Aligned sentence by sentence
, , . . .
With the whole body of the laws before him, he saw fit to divide each genus among them into its species as was fitting, and he named each species a *masekhet* (tractate). He then divided the discussion within each species into chapters, naming each chapter a *perek*. He then divided the discussion within each chapter into smaller divisions that would be easier to grasp for memorization and teaching, and he named each of those small divisions a *halakha*.
, , , , , .
He divided the discussion within Seder Zeraim—as I reckon—beginning first with Berakhot. The reason for this is as follows: a skilled physician who wishes to preserve a healthy man's health as it is begins first with the proper regulation of his diet; and so this man, upheld by the truth, saw fit to begin with Berakhot, since no one who eats may eat until he has recited a blessing. He therefore judged that the most fitting thing with which to begin his discourse was the blessings, so as to set the "diet" right in a spiritual sense.
, , , , .
He then judged that the discussion of any one of his topics should not be left deficient, but that he should treat the whole body of blessings required for foods and for the commandments. Now the only commandment binding upon every man each day is the recitation of the Shema alone; and it would not be methodical to discuss the blessings of the Shema before discussing the Shema itself. He therefore began, *From what time may one recite the Shema* (M. Berakhot 1:1), together with what is connected to it.
, , .
He then returned to the purpose of the order, namely the discussion of the laws of the produce of the earth, and so he began with tractate Pe'ah after Berakhot. For all the dues that fall upon a crop fall upon it only after it has been reaped, whereas Pe'ah falls upon the standing grain while it is still in the ground; for this reason he placed its discussion first.
, . .
After Pe'ah comes Demai, since the poor too have a right in it, just as they have in Pe'ah, as they said, *One may feed the poor with demai* (M. Demai 3:1).
, , .
After Demai comes Kil'ayim, for this is the sequence the verse follows in *You shall be holy* (Lev 19:2 ff.): *You shall not finish off the corner of your field* (Lev 19:9), and after it *You shall not sow your field with mixed kinds* (Lev 19:19).
, , , , .
Then after Kil'ayim comes Shevi'it. It would have been proper for tractate Orla to come after Kil'ayim, for that is the sequence of Scripture, were it not that he judged Orla not to be of pressing necessity—for so long as a man does not plant, Orla does not apply to him—whereas Shevi'it is of pressing necessity, and moreover the release of debts in it is a plain ordinance of the Torah; for this reason he placed the discussion of the sabbatical year first.
, , , . .
After Shevi'it comes tractate Teruma, since the teruma—I mean the heave-offering—is the first due taken from the crop. After Teruma comes Ma'aser Rishon, since it is what follows teruma in the order of separation. After Ma'aser Rishon comes Ma'aser Sheni, in sequence.
, .
After it comes tractate Challa, for once these dues we have described—teruma, ma'aser rishon, and ma'aser sheni—have been taken from the crop, it is then ground, made into flour, kneaded, and becomes liable to challa.
, . , .
Once the discussion of the crop and its dues was complete, he took up the thread of discussion concerning the fruits, and so after Challa he discussed Orla, then Bikkurim, following the sequence of the verse: Orla in *Leviticus* (Lev 19:23), and Bikkurim in *And it shall be when you come* (Deut 26:1 ff.). Thus the division of the discussion in Zeraim came to eleven tractates.
, , , .
He then took up the division of Seder Moed into its species as well, just as he had done with Zeraim, and began with tractate Shabbat, on account of its precedence in honor, and because it recurs every seven days, so that its cycle within time is frequent; and it is also with Shabbat that Scripture begins among the festivals.
. , .
After Shabbat comes Eruvin, since it pertains to the purpose of Shabbat. After it comes Pesachim, since it is the first commandment legislated through Moses, and it is also what follows Shabbat in the portion of the appointed times (Lev 23).
. , , .
After it comes Shekalim, in the sequence of Scripture. Then comes Yoma after Shekalim, also in sequence, since the law of Shekalim is in *When you take* (Exod 30:11 ff.), and Yoma in *After the death* (Lev 16).
, , , , .
