינרוחה ןב ןנחוי 'ר
לצא הרות דמל יתייהשכ קודצ 'רב
'זעלא
'ר
'מא
[ e2:2]
םיתיז ול יתכלוה םיתיז ול ךלוה יל 'מא
אבאל יתרמאו יתאב תורצב ינש ויהש הבירח ותיפ
ול 'מאו
אבאל ול 'רמאו
יתאב םיתיז לכוא יניא יל 'מאו
ןיחל ןהש ןארו ןהב לכתסהו ןלטנ
אוהש ךעידוהל םירמש הומתסש אלא לליה תיב ירבדכ התייה תבקונמ תיבח ול רומאו ךל
תיב ירבדכ אלא גהונ היה אל יאמש תיב ידימלתמ אוהש יפ לע ףאש הרהטב וילוח לכוא
: לליה
תיב ירמוחכ גוהנל ומצע לע רימחהל הצורהו לליה תיב ירבדכ הכלה םלועל [ 2:3]
יאמש תיב ילוק ספותה ךלוה ךשוחב ליסכה 'מאנ
הז לע לליה תיב ירמוחכו יאמש
תיב ירבדכ וא ןוהירמוחכו ןוהילוקכ יאמש תיב ירבדכ וא אלא עשר לליה תיב ילוקו
: ןוהירמוחכו ןוהילוקכ ללה
דחא הטורפ איה המכו הטורפ הושבו הטורפב 'וא
ללה
תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ 'ניד
הוושבו רנידב תשדקתמ השאה [ ז:
ד הנשמ]
טג אוה-הז-יאו
ןירסוא ללה תיבו ןשי טגב ותשא תא םדא אוה רטופ 'מוא
ימש תיב יקלטיאה רסאב הנומשמ
הכירצ הניא 'וא
ימש תיב יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה הל ובתכש רחאמ המיע דחיתינש לכ ןשי
ןמ השרגתינב ןידומו ןיאושנה ןמ השרגתינש ןמזב יתמא ינש טג ונממ הכירצ 'מוא
ללה תיבו ינש טג ונממ
. הב סג ובילש ינפמ ינש טג ונממ הכירצ הניאש םיסוראה
הנבמ לודג הטיג אהי אלש ןשי טגב ותשא תא רטופ םדא ןיא 'מוא
לליה תיב [ a2:4]
דחא םושל בתכו ןידמוע םיכלמ ינש ויהש וא תוניכראה םושל ןיכרפה םושל בתכ [ b2:4]
רשכ ומש לע ארקנ היה םאו לוספ החפשמ יבא םושל רשכ ויבא יבא םושל בתכ םהמ
הניאש יקדנופב ומע הנלו ותשא תא שרגמה לע וקלחנ אל רזעלא ןב 'עמש
'ר
'מא
[ c2:4]
לעבש לע וקלחנ המ לע יניש טג ונמיה הכירצ
תמ הנפומ דחאו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ ןהמ םינש ןיחא השלש ןירסוא ללה תיבו םיחאל תורצה תא ןיריתמ ימש תיב [ ח:
ד הנשמ]
תיבו השא תוחא םשמ אצת זלהו ומע ותשא 'מוא
ימש תיב ינשה ויחא תמ ךכ רחאו רמאמ הנפומ הב השע תויחא ילעבמ דחא
. ויחא תשא לע ול יאו ותשא לע ול יא ורמאש איה וז הצילחב ויחא תשא תאו הצילחו טגב ותשא תא איצומ 'וא
ללה
תלפמה תחא תבש 'מוא
ללה תיבו תותבש יתש 'מוא
ימש תיב הטמה שימשתמ ותשא תא רידמה [ י:
ד הנשמ]
תלכלכ ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תיציצב ןידס ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןברקה ןמ ןירטופ ימש תיב דחאו םינומשל רוא
ץראל אב ךכ רחאו ותוריזנ תא םילשמהו הבורמ תוריזנ רזנש ימ . ןיבייחמ ללה תיבו ןירטופ ימש תיב תבש
ולא ותוא תודיעמ םידיע יתיכ יתש ול ויהש ימ הליחתכ ריזנ 'וא
ללה תיבו םוי םישולש ריזנמ 'וא
ימש תיב
שי 'וא
ללה תיבו תוריזנ ןאכ ןיא תודעה הקלחנ 'וא
ימש תיב שמח רזנש םידיעמ ולאו םיתש רזנש םידיעמ
.
