Abba Shaul used to call it¹⁹The word for “hoe” missing in the Mishnah. The word מְרִיצָה is a hapax and according to the second opinion used exclusively for the gravedigger’s (or burial cave excavator’s) hoe. “fingernail” since it is shaped like a fingernail. He who said מְרִיצָה because it quickly dispatches the stone [to the cemetery.]²⁰Corrector’s addition from B; questionable since the text seems to refer to excavating burial caves (impossible in the Iraqi plain.)

It was stated: If he knife was tied to it²⁶The dagger. its status is that of the knife²⁷It seems that the last sentence in the Mishnah was missing in the original Yerushalmi Mishnah; therefore it is quoted as a baraita; cf. Note 43..

MISHNAH: If a gobelin²⁸In the Temple, separating the Holiest of Holies from the Temple Hall. Since it is an implement, not a fixed part of the building, it may become impure. became impure by derivative impurity²⁹A rabbinic impurity. By biblical standards, implements may become impure only by contact with original impurity., one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court³⁰The enclosed plaza in front of the entrance to the Temple courtyard. because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa³¹The double stoa built by Herod as enclosure of the Temple district. so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful.
Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple³²Who credibly could inform about details of the Temple some 80 years after its destruction.: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings³³Of the warp. and each string was composed of 24 threads³⁴Since the gobelin had to be made from blue, purple, and crimson wool, and byssus (Ex. 26:31), and each kind was twined of six threads.. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year³⁵According to the Tosephta (3:15), one was hung new on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and the other kept in reserve if some impurity should occur on one of the two which were in use. and 300 Cohanim were immersing it³⁶For purification; see end of Halakhah 4..

HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six³⁷One tries to explain why the expression entwined used in the biblical text for all woven textiles used in the Temple (except the garments of the simple priests) means a multiply twisted string. Since there are other words available for small numbers of threads, entwined must designate heavy strings.. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.

³⁸Tosephta 3:14; explained differently in Babli Yoma72b.“One verse says embroidered work³⁹Ex. 26:36., and one verse says, intelligent work⁴⁰Ex. 26:31.. Embroidered work, one face⁴¹Greek προσώπον, τό. The scribe originally wrote correctly פרוסיף., intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.

(It was stated:)⁴³This was written by the scribe but then deleted. S. Liebermann (Tarbiz5, p. 261) also sees here a sign that the statement was not part of the original Galilean Mishnah. “It was made for 820’000 {denar}.” Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Samuel: exaggerated⁴⁴In the Babli, as also in B, always the noun “exaggeration” is used.. There, we have stated⁴⁵Mishnah Tamid2:2, describing the amount of ashes accumulated on the altar at the end of a night. B quotes the entire Mishnah.: “Sometimes there was on it about 300 kor⁴⁶About 114m³, a volume impossible for the surface area of 174.5m² of the fire on the altar. Babli Tamid29a, Ḥulin90b..” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: exaggerated.

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices⁴⁷Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity⁴⁸Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten., whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity⁴⁹Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside.. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity⁵⁰They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct..
Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside⁵¹In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent.. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning⁵²This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev. 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..

HALAKHAH: ⁵³The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah<sup>54</sup>In Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. <sup>55</sup>Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]⁵⁶Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion⁵⁷Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition.. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.⁵⁸The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps⁵⁹This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Num. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded..