the second scroll: the mesorah snapshot, pinned and read (bishe'arecha step 6)

Devarim 17:18 — the king writes his copy from before the priests, not from memory. scripts/build_mesorah.py takes one open-licence version per work per language from the Sefaria export (bucket sefaria-export, catalogue of 2026-10-02; Public Domain / CC0 / CC-BY / CC-BY-SA only, checked in every file; no CC-BY-NC — the Bavli is Wikisource's) and lays it down beside L1: mesorah/works/<slug>/{he,en}.json, index.json, integrity.sha256, build_report.json. 128 works (Rashi, Onkelos, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Sforno on the Torah; all of Mishnah; 37 Bavli tractates; Bereshit and Shemot Rabbah, Sifrei, Tanchuma), 256 files, 44.9 MiB, tree hash 7d5b3a6c… computed as L1's (sorted relative path, then bytes; the two post-hash files excluded). What is out, and why (licence), is in Terumah §E5. Read, never fetched: korban_processor/mesorah.py finds citations as written (Rashi on Devarim 6:5, Berakhot 2a, Mishnah Berakhot 1:1, Bereshit Rabbah 1:1, Sifrei Devarim 32, Tanchuma Bereshit 1 …), resolves each against the snapshot (complex works through their unnamed node, Tanchuma by parashah), lists them as examination.mesorah_references, and makes every passage found a given source for that examination — so a claim about Rashi anchors in Rashi or does not. The Vav Pipeline couples coupled(reference(R), mesorah(Work, [Address])) or not_in_mesorah; the engine accepts mesorah/2 as a terminal and not_in_mesorah is Form 4. VavPipeline.Mesorah pins the hash, re-reads the tree at startup and every ten minutes, and /kodesh/health carries mesorah_hash. Mounted read-only at /mnt/mesorah in the vav-pipeline and korban-processor images. L3 bedikot.mesorah (migration 20261013000002). Also: the 1-in-12 Day6 serving failure of 2026-10-04 reproduced with seed 446116 — HaltMonitorTest left the system halted; it now resolves on exit and the Day6 setup is defensive. Construction §3.11, Terumah §E5, Tamid §1.1, bishearecha §IV, KOHEN, AGENTS. Doorpost 0638d4eb…. Elixir 604/0 (seeds 835592 and 446116), korban 294/1 skipped, Prolog bedikah 44/44, L3 10/0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-13 19:13:36 +00:00
1 parent ffccedb63a
commit 5e325d36cc
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"categories":["Talmud","Bavli","Seder Nezikin"],"heTitle":"בבא מציעא","language":"en","license":"CC0","sectionNames":["Daf","Line"],"text":[[],[],["Two men are holding onto a garment.  One says,  \"I found it!\" and the other says,  \"I found it!\"  One says, ... \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\"  One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less than half and they split it. ","One says,  \"All of it is mine!\" and the other says  \"Half of it is mine!\"  The one who says all of it is his swears he doesn't own less than three quarters and the one who says half swears he doesn't own less than a quarter and this one gets three quarters and that one gets one quarter. ","Two men are riding on the back of an animal, or one man is riding and the other is leading. One says,  \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\" One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less then half and they split it.","In a time in which they agree or where there are witnesses present, they split without an oath","Why does the mishna teach, \"One says, \"I found it!\" and the other says, \"I found it!\" One says, \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\"\"  Teach them separately!  Teach,  \"One says, \"I found it and it's all mine!\" and the other says \"I found it and it's all mine!\" ","And furthermore, teach just  \"I found it!\" and we can infer that \"it's all mine!\"  If it only taught \"I found it!\", I would have thought that finding was seeing!"],["Had the Mishna [only taught the case of a] found object I would've thought [by the case of] a found object is when the Rabbis instituted an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say my friend didn't lose anything.(he will only not gain) I will go and grab, and I will split it [the talis] with him But, [by] acquisitions that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]","And if it taught acquisitions [I would think]that's when they gave him an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say: my friend gave money; as did I now, that I need it [the object]. I will take it, and my friend will go and bother to buy another. ... But, [by the case of] a found object that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]. [Therefore both case are]needed.","Acquisitions: And let us see from who he took? (That is, let us ask the seller who he accepted money from) (Rashi explains that a merchant is believed to say who he accepted money from, provided  he only accepted money from one of them. Tosphos argues and says the gemara is asking that the merchant should be considered a sole witness, who should be believed to exempt the one whose claim he corroborates from swearing an oath.) No, it's necessary. He accepted from both of them. One willingly and one forced. And we don't know which one is which. (Our text follows Rashi. According to Tos., the correct version is, \"he doesn't know.\" The circumstances ,i.e., he accepted money from both of them is just an explanation why he doesn't remember. According to Rashi, it's irrelevant if he knows. He is only believed when he only accepted money from one of them. "],["And one could say the entirety is one master's and one could say that the entirety is [the other] master's. Sumchus says Money that hangs in doubt should be split without an oath. Here where there is no loss of money, since one could say that it belongs to both of them, is it not even more so?...","You could even say that it [the mishnah] follows Sumchus's opinion: This oath is a rabbinical enactment. Like the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan: For Rebbi Yochanan said This oath is a rabbinical enactment so that an individual could not go and grab the garment of his friend and say \"it is mine!