He then took up the completion of the discussion of the three pilgrimage festivals. He had already discussed Pesachim, so there remained for him to discuss Sukkot and Shavuot; but there was nothing he had to treat regarding Shavuot beyond matters common to every festival day, namely tractate Beitzah. He therefore placed Sukkah before Beitzah, on account of the many laws of Sukkot.
, , .
There then remained for him, of the appointed times mentioned in Scripture, only Rosh Hashana, and so after Beitzah he discussed Rosh Hashana, and thus completed his discussion of the appointed times mentioned in the Torah.
, , .
He then took up the appointed times mentioned in the books of the Prophets, peace be upon them—namely the fast days that the prophets instituted—and so he followed the discussion of Rosh Hashana with the discussion of Taanit.
, . , .
After Taanit comes Megilla, since it is an institution of the later prophets, like those who instituted the fasts. Then after Megilla comes Moed Katan, which shares something in common with the days of Purim, in that on both of them fasting and eulogizing are forbidden.
, , , . .
Once the discussion of the appointed times and their requirements and what is connected to them was complete, he closed it with tractate Chagiga, since it is among the things required on the three pilgrimage festivals, and he placed it last because it is not universal: it is binding only upon the males, as God said, *all your males* (Exod 23:17). Thus the division of the discussion in Moed came to twelve tractates.
, , , , , .
He then took up the division of the discussion in Nashim, beginning with Yevamot. The reason that led him to begin with Yevamot, and not with Ketubot—which reflection would suggest ought to come first—is that marriage is a voluntary matter, and it is not within a court's power to compel a person to marry, whereas levirate marriage is imposed upon a man, and he is told, "Either perform *chalitza* or perform the levirate marriage." Beginning with what is obligatory takes precedence, and so he began with Yevamot.
. , , , .
After this comes Ketubot. After Ketubot comes Nedarim, since the entire portion of vows (Num 30) is concerned, in its legal force, only with the vows of women, as it says, *between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter* (Num 30:17); and once the marriage is completed and the bride enters the bridal canopy, it is the husband's prerogative to annul her vows—for this reason he attached Nedarim to Ketubot.
, , .
After Nedarim comes Nazir, since the laws of the nazirite vow are also part of the general body of vows, and *if a woman vows to be a nazirite, the husband may annul it*; for this reason he followed Nedarim with Nazir.
, , .
Once marriage and what attends it by way of the annulment of vows was complete, he took up divorce, since divorce occurs after marriage, and so he placed Gittin after Nazir.
, . .
After Gittin comes Sota, since it too pertains to the purpose of divorce, for if she commits adultery the couple is compelled to divorce, as is explained in its place. After Sota comes Kiddushin, with which he closed Seder Nashim.
, , , , .
There remains the question of why he placed Kiddushin last, when it is more deserving of precedence and its proper place would have been before Ketubot. If you should say that he did not place it before Ketubot so as not to separate between Yevamot and Ketubot—since the two have one purpose, namely consummation with a woman, and the discussion proceeded as we said—then if it had to be set elsewhere, it should at least have come before Gittin, so that the sequence would be Kiddushin and then Gittin, in proper order.
, . .
The answer is that he did this in order to follow the sequence of Scripture, which discusses divorce before betrothal, in His words, *and he writes her a bill of divorce and places it in her hand and sends her from his house, and she departs from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife* (Deut 24:1–2); and from His words *and becomes another man's wife* we learn a point of the laws of betrothal, as is shown by *the verse likens becoming [a wife] to departing*, and so forth. Thus the division of the discussion in Nashim came to seven tractates.
, , , , . .
He then took up the division of the discussion in Nezikin, dividing the discussion of the first tractate into three parts, and began with Bava Kamma, whose purpose is the legal treatment of damages and their prevention—such as the ox, the pit, the grazing animal, wounding, and the like—for a judge ought to give precedence to nothing before removing harm from people.
, , , , .
Then comes Bava Metzia, whose purpose is the legal treatment of claims, deposits, hiring, demands, and rentals, and what is fit to be connected with this purpose—just as Scripture did, when after the laws of the ox, the pit, the grazing animal, and *when men strive* (Exod 21:18 ff.), it discussed the four classes of bailees.