םיתש ריזנ אהיש םיתש שמח ללכב
742

תיבו הביקנ תדילכ תותבש יתש 'מוא
יאמש תיבש הטימה שימשתמ ותשא תא רדמה
[ d2:4]
הבותכ ןתיו איצוי ןכ לע רתוי התדינ ימיכו רכז תדילכ תחא תבש 'מוא
לליה
היה ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
ןיבייחמ לליה תיבו ןירטופ יאמש תיב תבש תלכלכ [ e2:4]
היה ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
רשעיש דע לכאי אל וריבחל חלשיש הלכלכ טקולה רסוא
רשעיש דע לכאי אל תבש יאצומל תבש ןהילע רבעו םוקמל םוקממ םיניאת ריבעמה רסוא
רסוא היה ומצע לליה 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
ימ לע לליה תיבו יאמש תיב וקלחנ אל הקורב ןב ןנחוי 'ר
לש ונב לאעמשי 'ר
'מא
[ f2:4]
ינש ויהש ימ לע וקלחנ המ לע ןהבש הנטקכ ריזנ אוהש
'וא
תודיעמ םידע יתיכ יתש ול ויהש
שי 'מוא
לליה תיבו תוריזנ ןאכ ןיאו ןתודע הקלחנ 'מוא
יאמש תיבש ותוא ןידיעמ םידע
: םיתש ריזנ אהיש םיתש שמח ללכב
ןוילעה
דצהו אוה לולח םדא 'מוא
ללה תיבו האמוטה תא איבמ וניא
743
'מוא
ימש תיב קדסה תחת ןותנ אוהש ןדא [ אי:
ד הנשמ]
. האמוטה תא איבמ
תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב תוליבנ םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הדוי 'ר
[ א:
ה הנשמ]
תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הרוסא ויאל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמינ הב אצויכ שי םא הלבנה תציב םימטמ לליה
ימש תיב תערוצמ לש הרהט םדו תירכנ םד רוסאב הלדגש ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפורט הציבב ןידומו ןירסוא ללה
ןיא 'מוא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ הבוטב אלשו הבוטב תיעיבש תוריפ ןילכוא הילגר ימימכו הקורכ 'וא
ללה תיבו ןירהטמ
. הרורצ הניאש יפ לע ףא 'וא
ללה תיבו תדמוע הרורצ 'וא
ימש תיב תמחה הבוטב אלשו הבוטב ןילכוא
תיב תיליבנה םד לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד השמח 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
[ a2:5]
ואמיט אל לליה תיב ואמיטשכ ףא הדוהי 'רב
יסוי 'ר
'א
ןירהטמ לליה תיבו ןיאמטמ יאמש
תיזכ וב אהי שרקי םאש תיעיבר וב שיש םדב אלא
תציב
לע וקלחנ המ לע רוסיאב הלדגש ינפמ הרוסא איהש הפירט הציבב םידומ [ b2:5]
ואל םאו תרתומ קושב תרכמנ ןהב אצויכ שי םא 'מוא
יאמש תיבו ןירסוא לליה תיבש הליבנ
: הרוסא
תיב לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ דחא רבד 'מוא
בקעי ןב רזעילא 'ר
[ 2:6]
דחא 'מוא
'מכחו
םיחבזה לכב תחא הנתמו תאטחב תורישכמ תונתמ ינש 'מוא
יאמש
: תלגפמו תרשכמ תחא הנתמ םיחבזה
לכ ראש דחאו תאטח
ירבדכ לכאנ וניאו ןחלושה לע הניבגה םיע הלוע ףועה ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השש 'וא
הסוי 'ר
[ ב:
ה הנשמ]
ןימרות ןיא 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב ירבדכ ןייה לע םיבנעו ןמשה לע ןיתיז ןימרות לכאנ אלו הלוע אל 'מוא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב
ללה תיב ןירטופ ימש תיב הסיעמה תורוש יתש שדיק 'וא
ללה תיבו תחא הרוש שדיק 'וא
ימש תיב םרכבש תומא עברא עירוזה
תא לכואו לבוט 'מוא
ימש תיב םיחספ ברע רייגתינש רג ןיליבטמ ןיא 'וא
ללה תיב ימש תיב ירבדכ תילדרחב ןיליבטמ ןיבייחמ
. רבקה ןמ שרופכ
הלרועה ןמ שרופה 'וא
ללה תיבו ברעל וחסיפ
םידייה תא אמטמ הניא תלהק ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד השלש 'וא
ןועמש 'ר
[ ג:
ה הנשמ]
ןימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ יימש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ םידייה תא אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו ימש תיב 'רבדכ
. תורשעמל ןכו
םימטמ ללה תיבו ןירהטמ ימש תיב חצקה
אמטמ ןיא תלהוק לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד השלש 'מוא
ןועמש
'ר
[ a2:7]
םידיה תא אמטמ
'מוא
לליה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד םידיה תא

ןב
