In memory of Rabin's assassination, Conservative Jews around the world have been learning Mishnah with Rabbi Simchah Roth.

*****************************************************************************

RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism

Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)

January 31st 2001 / Shevat 7th 5761 (Tamid 25)

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH ONE:

They would not truss up the lamb but would secure it. Those who won

the privilege of [carrying] the limbs would hold it down. This is the

way it was secured: its head was to the south and its face to the

west. The slaughterer would stand on the eastern side facing west.

The Morning Lamb was slaughtered near the north-western corner of the

altar, [using] the second ring; the Afternoon Lamb was slaughtered

near the north-eastern corner, [using] the second ring. The

slaughtered performed his task and the receiver performed his. He

would then go to the north-eastern corner and spray [the blood] in a

north-easterly direction; then [he would go to] the south-western

corner and spray in a south-western direction. He would then pour out

what remained on the southern base.

EXPLANATIONS:

1:

The latter part of Chapter Three, describing the housekeeping

activities that went on inside the Sanctuary while the actual

sacrifice was taking place outside, interrupted the description of the

sacrificial procedure. This description is now resumed.

2:

Our mishnah states that the animal about to be killed was not trussed

up but 'secured'. This is the best translation that I could think of

for the Hebrew terms, which unintentionally shed light on a well-known

story in the book of Genesis. The Hebrew term which I translated

'secured' comes from the same root as the term we traditionally use to

identify the intended sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham:

Akedah. The Gemara [Tamid 31b] states that the reason why the lamb

was not "trussed up" was because this was the way that contemporary

non-Jews would prepare their animals for sacrifice. On that

explanation Rashi comments: "they would tie all its four feet". (For

the sake of completeness let me add that the Gemara also gives another

opinion that the reason why the animal was not trussed up in this way

was because this was the way that animals were taken to market, and

this would be unseemly when the animal was about to be killed for the

greater glory of heaven.)

3:

Tying knots and taking animals captive are two of the thirty-nine

major prohibitions that apply to Shabbat - indeed, following Rabbi

Abraham Joshua Heschel, these prohibitions and their ramifications

actually create the "Temple in Time" which is Shabbat [see RMSG of

July 18th 1999 for this discussion] - and ignoring them destroys the

illusion. When the Mishnah [Shabbat 5:3] discusses this matter it,

too, uses the terms 'truss' and 'secure'. In his commentary on that

mishnah, Rambam explains that 'secure' means the securing of one

'hand' to one 'foot', and in Mishneh Torah [Temidim ve-Musafim 1:10]

he adds that this was not done with a rope but his fellow priests just

held the lamb down in this manner with their hands while the

slaughterer did his work. This, presumably, is how Abraham is to be

pictured preparing his son for sacrifice: securing with his grip

Isaac's hand and foot as he raises the knife to slit his throat. (If

you don't know this story [!?] you can read the happy end in Genesis,

chapter 22.)

4:

Our mishnah describes how the animal was secured in one of the rings

in the slaughterhouse [see RMSG of January 2nd last], while it was

held down by the other priests in attendance as we have described. It

will be easier to understand all the details given in our mishnah with

such loving precision if we imagine ourselves, once again, as the men

of the Ma'amad witnessing this sacrifice. You will recall that we are

standing in a narrow strip just inside the Courtyard of the Priests;

ahead of us to our left is the altar and ahead of us to our right is

the slaughtering area. In the slaughtering area twenty-four rings are

set into the ground. Each of the six rows contain four rings, the

first being the one nearest us and the fourth being the one farthest

from us. (We could, of course, imagine a different arrangement where

there are four rows with six rings in each row; it is not clear from

the sources which was the arrangement.)

5:

We note that the lamb has been secured in the ring farthest from us in

the second row of rings. (For the corresponding Afternoon sacrifice

the animal is secured in the ring nearest us in the second row.) The

lamb has been secured in such a way that its head is nearest the altar

and it is facing the Sanctuary. The slaughterer, of course, is

standing behind the animal with his back to us. The other priests

hold the animal down (as described previously) as their colleague

slits the animal's throat with one swift pass of his knife. (The

manner of slaughtering animals today for Jewish consumption is, of

course, derived from the way it was done in the Bet Mikdash.)

6:

The moment the animal's throat is slit the blood gushes out. This

blood is caught in a special receptacle by 'the receiver' - the priest

who won the privilege of performing this function. He, of course,

faces us, so that he can perform his function properly.