, , , . .
Then comes Bava Batra, whose purpose is the legal treatment of the division of lands, the rulings that arise concerning shared and adjacent dwellings, the rescission of a transaction upon the appearance of a defect, the open questions concerning sales and purchases and how they are to be adjudicated, surety, and inheritances. He placed this part last because it is all received tradition and matters of analogy that did not appear plainly in Scripture.
, .
Once he had treated the rulings, he took up the discussion of the judges who execute those rulings, and so he followed Bava Batra with Sanhedrin.
, , , , , .
As for tractate Makkot, it is connected in the texts with tractate Sanhedrin and is counted together with it, since after saying *These are they who are strangled* they joined to it *These are they who are flogged*—but this is not correct; rather it is a tractate in its own right, and it is connected to Sanhedrin because no one but the judges may expose the truth and carry out the penalties, as God said, *then the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten before him according to his wickedness* (Deut 25:2).
, , , .
After Makkot comes Shevuot, because here too a resemblance in the rulings occurred between the end of the former and the beginning of the latter, as is mentioned in the Talmud; and added to this is the fact that it too is among the functions of the judges, since none but a judge may compel an oath.
, , , , ,
Once the discussion of the rulings and the judges and what pertains to the judge's function—imposing flogging and requiring oaths—was complete, he discussed Eduyot. The chief purpose of this tractate is to set out for you all the *halakhot* attested by trustworthy persons, since their testimony is acted upon; and this is a species of the rulings, because testimonies are delivered only before the judges, and likewise every testimony in it was given only in a court.
, .
He placed it after Shevuot because oaths are matters needed throughout the passage of the ages, whereas Eduyot consists of reports of rulings that were attested before the judges of past times, who then accepted them.
, , , , ,
He then took up the legal treatment of Avoda Zara, since it is a matter of pressing necessity for the judge, and by it the judge attains completeness, through knowledge of the rites of those objects of worship and what he needs to know of them, so that he understands how to rule concerning them—for one who worships Saturn with the rite of Venus, or invokes Jupiter with the invocation of Mars, does not incur the death penalty, as sound tradition has reached us. He placed it last because it occurs rarely, except in unusual cases. Once everything the judge needs had been provided for him, he took up Avot, and this for two purposes.
. , , , ,
The first is to make known to you the soundness of the transmitted chain, that the tradition is sound, conveyed by the whole from the whole; and that for this reason one must honor a learned man and assign him the highest rank, since the chain of transmission has reached him, for he in his generation is like those men in their generations.
, ,
Thus they said, *If we are to scrutinize the court of Rabban Gamliel*, and so forth, and they said, *Samson in his generation is as Samuel in his generation*.
, , ,
There is in this a discipline for people, that no one should say, "Sage So-and-so—shall we accept him? Ordinance of So-and-so—shall we hold to it?"—for the matter is not so.
, .
The ruling does not belong to Judge So-and-so; rather it belongs to God, who legislated it for us, as He said, *for the judgment is God's* (Deut 1:17); it is one single ruling, transmitted from person to person through the passage of time.
,
The second purpose is that in this tractate he might set forth the moral disciplines of every one of the sages, peace be upon them, so that we might learn from them noble qualities of character.
, , ,
The people most in need of this are the judges, for if the common man is undisciplined, this does no harm to the community; he harms only himself.
, ,
But if the judge is not disciplined and trained, he perishes and brings the people to ruin altogether. For this reason the first thing he set down in Avot was the discipline of the judges: *Be deliberate in judgment* (M. Avot 1:1).
, , .
When the judge is disciplined by what tractate Avot contains, he shows deliberateness in the rulings and is not hasty in them—for if he is hasty, perhaps the ruling has within it some hidden deception, as they say, peace be upon them, *a ruling of deceit*. Yet neither should he prolong a ruling when he knows there is no hidden deceit in it; and this is what is called *delaying judgment*.
, , .
He should investigate the witnesses thoroughly, but in the course of investigation be on his guard—*Take heed*—lest they learn from his words anything that points them toward their aim; and he should not prompt the litigants with arguments, which is what is called *arraying the pleadings*.