ןיאמטמ לליה תיבו ןירהטמ יאמש תיב ןתוצמ ושעש תאטח ימ [ b2:7]
'עמש
'ר
וירבדכ הכלהו תעל תעמ 'מוא
רזעילא 'ר
הבז אהתו הפשת המכ השקמה [ c2:7]
: תעל תעמ 'מוא
לליה תיבו םימי השלש 'מוא
יאמש תיב ןועמש 'ר
םושמ 'מוא
הדוהי
'וא
ימש תיב הלבט אלש תדלוי םד ללה תיב ירמוחמו ימש תיב ילוקמ ןירבד ינש 'וא
רזעל 'ר
[ ד:
ה הנשמ]
. שביו חל אמטמ אוהש בוזב תדלויב ןידומו שביו חל אמטמ 'וא
ללה תיבו הילגר ימימכו הקורכ
אלש תדלויה םד לליה תיב ירמוחמו יאמש תיב ילוקמ םירבד ינש 'מוא
רזעילא 'ר
[ 2:8]
: שביו חל אמטמ 'מוא
לליה תיבו יאמש תיב ירבד שבי אמטמ וניאו חל אמטמ הדלי
תוצלוח ולא ירה תויחאה-תא
ןיאושנה ותמו תויחא יתשל ןיאושנ םהמ םינש םיחא העבראו [ ה:
ה הנשמ]
. ואיצוי 'מוא
ללה תיבו ומייקי ימש תיב םשמ 'וא
רזעל 'ר
ואיצוי וסנכו
ומדק םא תומביתמ אלו
וליא ירה תויחאה תא ןיאושנה ותמו תויחא יתש ןיאשונ ןהמ םינש םיחא עברא [ a2:9]
תיבו ומייקי 'מוא
יאמש תיב 'מוא
'זעלא
'ר
ואיצית וסנכו ומדק םאו תומבייתמ אלו תוצלוח
הז רבדב לליה תיבל ןהל היה לוק 'מוא
לואש אבא ומייקי
'מוא
'עמש
'ר
ואיצוי 'מוא
לליה
ןיד תיב בא ךשענו 'וא
התיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח היבקע ול ורמא םירבד העברא דיעה לאללהמ ןב היבקע [ ז-ו:
ה הנשמ]
. וב רזח
הררס ליבשב ןירמוא והי אלש םוקמה ינפל עשר תחא העש תושעל אלו ימי לכ הטוש תורקיל יל בטומ ןהל 'מא
'רשיל
וחיניהו רשנש םומ לעב רוכב רעש ריתמ היה אוה ןירהטמ 'מכחו
קוריה םדו הדוקפה רעש אמטמ היה אוה [ ז]
ןיקשמ 'וא
'מכחו
תררחושמ החפשה תא אלו תרויגה אל םיקשמ ןיא 'וא
היה אוה ןירסוא 'כחו
וטחש ךכ רחאו ןולחב
והודינו אהוקשיה אמגכיד ןהל 'מא
ןוילטבאו היעמש אהוקשהו םלשוריב התיהש תררחושמ החפש תימכרכב השעמ ול ורמא
. ונורא תא ןיד תיב ולקסו ויודינב תמו
וטחשו ןכימ 'חאל
םומ וב דלונש יפ לע ףא ןילחב וחינהו םת רוכבמ רמצ שלותה [ b2:9]
'מכחו
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקע 'ר
תמ ךכ רחאו ונמיה שלתש םומ לעב רוכב רבקי הז ירה
רחאו ונמיה שלתו אמטנש לע וקלחנ המ לע רוסאש הזב היבקע הדומ הדוהי 'ר
רמא ןירסוא
רתומש הזב אתפלח 'ר
הדומ יסוי 'ר
'מא
ןירסוא 'מכחו
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקעש וטחש ךכ
אהי וטחש םאו רוסא אהי תמ םאש הוקתשי אמש ןילחב הוחיניי 'מכח
ורמא דוחייב לבא
'מכחו
ריתמ לאללהמ ןב היבקעש תמ ךכ רחאו ונמיה שלתו אמטינש לע וקלחנ המ לע רתומ
: ןירסוא
היבקעכ אטח תואריבו המכחב 'ארשימ
ןדא לכ לע תלענינ הרזעה ןיאש הדנתינ היבקעש םולשו סח הדוהי 'ר
'מא
[ ט-ח:
ה הנשמ]
לכש
דמלל ונורא לע ןבא וחיניהו ןיד תיב וחלש תמשכו םיידי תרהטב קפקיפש ךנה ןב רזעילא תא ודינ ימ תאו לאללהמ ןב
אל המל-התאו
ול 'מא
'וא
יתיהש ןירבד העבראב ךב רוזח ינב ונבל 'מא
ותתימ תעשבו [ ט]
. ונורא תא ןילקוס תמו הדונמה
התעמש התא לבא ןתעומשב ודמע ןהו יתעומשב לע יתדמע ינא ןיבורמ יפמ ועמש ןהו ןיבורמ יפמ יתעמש ינא ול 'מא
ךב התרזח
יניא ול 'מא
ךריבחל ילע דקפ אבא ול 'מא
ןיבורמה ירבד-תא
זוחאלו דיחיה ירבד תא חינהל בטומו ןיבורמה יפמו דיחיה יפמ
. ךוקחרי ךישעמו ךובירקי ךישעמ ואל ול 'מא
יב התאצמ הלווע המש דקפמ
לוגנרת לקסינשו דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמשו תונטקה תא םינאממש ןירבד השמח דיעה אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
[ ד-א:
ו הנשמ]
[ ב]
. תועש עבראב ברקש רחשלש דימת לעו חבזמה יבג לע ךסנתינש םוי םיעברא ןב ןייה לעו שפנה תא גרהש לע
םלשוריב
. יחה ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל 'וא
רזעילא יברש אמט אוהש תמה ןמ רבא לע ילבבה רפכ שיא ןתנלא ןב הימחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה
שרופה רבא אהיש ןיד וניא אמט אוהש תמה אמט ונממ שרופה רבא
רוהט אוהש יחה םא המ אוה רמוחו לק אלהו ול ורמא [ ג]
בשומו בכשמ השוע יחהש םיתמה תאמוטמ םייחה תאמוט הבורמ רחא רבד [ ד]
. יחה ןמ רבא אלא ורמא אל ןהל 'מא
אמט ונממ
.
