I got some nice stuff at the seforim sale.

I'm soon going to finish the yerushalmi set I get last year from R Chaim Kenievsky - it only had seder zeraim plus shabbos and eruvin. So, I got a nice set of yerushalmi that covers it all. It is with the perush of Yedid Nefesh, {Rabbi Yechiel Bar-Lev}. While more expensive than the other sets, it has some advantages. The other sets just had the regular tzurat hadaf - page image, which is not so easy on the eyes. R Kenievsky's set does not have the standard tzurat hadaf, and so you cannot refer to a specific page in the conventional manner and have people know what you are speaking about, nor do you have access to the traditional commentaries. This new set has the tzurat hadaf on one side, and on the other side the text of the gemara in bold, with the running commentary written in non-bold text between the bold. Which means I can read the large bold text, and stop and read the commentary when I get somewhat stuck.

They also, in an artscrollish fashion, show what portion of text is being commented upon with that gray line along the side of the page with the regular tzurat hadaf. I think I got the last set, but perhaps they are still selling the display set.

{Update: Mostly, one page of commentary corresponds to one page of gemara. Only once or twice does it extend past one page.
Most of the commentary is a cut and paste job from the Pnei Moshe and Korban HaEda, but it is still worth it because the commentary and text of the gemara is much clearer, in larger block text, and is thus easier to read.
There are also many typos in the text of the gemara and commentaries. Many in the gemara seem to be because they cut and pasted from snunit, which has many of the exact same typos there.
You can see much of the gemara and commentary, and even purchase it, on their website.
}

I also got a set of midrash rabba. I haven't had one, and the one I used to read by my parents was hard to read. Here, they redid the page in a modern, clear font, with all of the standard commentaries also in a readable font. And, they put in nikud for the main text of the midrash.

Also, from Mossad HaRav Kook, Rashi al HaTorah. And, an illustrated Hebrew/English mishnayot Shabbos, to help me understand yerushalmi shabbos.

I think the sale is on until Sunday.

More prakim!

Hadran Alach prakim 3 - 6, 8-9 of yerushalmi shabbos. (#7 i'm learning with Eliyahu)

Teruma #2: difference between construction of Mishkan and Bet HaMikdash

that I noticed. By the Mishkan, is is voluntary:
Shemot 25:2
דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ-לִי תְּרוּמָה: מֵאֵת כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ, תִּקְחוּ אֶת-תְּרוּמָתִי.

'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering; of every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering.'

Tg Yonatan stresses this, adding to the translation "and not by force."

In contrast, in the haftorah, it is mandatory, and a tax: In the haftarah: 1 Kings 5:27-28

וַיַּעַל הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה מַס, מִכָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיְהִי הַמַּס, שְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף אִישׁ.
וַיִּשְׁלָחֵם לְבָנוֹנָה, עֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים בַּחֹדֶשׁ חֲלִיפוֹת--חֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ בַלְּבָנוֹן, שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים בְּבֵיתוֹ; וַאֲדֹנִירָם, עַל-הַמַּס.

"And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men.

And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home; and Adoniram was over the levy."

Why the difference? My idle speculation - people are more settled in a civilized country with cities and farms and the like, and would not have been so forthcoming had there not been a tax. Consider also that the people in the midbar probably did not have much else to do, or much concern for wealth or making a living, having taken the wealth of Egypt in payment for their years of servitude and not having expenditures as all their needs were taken care of by Hashem. Also, it was a much bigger venture.

I encountered an amusing anecdote

in yerushalmi shabbos, the sixth perek, halacha 1, last week.

The context is the prohibition/permissibility of teaching one's children Greek.
R Abahu said in the name of R Yochanan: A man is permitted to teach his daughter Greek for it is an adornment (tachshit) for her.
Shimon bar Bo heard and said: Because R Abahu wishes to teach his daughter Greek he attributed (this statement) to R Yochanan.
R Abahu heard and said, (Such and Such) should come upon me if I did not hear it from R Yochanan.

Terumah #1: (from last year, pre-blog)

In this week's parasha, Teruma, the Jews are commanded to make donations to the Mishkan. Moshe is told the dimensions of various items in the Mishkan. One of these items is the Ark. The psukim (Shemot 25:10-11) state, "And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about."