, ,
He should not make himself too familiar with the common folk, *so that he not be held in contempt*; nor, on the other hand, should he make his door too forbidding, *so that the weak not perish*.
, , .
He should not be a seeker after comforts and pleasures, lest rights be lost and desire seduce him; nor should he be one who loves precedence, plunging into rendering decisions, *so that he not become suspect*.
, , .
He should incline most of his rulings toward reconciliation; for if the judge is able to render no decision at all the whole day long, but only to reconcile the two litigants, how excellent is this—and if reconciliation is not possible, then he carries out the ruling.
, , , , , .
He should not be harsh—I mean, set excessively long deferrals and leave the defendant to keep putting off his own case, however drawn-out and tiresome his speech becomes; but if that is not possible, given their pleas and what becomes clear to him, then he resolves and renders the ruling on the spot, as we see them, peace be upon them, doing: binding, applying the lash, distraining property, stripping off garments, and tearing up the documents that the witnesses had confirmed, when there was in the case what required this—and much of this kind; and in such severity they say, *let the ruling pierce the mountain*.
, , ,
In sum, the judge must be like the skilled physician. For the skilled physician—so long as he can and is able to heal by means of diet—does not heal by means of drugs; and if he sees that the malady is too strong to be healed by diet, he heals with remedies close to diet, such as sweet aromatic syrups and electuaries;
, .
and if he sees that the disease is too strong and that these things will not subdue or counter it, he takes up treatment with the more powerful, and gives the sick man scammony, colocynth pulp, aloes, and the like of these bitter, drastic drugs.
, , .
So too the judge: he aims at reconciliation, and if he cannot, he rules with gentleness, taking a soft approach and meeting the litigants with mild speech; and if he cannot, because of the obstinacy of one of the litigants and his unjust seeking of victory, he overpowers him and is severe, as we have described.
, .
Among the things proper for the judge is that he not be much taken with the world, with love of money and of prominence, as Scripture states, *hating unjust gain* (Exod 18:21), and as they said, peace be upon them, *a king establishes the land by justice, but if [he is like one who takes gifts], he tears it down* (M. Avot, drawing on Prov 29:4).
, , , , .
Since the judge needs all these disciplines in order to be schooled by them, how excellent is the placement of Avot after Sanhedrin and what is connected to it, comprising as it does all these disciplines, and adding to them disciplines that lead to renunciation of the world, preference for knowledge and its possessors, and all the works of righteousness and piety.
, , , .
Once he had finished with the disciplines of the judges, he took up their errors, since one in whom human nature inheres is not free of slips, and so he placed Horayot after Avot, and with it closed Seder Nezikin. Thus the division of the discussion in Nezikin came to eight tractates.
, , .
He then took up the division of the discussion in Kodashim, beginning with the offerings of animals, which is tractate Zevachim; then after tractate Zevachim comes Menachot, following the sequence of Scripture.
, , .
Once the slaughter of the consecrated offerings and what attends it was complete, he took up the slaughter of all other animals, following the sequence of Scripture, since after His saying *but only in the place which the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, there shall you offer up your burnt offerings and there shall you do all that I command you* (Deut 12:14), He said *yet whenever your soul desires you may slaughter*, and so forth (Deut 12:15); and so he followed Menachot with Chullin.
, .
After Chullin comes Bechorot, following the sequence of Scripture as well, since after His saying *yet whenever your soul desires*, and so forth, He said *You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, nor the firstborn of your herd and your flock* (Deut 12:17).
, . .
Once the legal treatment of consecrated persons and animals was complete, he took up the consecrated valuations, which are also a form of holiness, and so he followed Bechorot with Arachin. After Arachin comes Temura, following the sequence of Scripture as well.
. .
Once the legal treatment of these classes was complete, he followed it with tractate Keritot, in which is enumerated the whole body of laws that incur *karet* and what pertains to that subject. The reason he placed this class within Kodashim is that *whatever incurs karet for its willful violation incurs a sin-offering for its inadvertent violation*, except for a few cases, as is explained there.
, . , , .