אמטמ תמה ןיאש המ ןיקשמו ןילכא אמטל ףדמ ויבג לע םידגב אמטל םדא אמטל ויתחתמ
744

םצע םירהטמ הינוחנ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
אמטמ רזעילא 'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ [ אי-ה:
ו הנשמ]
רזעילא 'רל
ול ורמא [ ו]
. םירהטמ עשוהי 'רו
רזעילא 'רו
אמטמ הינוחנ 'ר
יחה ןמ רביאמ שרופה הרועסכ
תיזכ תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה ןמ רבאש ונאיצמ ןהל 'מא
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ אמטל התיאר המ
תייזכ התאמוט םא אל ול 'מא
אמט יהי ונממ שרופה רשב תייזכ יחה ןמ רבא ףאו אמט ונממ שרופה
רשב
ןכש יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשב תייזכ אמטת ונממ שרופה הרועסכ םצע התאמיט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה רשב
רבאמ
שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטל התיאר המ הינוחנ 'רל
ול ורמא [ ח]
. ונממ שרופה הרועסכ םצע התרהט
יחה ןמ רבא ףאו אמט ונממ שרופה הרועשכ םצע תמה המ םלש תמכ יחה ןמ רבאש וניצמ ןהל 'מא
יחה ןמ
התאמט ןכש תמה ןמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע התאמיט םא אל ול ורמא אמט יהי ונממ שרופה הרועשכ םצע
. ונממ שרופה רשב תייזכ התרהיט ןכש יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע אמטת ונממ שרופה רשב תיזכ
תאמוט הבורמ ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב רהט וא ןהינשב אמט וא ךתדימ קולחל התיאר המ 'זעילא
'רל
ול ורמא [ ט]
וילע שיש רביא רחא רבד תומצעב ןכ ןיאש המ םיצרשבו תוליבנב גהונ רשבהש תומצעה תאמוטמ רשבה
המ היינוחנ 'רל
ול ורמא [ י]
. רוהט םצע רסח אמט רשבה רסח להאבו אשמבו עגמב אמטמ יוארכ רשב
רשבה תאמוטמ תומצעה תאמוט הבורמ ןהל 'מא
ןהינשב רהט וא ןהינשב אמט וא ךתדימ קולחל התיאר
עגמב אמטמ רשב תייזכ רחא רבד אמט ותייריבכ אוהו ונממ שרופה רביאו רוהט יחה ןמ שרופה רשבהש
יפ לע ףא תומצע עבור רסח רוהט רשב רסח להאבו אשמבו עגמב םימטמ תומצע עבורו להאבו אשמבו
ונייניב בור רוהט תיזכמ תוחפ אוהש תמה רשב לכ רחא רבד אשמבו עגמב אמטמ להאב אמטלמ רהטש
'מא
ןהינשב רהטל תיאר המ עשוהי 'רל
ול ורמא [ אי]
. םיאמט עבור ןהב ןיאש יפ לע ףא תמלש וניינימ בור
. בקרו עבורו בור
וב ןיאש ייחב ורמאת בקרו עבורו בור וב שיש תמב םתרמא םא אל ןהל
רזעילא 'ר
תא ובישה 'ר
'מא
אמטמ רזעילא 'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה רשבה תיזכ [ 2:10]
בור וב ןיאש יחה ןמ רבאב רמאת בקה עבור בור וב שיש תמב תרמא םא אל תובושת שלש
רבאב יולת רשבה רבאב יולת רשב וא רשבב יולת רבא ימב יולת ימ רחא רבד בקה עבור
םא ינא הימת ןועמש 'ר
'מא
רוהט אהי רבאו להאב אשמבו עגמב אמטמ רשבהש רשפיא
עגמב ןיאמטמ הזו הז והיש ידכ יוארכ רשב רבאב שיש ןמזב אלא אמיט אל 'עילא
'ר
אמיט
אינוחנ 'ר
תא ובישה אמטמ אינוחנ 'ר
יחה ןמ רבאמ שרופה הרועשכ םצע להאב אשמבו
בור וב ןיאש יחה ןמ רבאב רמאת
בקה עבור בור וב שיש תמב תרמא םא אל תובושת שלש
אמטמ םצע רשפיא םצעב יולת רבא וא רבאב יולת םצע ימב יולת ימ רחא רבד בקה עבור
שיש ןמזב אלא אמיט אל אינוחנ 'ר
אמיט םא ינא הימת ןועמש 'ר
'מא
רוהט אהי רבאו עגמב
ירבד לע עשוהי 'רל
בישה אשמבו עגמב ןיאמטמ הזו הז והיש ידכ םצע הרועשכ רבאב
ןמ רבא ןירוהט ונממ ןישרפמה רשבו םצע םיעבראו םיתאמ וב שיש יחה םא המו םהינש
ןירוהט והיש ןיד וניא ונממ ןישרופמה רשבו םצע הנומשו םיעבראו םיתאמ וב ןיאש יחה
רמאת רוהט רבדמ ןישרופ ןכש יחה ןמ ןישרופ תרמא םא אל עשוהי 'ר
ירבד לע 'ר
בישה
: אמט רבדמ שריפ ןכש יחה ןמ רבאב
שמחכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח 'וא
'זעילא
745
ג קרפ תוידע אתפסות
'רש
םולכ ןהכל ןאכ ןיאש תמש רומח רטפ ןוידיפ לע קודצ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ א:
ז הנשמ]
. יניש רשעמ ןוידיפכ ותוירחאב ןיבייח ןיא 'וא
'מכחו
ןבלש םיעלס
םע ושבכינש םיאמט םיבגח הנושאר הנש ימש רוהט אוהש םיאמט ןיבגח רצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה [ ב:
ז הנשמ]
.
