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":["Mishnah","Seder Kodashim"],"heTitle":"משנה מעילה","language":"en","license":"CC0","sectionNames":["Chapter","Mishnah"],"text":[["[Offerings of]<i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered only on the north-west corner of the altar, and consumed only within the Temple compound by male priests, or burnt entirely.]  that were slaughtered in the south [of the Temple Courtyard]  one is liable for  <i> me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property]. If they were slaughtered in the south [side], but their blood was gathered in the north [side]; if they were slaughtered in the north, but their blood was gathered in the south; if they were  slaughtered during the day, and their blood was sprinkled at night; [if they were slaughtered] at night, and their blood was sprinkled during the day; or one slaughtered them [with the intent to eat it] after its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place,  one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>.  Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general rule: Any [offering] that had even a brief period of time when it was permitted to the <i>kohanim</i> [priests], one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. [However] anything which did not have a brief period of time when they were  permitted to the <i>kohanim</i>, one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that had a brief permitted time  to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was left past its [permitted] time, or which became impure, or went out [was removed from the Temple Courtyard]. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that did not have a brief permitted time to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was slaughtered [with the invalid intent to eat it] beyond its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place, or an invalid one [<i>kohen</i>] gathered and sprinkled its blood.","The meat of <i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices] that was removed [from the Courtyard] before their blood was sprinkled, Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> but   they are not liable for <i>pigul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention to be eaten beyond its time], <i>notar</i> [a sacrifice that was leftover beyond the time of consumption] and <i>tamei</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit because it became defiled]. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>,  but they are  liable for  <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva said: Why in the case when someone sets aside a sin offering and it got lost and he then sets aside another one in its place [and it was slaughtered], and then the first one was found [and was slaughtered], and now they [the blood] of both are in front of us [ready to be sprinkled], is it not so that just as the  [sprinkling] the blood of the first one  exempts its meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>], so too it should exempt the meat of the second one? And if the [sprinkling] of the blood of one exempts the meat of  the other one from  <i> me'ilah</i>, is it not logical [through  fortiori reasoning] that it should exempt its own meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>].","The limbs of  [sacrifices] <i> kodashim kalim</i> [sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard and consumed by most anyone, anywhere in Jerusalem] that were removed [out of the Courtyard] before the sprinking of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says, one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>  and one is not liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva says one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>  and  is liable for  <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>.","The of sprinkling the blood of  <i>kodshei kodashim</i> may have  a lenient [affect] and a stringent [affect], but with <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it affects them all stringently. How so? [With respect to] <i>kodshei kodashim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to both the limbs [of the animal to be burned on the altar] and the meat; after the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat], one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident that the sprinkling of the blood  has a lenient and stringent affect. [But with respect to] <i>kodashim kalim</i> it has only a stringent affect. How so? <i>Kodashim kalim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply neither to the  limbs  nor to the meat. After sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs, but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat],  one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident, that with respect to <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it has only a stringent effect. "],["[With respect to] the bird sin offering,  one is liable for <i> meilah</i> once theyLine truncated
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				{"categories":["Mishnah","Seder Kodashim"],"heTitle":"משנה מעילה","language":"en","license":"CC0","sectionNames":["Chapter","Mishnah"],"text":[["[Offerings of]<i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered only on the north-west corner of the altar, and consumed only within the Temple compound by male priests, or burnt entirely.] that were slaughtered in the south [of the Temple Courtyard] one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property]. If they were slaughtered in the south [side], but their blood was gathered in the north [side]; if they were slaughtered in the north, but their blood was gathered in the south; if they were slaughtered during the day, and their blood was sprinkled at night; [if they were slaughtered] at night, and their blood was sprinkled during the day; or one slaughtered them [with the intent to eat it] after its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place, one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. Rabbi Yehoshua stated a general rule: Any [offering] that had even a brief period of time when it was permitted to the <i>kohanim</i> [priests], one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. [However] anything which did not have a brief period of time when they were permitted to the <i>kohanim</i>, one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i>. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that had a brief permitted time to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was left past its [permitted] time, or which became impure, or went out [was removed from the Temple Courtyard]. What is it [an example of a sacrifice] that did not have a brief permitted time to the <i>kohanim</i>? If it was slaughtered [with the invalid intent to eat it] beyond its [designated] time or outside its [permitted] place, or an invalid one [<i>kohen</i>] gathered and sprinkled its blood.","The meat of <i> Kodshei kodashim</i> [sacrifices] that was removed [from the Courtyard] before their blood was sprinkled, Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> but they are not liable for <i>pigul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention to be eaten beyond its time], <i>notar</i> [a sacrifice that was leftover beyond the time of consumption] and <i>tamei</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit because it became defiled]. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i>, but they are liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva said: Why in the case when someone sets aside a sin offering and it got lost and he then sets aside another one in its place [and it was slaughtered], and then the first one was found [and was slaughtered], and now they [the blood] of both are in front of us [ready to be sprinkled], is it not so that just as the [sprinkling] the blood of the first one exempts its meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>], so too it should exempt the meat of the second one? And if the [sprinkling] of the blood of one exempts the meat of the other one from <i> me'ilah</i>, is it not logical [through fortiori reasoning] that it should exempt its own meat [from <i>me'ilah</i>].","The limbs of [sacrifices] <i> kodashim kalim</i> [sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard and consumed by most anyone, anywhere in Jerusalem] that were removed [out of the Courtyard] before the sprinking of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says, one is not liable for <i> me'ilah</i> and one is not liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. Rabbi Akiva says one is liable for <i> me'ilah</i> and is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>.","The of sprinkling the blood of <i>kodshei kodashim</i> may have a lenient [affect] and a stringent [affect], but with <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it affects them all stringently. How so? [With respect to] <i>kodshei kodashim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to both the limbs [of the animal to be burned on the altar] and the meat; after the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat], one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident that the sprinkling of the blood has a lenient and stringent affect. [But with respect to] <i>kodashim kalim</i> it has only a stringent affect. How so? <i>Kodashim kalim</i>, before the sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply neither to the limbs nor to the meat. After sprinkling of the blood, the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> apply to the limbs, but the laws of <i> me'ilah</i> do not apply to the meat. With respect to this [limbs] and this [meat], one is liable for <i>pigul</i>, <i>notar</i> and <i>tamei</i>. It is thus evident, that with respect to <i>kodashim kalim</i>, it has only a stringent effect. "],["[With respect to] the bird sin offering, one is liable for <i> meilah</i> once theyLine truncated