After Keritot comes Meila, since the things that incur the law of misappropriation are lighter than the things that incur a sin-offering. After Meila comes tractate Tamid, which he placed last because it contains no legal analysis and nothing of permitted and forbidden, but only a description of how the daily offering was offered up, so that this might be followed as a permanent model.
, , , .
After Tamid comes Middot, whose sole purpose is the description of the dimensions of the Sanctuary, its form, and the manner of its building; and the benefit of this is that, if it is built, that form and those proportions may be preserved in it, for they are proportions received from God, as He said, *All this in writing from the hand of the Lord, who made me understand* (1 Chron 28:19).
, , , , , . . .
Once the law of the offerings of animals and all connected with it was complete, together with the description of the House in which those offerings are offered, he followed this with tractate Kinnim, whose whole purpose is nothing other than the law concerning the intermingling of birds, when the bird-offerings become mixed one with another. He placed it last because it is a matter not of pressing necessity—for sometimes they become mixed and sometimes they do not—and moreover the law of it is very slight, as is explained in its place; and with it he closed Seder Kodashim. Thus the division of the discussion in Seder Kodashim came to eleven tractates.
, , .
He then took up the division of the discussion in Tohorot, beginning with Keilim, whose purpose is to encompass the principles of the impurities and to describe what becomes defiled and what does not, so that when later he discusses what conveys impurity, we may already know the things that become defiled and the things that do not.
, . , , , .
After Keilim comes Oholot, which is the legal treatment of corpse impurity, and he placed it first because it is the most severe of the impurities. After it comes Negaim, which is the legal treatment of the impurity of *tzara'at* (leprosy), since the leper conveys impurity by overshadowing, so that there is in it a slight resemblance to corpse impurity; he followed it too with the description of purification from it, as is explained in its place.
, . , , ,
Once corpse impurity and what resembles it was complete, he took up the means of purification from it, namely the red heifer, and so he followed Negaim with tractate Para. Once the legal treatment of the severe impurities and the purification from them was complete, he took up the lighter impurities, in which there is nothing but waiting for sunset, and so he followed Para with tractate Tohorot.
, , . , , , , ,
He named it Tohorot ("purities") as a euphemism, even though its legal treatment is of impurities; and moreover the knowledge of impurities serves the cause of purity. Now perhaps someone might suppose that for him to name the order as a whole "Seder Tohorot" while one tractate within it is also "Tohorot" is open to objection—no; rather this is not objectionable in the view of the logicians, since a species may be named by the name of its genus.
, , . , .
Once the severe impurities and the purification from them were complete, and he had discussed the lighter impurities, he followed Tohorot with Mikvaot. He set Nidda after these impurities because it is an impurity not common to the whole human species, and so he followed Mikvaot with Nidda.
, , .
It would have been proper to follow Nidda with Zavim, but he placed Machshirin before Zavim because Scripture set it first, since Machshirin has its origin in *And it came to pass on the eighth day* (Lev 9:1 ff.), while Zavim is in *This shall be the law of the leper* (Lev 14:2 ff.).
. , , , .
After Zavim comes Tevel Yom, as God said, *This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him from whom an emission of semen goes out* (Lev 15:32). Now all these foregoing impurities pervade the whole body—that is, if a person comes near them, all of him is defiled—and so he then took up the law of the defilement of a single limb alone, following Tevel Yom with Yadayim.
, , . . . .
After Yadayim comes Uktzin, which he placed last because it is wholly derived by analogy, having no foundation in Scripture; and with it he closed his book. Thus the entire division of the discussion in Tohorot came to twelve tractates. The total number of tractates of the Mishnah was therefore sixty-one, and the number of chapters five hundred and twenty-three.
, , ,
He further saw fit to limit himself, among the names of the transmitters, to those nearest to him going back to Shimon the Righteous; and he made his discourse therein—I mean in the Mishnah—a concise discourse comprehending many meanings, for that was clear to him on account of the keenness of his nature and the excellence of his thought.
, ,
As for one of lesser rank, that is difficult for him, since the ancient scholars composed only for themselves; and for this reason one of his disciples saw fit—namely