ןריצ תא ולספ אל םירוהט ןיבגח

המורת ילכואל רתומו רוהט אוהש ןיאמט םיבגח ריצ לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה [ a3:1]
'מכח
ינפל השעמ אבו אייליפה תריבב היה השעמ ןירישכ ןהש םיפטונה לע וברש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה [ ו-ג:
ז הנשמ]
תיזגה תכשילל השעמ אבו איילהאב היה השעמ ןירישכ ןהש זוגא ילעב ןחליקש םילחוזה לע קודצ 'ר
דיעה [ ד]
. ורישכהו
'ר
דיעה רהטמ 'זעילא
'רש
אמט אוהש ץרשה יבג לע ונתנש תאטחלש ללק לע דידח שיא םיקי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ ה]
. ורישכהו
םוי רסח םישש םוי חליג םאו םישש םוי היינשה תא חילגמ םישלש םוי הנושארה תא חליג םאש תויריזנ יתש רזנש ימ לע סיפפ
דלוו 'וא
'זעילא
'רש
םימלש ברקיש םימלש דלוו לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ ו]
. ןינמה ןמ הלוע םישלש םויש אצי דחא
הדלוו ונלכאו חספב אהונלכאו םימלש יחבז הרפ ונל התיהש דיעמ ינא סיפפ 'ר
'מא
ברקי 'מוא
'מכחו
'מלש
ברקי אל םימלש
. גחב םימלש
וכתיחש רונת לע ודיעה ןהו רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
תואמט ןהש םימותחנ לש תובורא לע ודיעה ןה [ ח-ז:
ז הנשמ]
ויהש רדא לכב הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה רהטמ רזעילא 'רש
אמט אוהש איילוחל איילח ןיב לוח ןתנו תוילח
היירוסבש ןומגיהמ תושר לוטיל ךלהש 'אילמג
ןברב השעמ [ ח]
. יינת
לע הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה ןה םירופה דע ןירמוא
. תרבועמ הנשה אצמנו ינא הצור ןהל 'מא
אבשכו 'אילמג
ןבר הצרייש יינת לע הנשה תא ורביעו אובל אהשו
ועבקשו הרוקב וא שירמב ורביחש ןימותחנ לש ףד לע סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ b3:1]
אמט אוהש םידומ לכה וכרצ לכ ועבק אל םאו רהטמ
רזעילא 'רו
אמט אוהש רמסמב
'ר
אבש דע םירופה דע 'מוא
ויה הנושארבש רדא לכ הנשה תא ןירבעמש ודיעה םה [ c3:1]
רוביעל רשכ רדא לכש ודיעהו סייפפ 'רו
עשוהי
רוהט אוהש םיעבצ -לשו
אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש -לש
ארויה ףסומ לע ייגנס ןב םחנמ דיעה [ ט:
ז הנשמ]
'ארשי
תב הנטק לעו טגב אוי איהש היבא האישיהש תשרחה לע הדגדוג ןב ןנחוי 'ר
דיעה ןירבדה ףוליח 'מוא
ויהש
תאטחה לעו וימד תא ןתיש הריבב ואנבש לוזגה שירמה לעו השרוי הלעב התימ םאו המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש
. חבזמה ןוקית ינפמ תרפכמ איהש םיברל העדונ אלש הלוזגה
לש לעו אמט אוהש םיתיז יקלוש לש הרוי ףסומ לע עבצוהש יאגנוס ןב םחנמ דיעה [ d13:1]
םירבדה ףוליח 'מוא
ויה הנושארבש רוהט אוהש םיעבצ
לכל שאר יניא םא ךכו ךכ ןהל 'מא
לכה וילע ןיהימת ויה הבישיב והובישוהשכו [ d23:1]
: יירחא םיאבה
עגנש תאטחה רפא לע הריתב ןב ןועמש 'ר
דיעה רוהט אוהש תולבנ
םד לע אריתב ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ א:
ח הנשמ]
. םלוכ תא לספש ןתצקימב םוי לובט עגנש םילחגהו הנובלה תרוטקהו תלוסה הביקע 'ר
ףיסוה ולוכ תא אמיטש ותצקימב אמט
ןירחונ הריתפ ןב ןועמש 'מא
רוהט אוהש תוליבנ םד לע הריתפ ןב עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ a3:2]
ושח אלו םהיתובוכר דע םדב ןיעיקפמ םילגר ילוע ויהו ךלמ לש תיטרטסיאב
תורדע ויה
האמוט םושמ םהל
המורתב תלכוא איהש ןהכל תאשינש 'שי
תב הנטק לע ןהכה הדוהי 'רו
אבא ןב הדוהי 'ר
דיעה [ ב:
ח הנשמ]
ןולקשאב הנח רוהש תקונית לע בצקה ןב הירכז 'רו
ןהכה ףסוי 'ר
דיעה הלעבינ אלש יפ לע ףא הפוחל הסנכינש ןויכ
ונימאה הנחרוהש םתא םינימאמ םא 'מכח
ןהל ורמא האמטינ אלשו ארתסינ אלש התוא ןידיעמ הידיעו החפשמה ינב אהוקחירו
. הנח רוהש ונימאת לא האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש ןינימאמ םתא ןיא םאו האמטינ אלשו הרתסינ אלש
תאשינש [ לארשי=
אניוו י"
כ]
ןהכ תב לע ןהכה הדוהי 'רו
אבב ןב הדוהי 'ר
דיעה [ b3:2]
'ר
היה ןכו לעבית 'מוא
'זעילא
'רש
הלעבנ אלש יפ לע ףא הפוחל הסנכנש ןויכש ןהכל
לידגתש דע השא ןהכ אשי אל
'מוא
'זעילא
746

הרישכ הסיעה הנוהכל הרישכ איהש הסיע תנמלא לע הריתב ןב עשוהי 'רו
עשוהי 'ר
דיעה [ ג:
ח הנשמ]
אלש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןבר רזגו השענ המ לבא ןכתודע ונלבוק 'אילמג