Thus, they make an ark of those dimensions of shittim wood, and they will overlay of (that is, cover it) on the inside and outside with pure gold.

This material is quite dry, but Chazal find lessons of conduct even in this.

In Yoma 72b, the verse "from within and without shall you overlay it" is cited. Then, we are told:
Rava said, every Talmid Chacham whose inside is not like his outside is not a Talmid Chacham.
Abaye, and some say Rabba son of Ulla, said, He is called abominable, as the verse states, (Iyyov 15:16) "How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh like water iniquity?"

{Interjection: The context is Elifaz the Temani responding to Iyyov, saying no man can be righteous. The previous two psukim have: What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. (followed by) How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh like water iniquity?

Rashi explains this as a drasha on the last verse. Like water, and water = Torah. Then, "a man which drinketh like water iniquity" (In Hebrew, Shoteh KaMayim Avlah) becomes, "a man which drinks Torah like water and he has in him iniquity." Such a person is called abominable.}

Rabbi Shmeul bar Nachmeni said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, why is it written (Mishlei 17:16) "Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?" Woe to the enemies of the Talmidei Chachamim (enemies of is a euphemism so as not to say a curse or a "woe" on the Talmidei Chachamim themselves) who are involved in Torah and have not in them fear of Heaven.

Rabbi Yanai announced, Woe on he who has no courtyard and the gate to his courtyard is made. {Rashi explains that the gat is Torah and the courtyard is fear of Heaven, and he has the gate by no courtyard to enter into via the gate.}

The gemara continues in the vein.

The idea of all of these psukim are that learning Torah is not enough. One also has to be a moral and righteous person, with fear of Heaven, and in fact, Torah is just a means to that end - belief in, fear of, and service of Hashem.

Have a good Shabbos,
Josh

New notes on my notepage

for Avodah Zarah II with Prof Steinfeld. First six classes, plus syllabus.

http://yucs.org/~waxman/

Useful Link

Online Bentching

Mishpatim #2: Ayin Tachat Ayin as metaphor

Many disagree with Chazal and claim that when the Torah refers to the principle of "an eye for an eye," the Torah means it literally.

We find reference to the concept of "an eye for an eye" in this week's parsha, Mishpatim, and I think that a careful analysis shows that it is not meant literally but is metaphor.

Consider that nowadays people often refer to the principle of "an eye for an eye" and do not mean it literally - that is, they are not in favor of actually knocking out someone's eye, or raping a rapist, etc. Rather, they are in favor of harsh punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. In specific instances, this means capital punishment for a murderer, but it is not meant to be literally an eye for an eye. It is a metaphor, and the invocation of a legal principle.

True, if we look at the code of Hammurabi and other texts which preceded Matan Torah, we see that they took the principle of an eye for an eye literally. Thus, we see that a builder who built a shoddy building which collapsed and killed the owner's son has his own son killed. However, "an eye of an eye" would not apply to such an extent in Torah law , for we have the principle that a son is not put to death for the sins of his father. Also, that the principle preexists the giving of the Torah means that when the Torah invokes it, it is referring to a well-known legal precedent, and does not then need to mean it literally, but rather can use it as metaphor, just as we do today.

I believe a close reading of the principle as it is found in parshat Mishpatim bears out the idea that it is metaphor and not meant to be taken literally. The citation is Shemot 21:22-27:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

We begin with two cases, in which a man strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry. In the first instance "mischief" follows; in the other it does not. What is the nature of this "mischief" - in Hebrew, "Ason?"

In another context, Chazal say that "Ason" only means death. The context is Yaakov's reluctance to send Binyamin with his brothers to Egypt lest "Ason" happen to him. In the context of Yosef's apparent death, it is likely that this is the fate Yaakov fears for Binyamin.

In our context as well, death is a fitting explanation for "Ason." Consider that this mischief is accompanying a miscarriage. In the old days, childbrith and miscarriages were often fatal, and so death might accompany a miscarriage. On the other hand, a miscarriage could not cause a woman to lose an eye or a tooth, or to be burnt.

Thus, in the first case, when she does not die as a result, all the assaulter does is pay a fine imposed by the court. If she dies as a result of the miscarriage, and thus as a result of the injuries he inflicted upon her, then he receives the death penalty - as the verse states, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

As I stated above, the remainder does not make sense in context. What eye for what eye? What tooth? What burn? She does not get these injuries associated with a miscarriage!