\"","We should derive that the Mishnah [here] does not follow Rabbi Yossi, for if it were like Rabbi Yossi -- Rabbi Yossi said: If so, what did the liar lose? Rather it all should be set aside until Elijah comes.","This is the Rabbis!? Since the Rabbis said: The remainder will be set aside until Elijah comes. This [case] is similar to the remainder, for it is unclear!","What kind of comparison is this!? If you said, it is easy for the Rabbis, there [the depositor] this maneh certainly belongs to one of them, and the Rabbis said: It should be set aside until Elijah comes. Here [the garment], where it could be said that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis said to split it with an oath.","But if you said, the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yossi, there [the depositors] certainly a maneh belongs to one and another maneh belongs to the other, Rabbi Yossi it will be set aside until Elijah comes, here, where we could say that belongs to [only] one of them, all the more so!","Even if you say it is Line truncated
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				{"categories":["Talmud","Bavli","Seder Nezikin"],"heTitle":"בבא מציעא","language":"en","license":"CC0","sectionNames":["Daf","Line"],"text":[[],[],["Two men are holding onto a garment. One says, \"I found it!\" and the other says, \"I found it!\" One says, ... \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\" One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less than half and they split it. ","One says, \"All of it is mine!\" and the other says \"Half of it is mine!\" The one who says all of it is his swears he doesn't own less than three quarters and the one who says half swears he doesn't own less than a quarter and this one gets three quarters and that one gets one quarter. ","Two men are riding on the back of an animal, or one man is riding and the other is leading. One says, \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\" One swears that he doesn't own less than half and the other swears he doesn't own less then half and they split it.","In a time in which they agree or where there are witnesses present, they split without an oath","Why does the mishna teach, \"One says, \"I found it!\" and the other says, \"I found it!\" One says, \"It's all mine!\" and the other says, \"It's all mine!\"\" Teach them separately! Teach, \"One says, \"I found it and it's all mine!\" and the other says \"I found it and it's all mine!\" ","And furthermore, teach just \"I found it!\" and we can infer that \"it's all mine!\" If it only taught \"I found it!\", I would have thought that finding was seeing!"],["Had the Mishna [only taught the case of a] found object I would've thought [by the case of] a found object is when the Rabbis instituted an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say my friend didn't lose anything.(he will only not gain) I will go and grab, and I will split it [the talis] with him But, [by] acquisitions that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]","And if it taught acquisitions [I would think]that's when they gave him an oath upon him because he'll rationalize and say: my friend gave money; as did I now, that I need it [the object]. I will take it, and my friend will go and bother to buy another. ... But, [by the case of] a found object that one can't say this, we would say no [since he is a full-fledged thief he would swear falsely. Therefore, we can't make him take an oath]. [Therefore both case are]needed.","Acquisitions: And let us see from who he took? (That is, let us ask the seller who he accepted money from) (Rashi explains that a merchant is believed to say who he accepted money from, provided he only accepted money from one of them. Tosphos argues and says the gemara is asking that the merchant should be considered a sole witness, who should be believed to exempt the one whose claim he corroborates from swearing an oath.) No, it's necessary. He accepted from both of them. One willingly and one forced. And we don't know which one is which. (Our text follows Rashi. According to Tos., the correct version is, \"he doesn't know.\" The circumstances ,i.e., he accepted money from both of them is just an explanation why he doesn't remember. According to Rashi, it's irrelevant if he knows. He is only believed when he only accepted money from one of them. "],["And one could say the entirety is one master's and one could say that the entirety is [the other] master's. Sumchus says Money that hangs in doubt should be split without an oath. Here where there is no loss of money, since one could say that it belongs to both of them, is it not even more so?...","You could even say that it [the mishnah] follows Sumchus's opinion: This oath is a rabbinical enactment. Like the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan: For Rebbi Yochanan said This oath is a rabbinical enactment so that an individual could not go and grab the garment of his friend and say \"it is mine!\"","We should derive that the Mishnah [here] does not follow Rabbi Yossi, for if it were like Rabbi Yossi -- Rabbi Yossi said: If so, what did the liar lose? Rather it all should be set aside until Elijah comes.","This is the Rabbis!? Since the Rabbis said: The remainder will be set aside until Elijah comes. This [case] is similar to the remainder, for it is unclear!","What kind of comparison is this!? If you said, it is easy for the Rabbis, there [the depositor] this maneh certainly belongs to one of them, and the Rabbis said: It should be set aside until Elijah comes. Here [the garment], where it could be said that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis said to split it with an oath.","But if you said, the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yossi, there [the depositors] certainly a maneh belongs to one and another maneh belongs to the other, Rabbi Yossi it will be set aside until Elijah comes, here, where we could say that belongs to [only] one of them, all the more so!","Even if you say it is Line truncated