ןבר
'מא
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל
. ברקל אל לבא קחרל םכל ןיעמוש םינהכה ךכ לע ןיד תיב בישוהל
ברקלו קחרל ריתהלו רסאל רהטלו אמטל הסיע תנמאנ ורמא םהירחאלש ןיד תיב [ c3:2]
: ועגנ אל הסיע תנמלאב לבא
באסמ התימל ברקי ידו ןייכד הייחבטמ תיב הקשמ לעו יכד הייצימק לייא לע הדירצ שיא רזעוי ןב הסוי 'ר
דיעה [ ד:
ח הנשמ]
. איירש הסוי היל ןורקו
תומצעה לע עשוהי 'ר
דיעה דחא דע יפ לע השאה תא ןיאישמש ילדב תיב שיא הימחנ םשמ הביקע 'ר
דיעה [ ה:
ח הנשמ]
. רוהט לכה םצע םצע טקלמ 'מכח
ורמא םיצעה רידב ואצמינש
'מכח
ושקבו םיצעה רידב םלשוריב תומצע ואצמנש השעמ יאזע ןב ןועמש 'ר
'מא
[ a3:3]
יתימ היא וניתיב תא אמטנש המילכו ונל איה תשוב עשוהי 'ר
ןהל 'מא
םלשורי תא אמטל
אמט יאדו ורמא לבא וישכע דעו המחלמב וגרהנש םיגורה היא רצנדכובנ יגורה היא לובמ
רוהט קפס
ץוחבמ םינוב לכיהבש אלא תורזעל םיעלקו לכיהל םיעלק ןישוע לכיהב םינוב והיש יתעמש רזעילא
'ר
'מא
[ ו:
ח הנשמ]
יפ לע ףא ןישדק ישדק ןילכואו תיב ןיאש יפ לע ףא ןיבירקמש יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
םינפבמ םינוב תורזעבו
השדיקו
התעשל השדיק הנושאר השודקש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא ינש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש
. אובל דיתעל
ףא םישדק ישדק ןילכואו םיחתפ ןיאש יפ לע ףאו ןיטחושש יתעמש עשוהי 'ר
'מא
[ b3:3]
הנושאר השודקהש המוח ןיאש יפ לע ףא יניש רשעמו םילק םישדק םיעלק ןיאש יפ לע
: אבל דיתעל השדיקו התעשל השדיק
ןיאש יניסמ השמל הכלה וברמ וברו וברמ עמשש ייכז ןב ןנחוי ןברמ ינא לבוקמ עשוהי 'ר
'מא
[ ז:
ח הנשמ]
עורזב ןיקחורמה תא ברקלו עורזב ןיברוקמה תא קחרל אלא ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל אב והיילא
עורזב ןויצ ןיב הברקו םש התיה תרחא דועו עורזב ןויצ ןיב הקחירו ןדריה רבעב התיה הפירצ תיב תחפשמ
תוושהל 'מוא
ןועמש 'ר
קחרל אל לבא ברקל 'מוא
הדוהי 'ר
ברקלו קחרל רהטלו אמטל אב והיילא ולא ןוגכ
תא םכל חלוש יכנא הנה 'נש
םלועב םולש תושעל אלא ברקל אלו קחרל אל 'מוא
'מכחו
תוקלחמה תא
התיה הפירצה תיב תחפשמ [ a3:4]
םתובא לע םינב בלו םינב לע תובא בל בישהו 'וגו
איבנה היילא
'מכח
וצר אלו עורזב ןויצ ןב הבריקו םש התיה תרחא
עורזב ןויצ ןב הקחירו ןדריה רבעב
עובשב תחא םעפ םהידימלתלו םהינבל ןתוא ןירסומ לבא םהילע תולגל
קחרל אל לבא ברקל 'מוא
ריאמ 'ר
קחרלו ברקל רהטלו אמטל אב והילא וליא ןוגכ [ b3:4]
םירבדה ףוליח 'מוא
הדוהי 'רו
ךותב ירצמ שיא ןב אוהו תילארשי השא ןב אציו 'מוא
אוה ירה 'מוא
יידע ןב איננח [ c3:4]
השמ המו 'מוחו
לק םירבד ירהו ילארשיה שיאו תילארשיה ןב הנחמב וציניו לארשי ינב
השמ לש ודימלת והילא ןמצעמ ולגתנש דע םירזממה תולגל הצר אל והילא לש ובר אוהש
ןמצעמ ולגתיש דע םירזממה תא הלגי אלש המכו המכ תחא לע
ותוא ןיארוק וידימלת וחכתשנ יבר ותוא ןיארוק וידימלתו םידימלת ול שיש ימ [ d3:4]
:
ומשב ותוא ןיארוק וליאו וליא וחכתשנ ןבר
747

Zera(im
Ber Berakhot
Pe Pe)ah
Dem Dema)i
Kil Kil)ayim
Shev Shevi(it
Ter Terumot
Ma Ma(asrot
MS Ma(aser Sheni
H9al H9allah
Orl (Orlah
Bik Bikkurim
Mo(ed
Shab Shabbat
Eruv Eruvin
Pes Pesah9im
Sheq Sheqalim
RH Rosh HaShanah
Yom Yoma
Suk Sukkah
Bes[ Bes[ah
Ta Ta(anit
Meg Megillah
MQ Mo(ed Qatan
H9ag H9agigah
Nashim
Yev Yevamot
Ket Ketubot
Ned Nedarim
Naz Nazir
Sot[ Sot[ah
Git[ Git[t[in
Qid Qiddushin
Appendix D
Abbreviations of Tractates
748
Neziqin
BQ Bava Qamma
BM Bava Mes9i(a
BB Bava Batra
San Sanhedrin
Mak Makkot
Shevu Shevu(ot
Ed Eduyot
AZ (Avodah Zarah
Av Avot
Hor Horayot
Qodshim
Zev Zevah9im
Men Menah9ot
H9ul H9ulin
Bekh Bekhorot
Ar (Arakhin
Tem Temurah
Teharot
Ker Kereitut
Me Me(ilah
Tam Tamid
Mid Middot
Qin Qinnim
Kel Kelim
Ah )Ahilot
Neg Nega(im
Par Parah
Toh Teharot
Miq Miqva)ot
Nid Niddah
Makh Makhs]irin
Zav Zavim
Yad Yadayim
T9Y T9evul Yom
Uq Uqs9in

Bibliography
Albeck, Chanoch. Mavo LaMishnah, Bialik Institute & Dvir Co., Israel, 1953.
---------------------. Mavo LaTalmudim, Bialik Institute & Dvir Co., Israel, 1968/9.
---------------------. Meh9qarim beBaraita veTosefta, Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem,
1953/4.
---------------------. S0is]a Sidrei Mishnah, Bialik Institute & Dvir Co., Israel, 1953.
---------------------. Untersuchungen über die Redaktion der Mischna, pp. 110-18, C.A.
Schwetschke & Sohn / Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin, 1923.
Ben-Shalom, Menahem. “The Story of the Deposition of Rabban Gamliel and the
Historical Reality,” Zion 66 (2001), pp. 345-70.
Blau, Y. “Ha)umnam Yesh Be-Yadeinu Tofes shel Peirush HaMishnah be-Es9em Ketav
Yado shel HaRambam,” Tarbiz 27 (1954), pp. 536-543
---------. “Peirush HaMishnah le-HaRambam, Seder Qodoshim,” Les6oneinu 32 (1968),
p. 400.
Brody, Robert. A Hand-list of Rabbinic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah
Collections, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
Catalogue of the Jack Mosseri Collection, The Jewish National and University
Library, Jerusalem, 1990.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Jacob Neusner, Mishnah and Counter-Rabbinics,” Conservative
Judaism 37:1 (1983), pp. 48-63.
Danzig, Neil. A Catalogue of the Fragments of Halakhah and Midrash from the Cairo
Genizah in the Elkan Nathan Adler Collection of the Library of the Jewish
748

Theological Seminary of America, Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York and Jerusalem, 1997.
Dunner, B.Z. “Einiges über Ursprung und Bedeutung des Traktates Edojoth,”
Montasschrift Fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 20 (1871), pp.
33-42, 59-77.
Elman, Yaakov. Authority and Tradition, Yeshiva University Press, New York and
Ktav, Hoboken, 1994
------------------. “The Judaism of the Mishna: What Evidence”, Judaica Book News,
12:2 (1982), pp. 17-25.
------------------. “Orality and the Transmission of Tosefta Pish9a in Talmudic
Literature” in Introducing Tosefta (Fox and Meachem), Ktav, USA, 1999, pp.
123-180.
Epstein, J.N. “HaMadda( HaTalmudi u-S9erakhav” in Yedi(ot HaMakhon le-Mada(ei
HaYahadut 2 [1924/5], pp. 5-22
--------------. Mavo leNusah9 HaMishnah, Magnes Press-Dvir, Israel, 1963 (2 nd edition)
--------------. Mevo)ot leSifrut HaAmoraim, Magnes-Press-Dvir, Tel-Aviv, 1962
--------------. Mevo)ot le-Sifrut HaTannaim, Magnes Press-Dvir, Israel, 1957.
--------------. Meh9qarim be-Sifrut HaTalmud u-Bilshonot Shemiyot, Edited by E.Z.
Melamed, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1983
Feintuch, I.Z. " ןדייל די-בתכ
ימלשוריה ינפלש הנשמה לע"
, Tarbiz 45 (1975-6), pp. 178-212
Feuchtwang, D. “Der Zussamenhang der Mischna im Traktate Edujoth,” Festschrift
zum siebzigsten Geburtstage David Hoffmann's, ed. Simon Eppenstein, Meier
Hildesheimer and Joseph Wohlgemuth, Louis Lamm, Berlin, 1914, vol. III,
pp. 92-96.
Fox, Harry and Tirzah Meachem. Introducing Tosefta, Ktav, USA, 1999.
Frankel, Zecharia, Darkhei HaMishnah, Sinai, Tel-Aviv, 1959 (reprint).
749

Friedman, Shamma. Tosefta (Atiqta, Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan, 2002.
-----------------------. Pereq Ha)Is]ah Rabbah ba-Bavli, Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, New York, 1977/8.
-----------------------. “The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels” in
Introducing Tosefta (Fox and Meachem), Ktav, USA, 1999, pp. 99-121.
Graetz, Heinrich, Diveri Yemei Yisrael, ‘, Warsaw,
1893.
Greenfield, Jonas. “Kullu nafsin bima3 kasabat rahna3: The use of rhn in Aramaic
and Arabic”, (Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on
Semitic Philology, ed. by Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone and Avital
Pinnick, Brill and Magnes Press, Leiden and Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 453-9.
Halevi, Y.I., Dorot HaRishonim, Judah Golde Press, Frankfurt a.M., 1918.
Halper, B. Descriptive Catalogue of Genizah Fragments in Philadelphia, The Dropsie
College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Philadelphia, 1924.
Hoffmann, D.Z., The First Mishnah and the Controversies of the Tannaim (translation
from German by Paul Forcheimer), Maurosho Publications of Congregation
Kehillath Yaakov Inc., New York, 1977.
Kahle, Paul. “The Mishnah Text in Babylonia II,” HUCA XII-XIII (1938), pp. 293-
297.
Kalmin, Richard. Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia,
Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1994.
Katsh, Abraham. Ginzei Mishnah, Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem, 1970
Klüger, Hermann, Genesis und Composition del Halacha-Sammlung Edujot, Druck
und Verlag von Th. Schatsky, Breslau, 1895.