Rather, what we see here is an appeal to a legal principle, invoking it as a metaphor. Since he caused her to die, the only fitting punishment is to take a life in enchange for her life. The remainder is just a list which accompanies it - it is part of the litany - but is not meant in any way to be binding law.

Indeed, if we were imposing the principle of an eye for an eye consistently in this case, he should not be able to get away with paying a fine. If the assaulter had a pregnant wife, they should induce a miscarriage in punishment. (And they should kill the assaulter's wife rather than him - which I indeed have no proof according to those who say an eye for an eye is literal that they did not do, but which seems foriegn to the ear.)

It is also possible and perhaps likely that "an eye for an eye" is actually applicable in both cases, as the cases form a set. In this reading, "an eye for an eye" is a legal metaphor which means that we deal with the crime in accordance with its severity. If he killed an actual person, then he pays a life - his own - for her's. If he only killed a fetus, then this is less severe, and his punishment finds the level of severity appropriate to it, which is in this case paying a fine. Thus, following "a life for a life," we have "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc," in that we realize there are degrees of injury and we downgrade the punishment to match the injury, and in impose only a fine and not capital punishment. (Thus, an eye for an eye and not a life for an eye.)

This actually accords with Chazal's understanding, which is that "an eye eye for an eye" means monetary payment for an eye, while "a life for a life" means capital punishment.

The next case is that of the servant, with an actual eye or tooth knocked out. This might be brought by way of aside, the Torah having been reminded of this case by the wording of the metaphor/legal principle it just invoked.

Alternatively, we are seeing here a legal reform on behalf of slaves. In general damaging an eye would require monetary redress. However, in order to discourage maltreatment of servants, the Torah *increases* the punishment such that instead of paying a fine, the owner must free his servant entirely. Thus, the value of a servant for an eye, rather than the value of an eye for an eye.

In sum, there seems to be a tendency to assume the pshat reading here is a literal one, which is strange, considering that often drash is hyperliteral and significance maximalist, and pshat is hypoliteral and significance minimalist. The best pshat in this instance may well be in this instance that we are seeing a metaphor and appeal to a legal principle without subscribing to that principle in all its details.

Mishpatim #1: HaAm = Ziknei HaAm as synecdoche

Synecdoche as I've most commonly encountered it in various Bible classes was the use of a part to reference the whole (as hand for sailor), but according to American Heritage Dictionary, it can also refer to: the whole for a part (as the law for police officer), the specific for the general (as cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (as thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing made from it (as steel for sword).

Last week I referred to the Mechilta what explained that Moshe did not originally judge alone, but based on the words Gam Ata, Gam Et HaAm HaZeh, there were also Aharon, optionally Nadav and Avihu, plus 70 elders who judged with him, before Yitro's suggestion of adding judges. They darshened this as follows: Ata was Moshe. Gam was Aharon or Aharon + Nadav and Avihu. HaAm was the elders. This even though pashut pshat seems to be that HaAm refers to the people who wanted to be judged by Moshe and not the elders who were doing judging.

However, as I read further, it seems that indeed we may be dealing with synecdoche, in this case with the whole - the Am being used to refer to the part - the elders of the Am. Two proofs:

1) Towards the end of Mishpatim, after listing the laws, we have the following instruction (Shemot 24:1-2):
"And to Moshe He said, 'Ascend to Hashem, you and Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and bow from afar.' And Moshe alone approached Hashem and they did not approach, and the Am did not ascend with him."

The first pasuk lists the parties we saw earlier in the midrash- Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the elders. (We see them again in pasuk 9.) In the second pasuk, we have Moshe, "they," and the "Am." Why should the nation be listed as not going up - after all, the command referenced only Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the elders. I would suggest that perhaps "they" refers to Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and the Am refers to the elders of the Am.

2) In last week's parsha, Yisro, in Shemot 19:7 we read:
"Moshe came and called to the elders of the Am and placed before them all these matters which Hashem commanded him."
Yet in the next pasuk:
"And all the Am answered together, saying that Hashem says we will do, and Moshe brought back the words of the Am to Hashem."