7:

Those who still follow the old custom of reciting every morning before

prayers the whole of Chapter Five of Tractate Zevachim (which starts

with the Hebrew words "Ezehu Mekoman") will recall the fourth mishnah

of that tractate, which reads:

The Burnt Offerings belongs to the category of Most Holy

Offerings. It is slaughtered on the north side and its blood is

received in a receptacle on the north side. This blood requires

two splashings, each of which has two sub-categories. It must be

skinned and dismembered and completely incinerated.

The import of this ceremonial with the blood will be the subject of

our next shiur.

To be continued.

DISCUSSION:

You may recall that David Sieradzki wrote: >>Also, with all respect,

can you comment on or remind us of what greater principles or lessons

for life we can learn from the material in this massekhet of

Mishnah... I'm afraid I'm having difficulties motivating myself to

focus on some of this material.<<

My colleague, David Bockman, writes:

True. It seems weird to read these descriptions. But I'd like to

commend you for going through this masechet. I found myself during

Hanukka reading about the various bonfires ignited in places on the

altar, and it immensely enriched for me the import of this 'holiday'

that celebrates the re-institution of sacrificial rituals in a

building complex that is long gone, and has perhaps been superseded.

The shiur on the magrefa and the ability of the Temple rituals to

be perceived clearly in Jericho, meant a lot as well. First of all,

because I am a musician, and the legends about Buddy Bolden's trumpet

music being heard across Lake Pontchartrain (27 miles) are similar

tribute and similar exaggeration. But think also of the 'distance'

between 'Jerusalem' and 'Jericho', and the unifying effect of the

sounds, sights and smells that were said to connect them, and you have

an immediately contemporary starting point for a discussion regarding

what peace between Israel and the PA might be based upon. Shared

mideastern music? Foods? way of life? To me, although the Temple is

far away, our study of it lights countless fires in my mind vis-a-vis

living a Jewish life: prayer, peace, connectedness, the ordinary lives

of janitors, etc. Mightn't someone undertake the construction of the

Temple in virtual reality and sell it as a meditation assisting video

game? I know my nephew would play it for hours, were it in the

Nintendo format...

*****************************************************************************

RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism

Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)

February 2nd 2001 / Shevat 9th 5761 (Tamid 26)

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH ONE (recap):

They would not truss up the lamb but would secure it. Those who won

the privilege of [carrying] the limbs would hold it down. This is the

way it was secured: its head was to the south and its face to the

west. The slaughterer would stand on the eastern side facing west.

The Morning Lamb was slaughtered near the north-western corner of the

altar, [using] the second ring; the Afternoon Lamb was slaughtered

near the north-eastern corner, [using] the second ring. The

slaughtered performed his task and the receiver performed his. He

would then go to the north-eastern corner and spray [the blood] in a

north-easterly direction; then [he would go to] the south-western

corner and spray in a south-western direction. He would then pour out

what remained on the southern base.

EXPLANATIONS (continued):

6:

The moment the animal's throat is slit the blood gushes out. This

blood is caught in a special receptacle by 'the receiver' - the priest

who won the privilege of performing this function. He, of course,

faces us, so that he can perform his function properly.

7:

Those who still follow the old custom of reciting every morning before

prayers the whole of Chapter Five of Tractate Zevachim (which starts

with the Hebrew words "Ezehu Mekoman") will recall the fourth mishnah

of that tractate, which reads:

The Burnt Offerings belongs to the category of Most Holy

Offerings. It is slaughtered on the north side and its blood is

received in a receptacle on the north side. This blood requires

two splashings, each of which has two sub-categories. It must be

skinned and dismembered and completely incinerated.

The receiving of the blood of the slaughtered animal and splashing it

on the altar were essential parts of the philosophy of the sacrificial

system. In general we can say that the basic concept is that the sins

of a person or a group render their lives forfeit to God. The animal

is a substitute for the person. In private sacrifices it was

absolutely essential that the person bringing the offering press down

with his hands on the head of the animal about to be sacrificed. This

was called "Semikhah", the imposition of hands, and it implied that

the human being was transferring his whole 'persona' to the animal.

(When the sage imposed his hands on his student this was also called

"Semikhah" and it also implied that all the authority that was vested

in the sage was now transferred to the student as well, who was his

worthy representative.) Thus, when the animal died the person who had

offered it had also symbolically "paid his debt", and in the death of

the animal, his representative and substitute, his too had paid with

his life for his sins.