750

Levin, B.M., Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, Makor, Jerusalem, 1971 (reprint).
Lewy, Israel. “Qeta‘im miMishnat Abba Shaul”, Mesillot le-Torat HaTannaim,
(translation from German by A.S. Rabinovitz), Tel-Aviv, 1928.
Lieberman, Shaul. Tosefet Rishonim, New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1946-8.
---------------------. Tosefta Ki-Feshut@ah:Be’ur Arokh le-Tosefta, Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, New York, 1955-88.
---------------------. HaYerushalmi Ki-Feshuto, Darom, Jerusalem, 1934.
---------------------. ןירסיק לש הדומלת, Jerusalem, 1931.
Lowe, W.H. הפוס דעו התישארמ ימלשוריה דומלתה דסונ הילע רשא הנשמה,
Cambridge at the
University Press, 1883.
Maimonides, Peirush HaMishnah, translation by Yosef Kapah9, Mosad HaRav Kook,
Jeruslaem, 1962/3.
Margoliouth, G. Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the British
Museum, London, 1899-1935.
Mishnah: Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50, Makor, Jerusalem,
1967/8.
Mishnah: Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam : e codicibus Hunt 117 et Pococke
295 in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxoniensi servatis et 72-73 Bibliothecae
Sassooniensis Letchworth, E. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1956-1966.
Mishnah: 328-329 סיראפ די בתכ הנשמ,
Makor, Jerusalem, 1973.
751

Mishnah: תירבעב ם " במרה שוריפ םע ןיקיזנ-םישנ
םירדס 984 יססור הד , ג המראפ די בתכ הנשמ,
Makor Jerusalem 1971.
Mishnah: ( ןושאר סופד)
ם"
במרה שוריפ םע הנשמ,
Sifriyat Mekorot, Jerusalem, 1969/70.
Mishnah: 138 יססור הד אמראפ די בתכ הנשמ ירדס השש,
Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970
Nahman Krochmal, Moreh Nevukhei haZeman, Arrarat, London, 1960/1.
Neubauer, A. and A. E. Cowley. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the
Bodleian Library: And in the College Libraries of Oxford Including Mss. in
Other Languages Which Are Written with Hebrew Characters, or Relating
to the Hebrew Language or Literature ; and a Few Samaritan Mss., The
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1886-1906.
Neusner, Jacob, “Redaction, Formulation, and Form: The Case of Mishnah,” JQR 40
(1979-1980), pp. 131-52.
------------------. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1985.
------------------. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, 2 nd Edition, Scholars Press,
Georgia, 1988.
------------------. The Tosefta: An Introduction, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1992.
------------------. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities Part Twenty-One: The
Redaction and Formulation of the Order of Purities in Mishnah and Tosefta,
E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1977.
Pardo, David. Tosefta (im Peirush H9asdei David, Vagshal Publishing Ltd., Jerusalem,
1993/4.
Rappoport, S.J., Kerem H9emed, Vol. 5, Article 16, pp.170-197, Leipzig, 1841.
Reif, Stefan. A Guide to the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection, Cambridge
University Library, Cambridge, 1973.
752

Rosenthal, David, Tractate Avodah Zarah: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Israel,
1980.
Rubenstein, Jefferey L. The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore and London, 2003.
-----------------------------. Talmudic Stories, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
and London, 1999.
Safrai, Shmuel (editor). Literature of the Sages, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987.
Sanders, E.P. “Jacob Neusner and the Philosophy of the Mishnah” in Jewish Law from
Jesus to the Mishnah:Five Studies, pp. 309-331, SCM Press and Trinity
Press International, Philadelphia 1990.
Shapira, Haim. “The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel – Between History and Legend,”
Zion 64 (1999), pp.5-38.
-----------------. “Between Literature and History: A Response to M. Ben Shalom,”
Zion 66 (2001), pp. 371-8.
Sperber, Daniel. Tarbut H9omrit b’Eretz Yisrael Biymei HaTalmud, Bar-Ilan University
Press, Jerusalem, 1993.
Steinmetz, Devorah. “Must the Patriarch know ‘Uqtzin? The Nasi as Scholar in
Babylonian Aggada,” AJS Review 23 (1998), pp. 164-82.
Stern, S. M. “Peirush HaMishnah bi-Ktav Yado shel HaRambam,” Tarbiz 23 (1950),
pp. 72-88
Stern, S. M. and D. S. Sassoon. “(Al T9ofes Peirush HaMishnah be-Es9em Ketav Yado
shel HaRambam,” Tarbiz 29 (1956), pp. 261-7
Strack, H.L. and Stemberger, G., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, T&T
Clark, Edinburgh, 1991.
753

The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, trans.
Baruch M. Bokser, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London, 1994.
Talmud: ( 95)
ןכנימ די בתכ ילבב דומלת,
Hotza)at Sefer, Jerusalem, 1971.
Talmud: The Palestinian Talmud : Leiden Ms. Cod. Scal. 3 : a facsimile of the original
manuscript, Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970.
Talmud: Talmud Yerushalmi: A Facsimile of the Venice Edition, Ma(aseh Roqeah9,
New York, 1960.
Weiss, Avraham, (Al HaMishnah, Bar-Uryon, Israel, 1969.
--------------------. (Al HaYes[irah HaSifrutit shel HaAmoraim, Horeb Yeshiva
University, New York, 1961/2.
Yisrael Yevin. ילבב דוקינב הנשמה לש הזינגה יעטק ףסוא, Makor Publishing Ltd., Jerusalem,
Israel, 1974.
754