Where did the Am come from is Moshe spoke to the elders of the Am. Midrashim and meforshim deal with it, but perhaps there is nothing to deal with, for when the Am answered, what is meant is the elders of the Am, and we are dealing once again with a synecdoche.

Yisro #3: Round trip tickets

The other interesting midrash I mentioned before:

In Shemot 19:4, Hashem tells Moshe to tell the Jews why they should hearken to Him:
אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם; וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל-כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים, וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי.
"Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself."

Now, this most probably is not meant to be taken literally. That is, Hashem did not gather a bunch of eagles (as He did the quails) and cause the Jews to be taken out of Egypt on their wings. We read earlier how the Jews left Egypt. It is clearly metaphor. Rashi cites the midrash what the eagles' wings means - eagles place their young on their wings because the only danger comes from below, in the form of arrows, since they are the highest flying birds. So Hashem protected us with the Ananei HaKavod.

But what does וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי mean? After all, Hashem is Omnipresent, so does one location contain His Presence more than others. Even if so, the first part is a metaphor, so perhaps this is a metaphor as well.

The mechilta cites various opinions. In the realm of metaphor, אֵלָי need not mean a location, but rather that He brought them to His service (worship), or to His Torah. In terms of location, that would be the current location, that is Har Sinai. And one very concise suggestion is the Bet HaBechira, thet is the Bet HaMikdash.

Tg Yonatan either expands on the suggestion or has access to the fuller version of the Midrash: Hashem gathered the Jews to Pelisium (a city in Lower Egypt that Tg Yonatan earlier associated with Ramses, so Ramses), and from there spirited them away to the Bet HaMikdash where they had the korban pesach. Then Hashem spirited them back to Pelisium and from there the Exodus proceeded as described.

Update, 2009: Here is the text of Targum Yonatan. And you can see it in a Mikraos Gedolos here.

Not much in the way of original divrei torah this week

To an extent this was due to an increased focus on yerushalmi. However, while reading through the parsha with Mechilta and Tg Yonatan, I saw two very nice midrashim.

The first one:
Before Yisro's suggestion to Moshe, how many judges were there? Most people would say just one - Moshe. Mechilta however cites a dispute between (if I recall correctly) R Yehoshua and R Eliezer HaModai.

The pasuk in Shemot 18:18 states:
נָבֹל תִּבֹּל--גַּם-אַתָּה, גַּם-הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עִמָּךְ: כִּי-כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר, לֹא-תוּכַל עֲשֹׂהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ.
"Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee; for the thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone."

אַתָּה refers to Moshe. The גַּם of גַּם-אַתָּה comes to include Aharon (according to R Yehoshua), or Aharon and his sons Elazar and Itamar (according toi R Eliezer HaModai). הָעָם refers not to the populace but to the 70 elders who judged with them. It makes some sense. The nation that is with you is the nation that is judging with you. That makes 72 judges, or perhaps 74 judges. On Yisro's advice this became more than 60 thousand.

This seems to be a consistent rendition of הָעָם throughout this context. So later in pasuk 23 we read:
אִם אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹקִים, וְיָכָלְתָּ עֲמֹד; וְגַם כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה, עַל-מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם.
If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people also shall go to their place in peace.'

again it is rendered as the elders.
What about in pasuk 13, 14, and 15:
וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הָעָם....
וַיַּרְא חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-הוּא עֹשֶׂה לָעָם....
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹתְנוֹ: כִּי-יָבֹא אֵלַי הָעָם....

From looking at the midrash, no one seems to interpret these instances of הָעָם as the elders, though there is a possibility that הָעָם is once again the elders at Har Sinai, since the midrash again picks up pegarding the Kohanim and the Am, with Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the Elders on the mountain.

A perek!

הדרן עלך במה מדליקין!
(2nd perek yerushalmi shabbat)

I got some good feedback

from Mendy about the parsha jokes from last week, so I thought, might as well continue. This time, to encourage comments, a contest! First to post the correct answer in the comments on the side wins.

Why did Shimshon submerge Yisro in a vat of salt and vinegar for several hours?

Update: OK, a hint. Think Pirkei Avot.

Answer: Ezehu Gibor? HaKovesh Et Yisro.

:)

New Invention (via Protocols)

The kosher lamp.

Basically, its a shade built into the lamp which allows you to dim or "turn off the lamp," in an absolutely kosher way. Useful when you are done reading in bed on Friday night.

I don't know enough about the halachot of shabbos, something I'm currently trying to remedy by learning yerushalmi shabbos, and the other day I encountered a gemara that stated an issur to read by a light on Friday night, *an issur that applies even to non-adjustable lights*. Associated with this, the chazzan haknesset cannot daven by a light on Friday night but can point out to the youth where to start reading. This is obviously not current practice, and I am now interested why, and how this figures in to the halacha.

A perek! And masechet! And seder! And perek!

הדרן עלך כיצד מפרישים!
(3rd perek yerushalmi bikurim)
וסליקא לה מסכת ביכורים וסידרא דזרעים ברחמי דשמייא!

הדרן עלך יציאות השבת!
(1st perek yerushalmi shabbat)

Parshat Yisro #1: A Jewish Scholar class?

There is an interesting editorial in Haaretz by Member of Knesset Meir Porush (UTJ) about the historical role of a class of Jews who devoted themselves solely to learning, rather than working. He is responding to an article by Moshe Kaveh, the president of Bar-Ilan University.

Blogger Nathan G takes exception to Porush's article (which tipped me onto it in the first place), specifically to the claim that the masses throughout the generations "devoted themselves to studying Torah and fulfilled the precept to 'speak about it day and night."

Anyway, Porush gives the example of the Yissachar-Zevulun agreement for people who devoted themselves entirely to the study of Torah. There is also an interesting example in this week's parsha, parshat Yisro. Upon Yisro's suggestion, (Shemot 18:25)

וַיִּבְחַר מֹשֶׁה אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל מִכָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם רָאשִׁים עַל-הָעָם--שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת.
"And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens."

The Mechilta, and Tg Yonatan following the Mechilta, explain that וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת means one out of every 10, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים means one over every 50, etcetera, so from a population of 600,000 men, we are talking about more than 60 thousand people.

Further, the next pasuk states:
וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, בְּכָל-עֵת: אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם.
"And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves."

The Mechilta explains בְּכָל-עֵת as "at all times." The michilta cites Rabbi Yehoshua that this means that theyset themselves away from their professions and devoted themselves full time to learning Torah and judging. Now this may have caused a drash because judging can only be done during the day, or else similar to the drash arising a few psukim earlier by Moshe who judged from morning to night, which was problematic because one does not judge at mealtimes.

A new minhag

to eat Kokosh cake this Shabbos. To be mikayem the pasuk (Shemot 15:7):
תְּשַׁלַּח, חֲרֹנְךָ--יֹאכְלֵמוֹ, כַּקַּשׁ

;)

Beshalach #2

A few years back, for a class in Revel called "Rashi As An Exegete," I wrote a 20 page paper (double spaced) analyzing a specific Rashi in Beshalach, about the miracles associated with the collection of the מן. You can read it here.

Beshalach Trivia

Q) What was the name of the single Jewish person who stayed in Egypt?
A) Nacham, as it states in Shemot 13:17
וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הָעָם, וְלֹא-נָחָם

Q) What was the name of Pharoah's horse?
A) 'Kiva, as it states in Shemot 15:19
כִּי בָא סוּס פַּרְעֹה

Yeah, none of these are original.

Oh, and look at Tg Yonatan on the word וַחֲמֻשִׁים in Shemot 13:18:
וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

Where pashtanim say it means armed and midrashim say it means 1/5, 1/50, 1/500th, etc., since a large percentage of benei yisrael died during the plague of darkness, Targum Yonatan says that each person left Egypt with 5 children. This is a more optimistic midrash. Although perhaps is also suggests that some percentage died (and is related to that midrashic strain) since other midrashim state that each Jewish woman when she bore children bore 6 at a time.

Another perek!

הדרן עלך התרומה והבכורים!
(2nd perek yerushalmi bikurim)

Another perek! And masechet! And perek!

הדרן עלך בגד שצבעו!
(3rd perek yerushalmi Orlah)
וסליקא לה מסכת ערלה!
הדרן עלך יש מביאים!
(1st perek yerushalmi bikurim)

Only two more prakim to go to finish seder zeraim!