8:

This paragraph is purely parenthetical. The Christian tradition to

this day in its worship maintains the philosophy and format of the Bet

Mikdash. At the heart of its worship is the "sacrifice" which is

offered by the priest on the altar, and this sacrifice "of the lamb",

the divinely ordained "substitute" effectively performs the

"salvation" of the group and the absolution of its sins is achieved by

being "washed in the blood of the lamb". In the Bet Mikdash the

people, present in the person of their representatives, the Ma'amad,

were entirely passive spectators. The whole sacrifice was performed

by the priests. This is still the case in Christian worship. When we

compare the philosophical bases of traditional Christian worship with

the traditional bases of the ritual of the Synagogue we can appreciate

the enormous distance that Judaism has covered. The synagogue was

never a substitute for the Bet Mikdash: it was a completely separate

institution in which the individual worshipper personally fulfilled

(and fulfills) his or her ritual duty, and not through the mediation

of a priest; and when the individual joins forces with other

individuals for the purpose of public worship the ceremony is

conducted by a fellow "representative" and not by an ordained priest.

In the synagogue ritual the congregation is not a passive spectator

but an active participant - and thereby hangs the whole ethos of the

synagogue experience. (It is unfortunate that too many Ashkenazi

congregations have adopted a church-inspired seating arrangement. Our

Conservative congregations would well to adopt the Sefaradi custom of

sitting around the Bimah on three sides, not in front of it.)

9:

The blood of a living creature was considered its very life. When the

throat is slit what gushes out is the "life blood". Behind this

concept lies the whole attitude of Judaism against the consumption of

blood. The blood of a living creature is sacred because its life is

sacred. At the very beginning of the Torah this thought is clearly

expressed in the prohibition of murder:

But you may not consume flesh with its life, its blood. I shall

require of every animal your lifeblood, and I shall require the

life of a human being from his fellow man. The blood of anyone

who sheds human blood shall be shed by a human, for He made man in

the Divine Image. [Genesis 9:4-6]

The expiatory nature of this life blood is made abundantly clear

elsewhere in the Torah:

The life of flesh is in the blood. I have assigned it for you to

atone for your lives on the altar, for it is blood that atones for

life. That is why I have told the Israelites, "You may consume no

blood..." [Leviticus 17:1-12]

Thus it is not sufficient to merely kill the animal for its death to

effect its expiatory characteristics: the lifeblood, the blood that

gushes out from the slit throat, must be brought into contact with the

altar in order for the expiation to become effective.

10:

The Torah requires that the lifeblood be splashed on the altar,

separately from the burning of the carcass. In the case of the daily

lamb (Tamid) the Torah does not specifically mention the splashing of

the blood. However, the Tamid is to be classified as an "Olah", a

holocaust; it is no different from the others of that same category

except that it is a public sacrifice, not a private one. As far as

the latter are concerned, the procedure is made very clear by the

Torah:

If the offering is a holocaust from the herd, it shall be a male

without blemish ... He shall impose his hand on the head of the

holocaust and thus it will be effective for him and it will

exculpate him. He shall slaughter [it] ... and the priests, the

sons of Aaron, shall present the blood and splash the blood around

the altar... [Leviticus 1:3-5]

11:

The priest who had earn the privilege of performing this task would

stand with his bowl ready to receive the life blood of the lamb at the

moment of slaughtering. This blood he would splash on the north-

eastern corner of the altar - the corner that was nearest the

slaughterhouse and also nearest the spectators of the Ma'amad. The

blood was splashed directly out of the bowl in such a way that it

would land on both the northern and eastern sides of the altar. This

same priest would then go and take his stand at the south-western

corner of the altar, diagonally opposite the previous place and would

splash some more blood from the bowl in such a way that it would land

on both the southern and western sides of the altar.

12:

Our mishnah also states that the blood remaining in the bowl after

these two splashings was poured out at the base of the altar. The

Mishnah [Middot 3:2-3] amplifies:

At the south-western corner [of the altar, where our priest was

standing - SR] there were two holes, like two small nostrils,

where the blood ... would flow down and mix with the sewerage

conduit and [eventually - SR] exit into the Kidron Stream. In the

floor of that corner there was a place, one cubit square [about 50

centimetres - SR] which had a marble tile, with a ring attached to

it. Through this they could go down to the sewer to clean it...

13:

I am sure that someone will ask whether, over the centuries, the sides

of the altar were not completely covered in blood. Middot 3:4

clarifies this point:

Both the stones for the ramp and the stones for the altar came

from Bet ha-Kerem valley, hewn from below the bedrock. From there

they would bring whole stones ... They were whitewashed twice a

year: at Passover and at Tabernacles (and the sanctuary once a

year at Passover). Rabbi [Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin]

says that [the stones of the altar were washed] every Friday with

a cloth because of the blood...

Shabbat Shalom to everybody.

*****************************************************************************

RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism

Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)

February 12th 2001 / Shevat 19th 5761 (Tamid 27)

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH TWO:

He did not break the [animal's] foot, but pierced it at the knee and

hung it up. He would skin it downwards until he reached the breast.

Upon reaching the breast he cut off the head and handed it to the one

who had gained that privilege. He cut off the lower legs and gave

them to the one who had gained that privilege. Then he completed the

skinning. He tore out the heart and removed its blood. He cut off

the fore legs and gave them to the one who had gained that privilege.

He then went up to the right hind leg, cut it off and handed it to the

one who had gained that privilege, including both testicles. Now he

ripped [the breast] open and everything was visible before him. He

removed the suet and placed it on top of the slit in the animal's

head. Now he removed the guts and handed them to the one who had

gained that privilege to rinse them. The belly was completely rinsed

in the Rinsing Room, but the guts were rinsed at least three times on

the marble tables between the posts.

EXPLANATIONS:

1:

The rest of the mishnayot of this chapter are not for the squeamish.

Nor do I intend explaining every small point in this mishnah or the

next. But I think that the details included in this chapter are

important towards our understanding of what the sacrificial cult

entailed, in all its gory detail. (The "he" in our mishnah is, of

course, the priest who had actually slaughtered the lamb, the

"Tamid".)

2:

After it had been slaughtered the animal was hung upside down by

passing the hooks that were on the posts through the knees of the

animal's hind legs. (These posts had been described in the fifth

mishnah of the previous chapter - see RMSG of January 2nd last.) As

the animal was skinned the various limbs were placed on the silver

salvers that were held ready by all the priests who had gained the

various privileges. These were detailed in the first mishnah of the

previous chapter (see RMSG of December 10th 2000), and I quote them

here for your convenience.

(d) "Who will take the limbs up the ramp - the head, the foot". The

various parts of the dismembered carcass would be ceremonially

carried to the altar. This would actually be done in two stages:

the limbs would be left halfway up the ramp at which point

everybody would go back to the Gazit Room for morning prayers and

only afterwards would the sacrificial ritual be resumed. The rest

of our mishnah details the various parts of the dismembered

animal. The first in the procession carried the animal's head and

right hind leg.

(e) "The two hands" refers to the two front feet.

(f) "The tail and the [other] foot": the rear part of the animal's

tail, where it joins the rump, and the animal's left foot.

(g) "The breast and the neck". More accurately we would mention the

fatty tissue adhering to the breast and the whole alimentary

segment of the carcass - the neck and the ribs and connected to

them the windpipe, the heart and the lungs.

(h) "Both flanks", together with the backbone, the spleen and the

liver.

(i) "The guts" - what was left of them together with the legs.

3:

The suet refers to the hard fat surrounding the intestines. This

fatty tissue, after it was removed from the carcass, was placed on top

of the animal's head. The head had been placed face-up on the salver,

which meant that the slit in the animal's throat made by the act of

slaughter was visible and probably still oozing blood. Since this was

not a "pleasant sight to see" and might well spoil the decorous

procession that was about to carry the dismembered carcass to the

altar, the suet was placed on top of the slit in the animal's throat

in order to conceal it, and probably also to prevent the blood

dripping out.

4:

The guts - everything that was left inside the animal's stomach,

together with the stomach itself, had to be washed thoroughly. The

stomach was washed clean in the Rinsing Room. According to the

mishnah [Middot 5:3] this was one of the three chambers on the

northern side of the Azarah. However, as we have noted before, the

Gemara [Yoma 19a] reverses the sides; so it may well be that this room

was on the southern wall of the Azarah. The purpose of this rinsing

was not only to remove unwanted blood, but also to remove all the

refuse that must still have been inside the stomach. The guts were

rinsed at the same time, but on the marble tables that were in the

vicinity of the slaughterhouse, and not in the Rinsing Room.

5:

The next mishnah is extremely long and very technical - the kind of

technical terms that only butchers would easily recognize. It our

next Shiur I shall bring the mishnah in its entirety and offer minimal

explanation, so as to complete this "bloody" chapter as soon as

possible.

DISCUSSION:

Remy Landau has sent me the following, which certainly depicts the

view of one modern of the sacrificial system:

May I horn in on the debate governing the reinstitution of the

sacrificial cult should the Beit Mikdash ever be reconstructed? Last

summer, I had the rare opportunity of returning to the site in which I

was hidden during the [second world] war. It was a convent abbutting

the historic building which was used by the Gestapo as a deportation

centre for the Jewish people of Belgium. 25,257 Kadoshim [martyrs]

were transported from there to Auschwitz. About 1000 witnesses

survived. Almost 75% were gassed on arrival. In those 25 convoys were

people ranging from infancy to seniority. My father was one of them. I

survived by virtue of being on one side of the wall between the

convent and the barracks, while infants my age perished on the other

side of that wall. So the Shoah [Holocaust], and the massive evil that

perpetrated this unredeemable catastrophe, is always a part of my

thinking on religious and spiritual issues. And in view of that recent

butchery, and the agonizing Jewish history of the last 2000 years I

have to ask why would anyone ever want the reinstution of the

sacrificial cult, and what kind of a god would demand it of us? Have

not the Jewish people already been enough of a sacrifice?

_____

In our Shiur of January 18th last I quoted from the Torah:

The life of flesh is in the blood. I have assigned it for you to

atone for your lives on the altar, for it is blood that atones for

life. That is why I have told the Israelites, "You may consume no

blood..." [Leviticus 17:1-12]

Sue Mackson asks:

Can you explicate this Torah a bit. Is this a commandment which

requires capital punishment as atonement for murder?

I respond.

No, not at all. The intention of this passage is to require that meat

intended for consumption my Jews must have all the blood removed,

because the blood of meat had a different purpose: atonement on the

altar. The verse that most seems to be requiring capital punishment

for homicide is Genesis 9:6, which I also quoted in that Shiur: "The

blood of anyone who sheds human blood shall be shed by a human, for He

made man in the Divine Image." [Genesis 9:6]

______

Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:

In this Mishnah [Tamid 3:9, RMSG January 22nd 2001] we learnt how the

priests would clean the Menorah and the incense altar in the Heichal.

Who would just CLEAN the Temple itself? As we know from living here in

Israel, if you do not clean, wash, broom a building for a few decades,

more so for hundreds of years, the amount of sand and dust would cover

it with a thick layer of dirt. Unfit for the Temple. Enough for us to

look at the Tel of Megiddo as an example. So, someone must have done

the humble chores of cleaning and housekeeping. Someone must have

cleaned the stains of blod from the floors. Someone must have removed

the incense from the Kodesh HaKodashim. Someone must ahve removed the

Parochet - as there were the Parochet weavers that would weave a new

one all time. So someone else, besides the Cohen Gadol must have

entered the inner Sanctum. Who were they? Do we have any description

of this?

I respond:

We have already dealt with some aspects of this very practical

question. Only ten days ago I quoted a mishnah [Middot 3:4] which

clarifies one aspect of this topic:

Both the stones for the ramp and the stones for the altar came

from Bet ha-Kerem valley, hewn from below the bedrock. From there

they would bring whole stones ... They were whitewashed twice a

year: at Passover and at Tabernacles (and the sanctuary once a

year at Passover). Rabbi [Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin]

says that [the stones of the altar were whitewashed] every Friday

with a cloth because of the blood...

However, I think that the main thrust of the question is concerning

the housekeeping of the main sanctuary in general and the Holy of

Holies in particular. We do have some information on this topic.

(Given the detail into which the Mishnah lovingly goes as regards all

aspects of the activities of the Bet Mikdash perhaps this should not

surprise us.)

The Mishnah [Middot 4:3] tells us that the sanctuary [Heikhal] was

surrounded by cells - three stories of five cells on each of the long

sides and two stories of three cells and a third story of two behind

the Holy of Holies, on the west. These cells were all

interconnecting. In RMSG of January 4th last we learned of how two

priests gained access, first thing in the morning, to the Sanctuary.

Incidentally we mentioned a cell which was different from the others

that we have mentioned: it had five entrances: to the cell next to it

on its right, to the cell above it, to a winding staircase, to the

wicket and to the Heikhal itself. This winding staircase eventually

gave access to the roof. The Mishnah [Middot 4:5] tells us that on

the roof on the southern side there was an opening covered by two

planks of cedarwood. This opening gave access to the Holy of Holies

from above. Workmen were let down through this opening in crates that

were attached to pulleys. The crates were closed on three sides so

that the priestly workmen would be able to clean the walls of the Holy

of Holies without "feasting their eyes on the inside of the Holy of

Holies".

The Parochet, the thick curtain separating the Sanctuary from the Holy

of Holies was not cleaned. It's lower edges were clotted with the

blood of centuries as High Priest after High Priest, year in year

out, would splash the blood of the sacrifice of Yom Kippur on the

Parochet "once upwards and seven times downwards" carefully counting

"one, one plus one, one plus two" and so forth. It was the High

Priest himself who removed the censer from the Holy of Holies, before

completing the awesome ceremony.

*****************************************************************************

RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism

Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)

February 15th 2001 / Shevat 22nd 5761 (Tamid 28)

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH THREE:

He took the knife, separated the lung from the liver and the liver

itself from its protuberance, which he did not remove. He severed the

breast and handed it to the one who had gained that privilege. Now he

cut the right flank, from top to bottom, away from the spine (leaving

the spine in place) until he reached the two soft ribs [next to the

neck]. Thus he severed it [the right flank] and handed it - with the

liver attached to it - to the one who had gained that privilege.

Now he had reached the neck, with the two ribs on either side that he

had left, and handed it to the one who had gained that privilege, with

the windpipe, heart and lung still attached.

Now he had reached the left flank. He left the two topmost soft ribs

[next to the hindquarters - the animal was hanging upside down] and

placed [this flank] next to the other. Thus he had left from both

[flanks] two [ribs] at the top and two at the bottom. Now he severed

[the left flank] and handed it to the one who had gained that

privilege, together with the spine and the spleen attached. Now this

flank was the larger [because it included the spine], but the right

flank was termed the greater because it had the liver attached to it.

He now reached the rump, severed it and gave it to the one who had

gained that privilege, with the tail, the protuberance of the liver

and the two kidneys attached.

He removed the left hind leg and gave it to the one who had gained

that privilege.

Thus they were all now standing in a row holding the limbs. The first

had the head and [right] hind leg: the head to the right [of the leg],

the snout facing inwards towards his arm and his fingers securing the

horns. The slit in the throat was uppermost, covered by the suet.

The right hind leg was [of course] to the left, with the spot where

the skinning had started on the outside.

The second [priest was holding] the two front legs, the right leg in

his right hand and the left leg in his left, with the spot where the

skinning had started on the outside.

The third [carried] the rump and the [left] hind leg, the rump in his

right hand with the tail dangling between his fingers and with the

protuberance of the liver and the two kidneys. The left hind leg was

in his left hand, with the spot where the skinning had started on the

outside.

The fourth [priest carried] the breast and the neck, the breast in his

right hand and the neck in his left, with its ribs between his

fingers.

The fifth [carried] both flanks, the right in his right hand and the

left in his left, with the spot where the skinning had started on the

outside.

The sixth carried the guts in a basin, with the lower legs on top of

them.

The seventh carried the flour, the eighth the pancakes, and the ninth

the wine.

Now they carried them [to the altar] and placed them halfway up the

western side of the ramp [the side nearest the Sanctuary] and salted

them [as required by Leviticus 2:13, "with all your offerings shall

you offer salt".] Now they descended [the ramp] and repaired to the

Gazit Room to recite the Shema.

(This very long mishnah was presented differently. I thought it best

to include only very sparse comment and to leave it interspersed [in

square brackets] with the text.)

This concludes our study of Chapter Four, which has been a very

difficult chapter because of the nature of its content. Next time we

shall commence Chapter Five which has, I hope you will find, more

savoury content.

*****************************************************************************

RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism

Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)

February 20th 2001 / Shevat 27nd 5761 (Tamid 29)

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FIVE, MISHNAH ONE:

The superintendent now said to them, "Recite one blessing." They did

so; [then] they read the Ten Commandments, Shema, Ve-haya Im Shamo'a,

Va-yomer. They recited together with the people three [more]

Blessings: Emet ve-Yatziv, Avodah and Birkat Kohanim. On Shabbat they

would add a fourth Blessing for the outgoing watch.

EXPLANATIONS:

1:

After the ceremonial procession that brought the various parts of the

lamb's carcass to the ramp of the altar the sacrificial element of the

proceedings is interrupted and a liturgical element is introduced.

The whole contingent now returns to the Gazit Room. (You will recall

that the lottery had been held in this chamber [see Chapter Three].)

Here the sacrificial ritual is replaced by a liturgical ritual. Also

this part of the proceedings was under the instruction of the

superintendent. There were four elements in this liturgy: an

introductory Berakhah, the reading of the Ten Commandments, the

reading of the three paragraphs of the Shema, and the reciting of

three more Berakhot (four on Shabbat).

______________

Juan-Carlos Kiel asks in jocular vein:

How many legs did the sacrificial lambs have?

1. The first priest carried the right hind leg

2. The 2nd. the two front legs

3. The 3rd. the left hind legs and

4. "The sixth carried the guts in a basin, with the lower legs on top

of them."

Is this a total of six?

I respond:

No the sacrificial lamb had only four legs, I'm afraid. Your item #3

should read "left hind leg" of course (which is the reading in the

shiur itself). The "lower legs" (feet?) had been separated off from

the rest of the leg when the animal was dismembered [see RMSG of

February 11th last].

______________

In a very serious vein Juan-Carlos Kiel offers the following in

response to what he calls "David Sieradzki's challenge". (Some time

ago David had written: "can you comment on or remind us of what

greater principles or lessons for life we can learn from the material

in this massekhet of Mishnah."

I am not sure I can comment about any greater principles underlying

the sacrifice of a one year old innocent lamb, "ad majorem Dei gloria"

["to the greater glory of God - SR], but I can think about the people

performing this ritual. The times described by this Mishnah are

crucial to the formation and evolution of the Jewish people. Those are

- for me - the times when we left being the people that sacrifice to

the One that resides in the House of Election, and became The People

of the Book.

We are looking at the stage when the people, like a grown chick on he

edge of its nest, is almost ready to spread its wings. From a people

of shepherds we became an agricultural nation. And, at the level of

the simple Moshe Cohen - or a simple John Smith - they were in the

evolutionary process that took them from imagining the divinity as a

kind of fellow human being, One which needs to have its two good meals

a day ("My sacrifices, my food"), as they would have, one at breakfast

and one after midday, with its corresponding good sip of red wine and

a nice piece of bread, an anthropomorphic divinity, that lives in His

own Palace, One that can be bargained with (if I find ... Just people

in Sdom..), One that you can run away from (Jonah) and One that has to

be appeased with a very precise ritual - that if not performed as

prescribed is, at best void, at worst, calamitous (...if the blood was

sprinkled on the altar downwards instead of upwards...) Let me call

this concept the "small" divinity.

Prophets and thinkers gave us a different view: "Is not this the kind

of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie

the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor

wanderer with shelter - when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not

to turn away from your own flesh and blood?" [Isaiah 58:5-7 - SR]

And this view was rooting inside the people of Judah. I see the people

getting ready to think in higher levels. There were already groups

that left Jerusalem and the sacrificial rituals, in search of a

different kind of purity and define a new concept of divinity. Among

them the Essenes that lived in what now is called Qumran, and left us

the "Dead Sea Scrolls".

A new institution was growing, that was to rival with the Temple: The

Bet Midrash, the house of commentary, where sages would further their

opinions, based on the old writings (from here comes the Mishnah

itself). Perhaps a more anthropocentric view of society and world,

which brought with it a "Greater" Divinity.

Another step was necessary to close the Temple stage, with its

greatness and limitations. Perhaps equivalent to the "Expulsion of

Paradise". With its curses. That not a few see as inherent blessings.

To toil for your food, and for your investments, and your S/W -

without which you are not a Man. To suffer for your children, that

makes you care for your continuity and perhaps immortality. And in

this case - not to be able to bring the sacrifices according to their

laws. And get rid of the "small" divinity concept.

Was it possible to bring sacrifices after the destruction of the

Temple? I think the answer is yes. A parallel Temple had been built in

Egypt, and I believe that was still standing by 70CE. Or they could

have found references about our forefathers sacrificing in many high

places. But the leaders of the people decided they did not need a

physical sacrifice. They would move to prayer. Their God did not need

a 3 course meal twice a day...

So, why shall I study this Mishnah? I think it is necessary to

appreciate the evolution in ideas. Don't we say (of course, in a

different context) "Know from where do you come from, and where are

you going to, and before Whom you are to be judged"? [Mishnah Avot 3:1

- SR].

*****************************************************************************

To dedicate a shiur (lesson) send an amount of your choice,

CLEARLY MARKED "For RMSG", to:

The Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel,

6525 Belcrest Rd., Suite 602, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

(Contributions are tax-deductible in the US.)

YOU MUST ALSO send a private e-mail, stating the requested date and

the occasion for the dedication, to Rabbi Simchah Roth

siroth@inter.net.il

PLEASE NOTE THAT siroth@inter.net.il is also the address for

discussion, queries, comments and requests (and NOT the listserver).

Please feel free to pass this material on; my request is that you cite

me as the source.

The RMSG archive may be accessed by sending an email message to

LISTSERV@JTSA.EDU The body of the message should read:

GET L-RMSG LOG9903b This example should return to you all the

shiurim that were posted during the second week of March 1999.

GET L-RMSG LOG0001 should return to you all the shiurim that were

posted during the month of January 2000.

The first shiurim were posted in November 1995.

If you have not subscribed you can do so by sending a message to

LISTSERV@JTSA.EDU The body of the message should read

SUBSCRIBE L-RMSG FIRSTNAME LASTNAME where your own names replace

"firstname" and "lastname".

And don’t forget that the priests also have to clean up after themselves.

November 19th 2000 / Marcheshvan 21st 5761 (Tamid 06)

*****************************************************************************

Today's shiur is dedicated by Jay Slater on the occasion of the first

Aliyah LaTorah of his daughter, Tamara Leora Slater, Leora Tamar bat

Yona Ephraim v'Haya Mirl. The Aliyah laTorah was yesterday.

*****************************************************************************

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH FOUR:

Whoever it was who had won the privilege of clearing the ashes from

the altar would now proceed to clear the altar of ashes. They would

warn him, "Take care that you don't touch the tool until you have

sanctified your hands and feet from the laver. The shovel is in the

angle between the ramp and the altar on the western side of the

altar." No one would go in with him, neither did he have a lamp in

his hand; but he would make his way in the light shed by the fire

stack. They couldn't see him or hear him until they heard the sound

of the wooden [wheel] that ben-Katin had made for the laver. They

would then say, "He made it!" He would sanctify his hands and feet

from the laver and then he would take up the silver shovel and go up

to the top of the altar. He would clear the embers to the sides and

would use the shovel to remove the innermost embers that were

completely burned. Then he would go down again. When he reached the

pavement he would turn to face north and go to [a spot] about ten

cubits to the east of the ramp. He would heap up the embers on the

pavement three cubits away from the ramp, where the birds' crops and

the ashes of the inner altar and the candelabrum were dumped.

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH ONE:

When his colleagues realized that he had come down they came on the

run and made haste to sanctify their hands and feet from the laver.

Then they took the rakes and the prongs and went up to the top of the

altar. They would push to the sides of the altar the limbs and fatty

parts that had not been completely burned since the previous evening.

If there was not enough room at the sides they would arrange them on

the Surround [or] on the ramp.

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH TWO:

They now began to heap the ashes onto the "apple". The "apple" was in

the centre of the altar and sometimes it contained three hundred

'kor'. On the pilgrim festivals they would not remove its ashes at

all since it was an enhancement of the altar. Never was a priest lax

about removing the dump.

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER THREE, MISHNAH ONE:

The superintendent would say to them, "Come, let's do a lottery: who

will slaughter, who will splash, who will remove the ash from the

inner altar, who will tend to the candelabrum, who will take the limbs

up the ramp - the head, the foot, the two "hands", the tail, the

[other] foot, the breast, the neck, both flanks, the guts, the flour,

the pancakes and the wine". They would hold the lottery and whoever

won, won.

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER THREE, MISHNAH NINE:

The one who gained the privilege of removing the ashes from the inner

altar would now go inside. Taking up the basket he would place it in

front of himself: he would scoop up handfuls [of ash] and put them

into it; in the end he would sweep the remainder into it.