Eduyos 2:2 - 2:3

לא ראיתי עור יוצא לבית השריפה – After its hide was flayed, if it was found torn. Even though that this disqualification was upon it prior to its hide being removed, since it was not recognized other than after the hide’s removal.

שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה – but Rabbi Akiva comes to teach us (a new point), that even a firstling which has defect when it is slaughtered outside of Jerusalem on its defect, and the Biblical verse did not permit it other than for eating, as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:22): “Eat it in your settlements [the unclean among you no less than the clean, just like the gazelle and the deer],” but if it died, its hide is forbidden and it requires burial, and Rabbi Akiva teaches us that where it is “terefah”/torn status is not known until after the hide is flayed, the permitted it to be slaughtered and the flaying of its hide is like its blood was cast in the Temple.

יאותו הכהנים בעורו – and it is not burned.

אין לא ראיתי ראיה – lest it did not happen in his days that it would be found “terefah”/torn after the hide had been flayed, and if it happened and they burned it, he did not see it.

אלא יצא לבית השריפה – since prior to the flaying it had come. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva regarding a firstling with a defect when a specialist permitted it, but if a specialist did not permit it, no. And the Halakha is according to the Sages in regard to a pure firstling, that the flesh is buried and hide is burned.

וכותב בכתב ידו – a document of liability on the borrower.

ואחרים חותמים – valid witnesses would sign on the document.

והתירו – and even though the person who writes the document is the lender, and he is an interested witness.

שהאשה כותבת את גיטה – and valid witnesses are signed to it.

את שוברו – the document of renunciation that his wife has renounced to him on her Jewish marriage contract.

שאין קיום הגט אלא בחותמיו (see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) – the witnesses whose signatures are affixed on the Jewish bill of divorce is the essence of the reason for the validation of the Jewish bill of divorce. Therefore, when valid witnesses have affixed their signatures on it, it is valid, and event though it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) is in the handwriting of the woman [to be divorced].

ועל מחט – and it is known concerning it that it was defiled [through contact] with the dead, and it is found that with Holy meat, when they cut it in the Temple courtyard, and there was a doubt if it the knife or a person touched it or not. The knife and the person are ritually pure, for it is doubtful impurity in the public domain, for the Temple courtyard has the law of the public domain regarding the matter of ritual impurity, and a doubtful impurity in the public domain, its doubt is deemed pure.

והבשר טמא (see Talmud Pesahim 20a and Talmud Hullin 36b) -for it certainly came in contact with ritual impurity, and our Mishnah is speaking about Holy animals that passed through a river close to its slaughter and still liquid is dripping on it, as the meat has become susceptible to receive defilement with those waters. For if this was not the case, the meat would not be impure. And even though we wash it in the slaughtering place in the Temple courtyard, for all liquid of the slaughtering house is restored to Levitical cleanness. And the meat does not become susceptible to receive defilement. And if it is difficult how the meat is ritually defiled and the hands are pure, for don’t impure food-stuffs defile the hands, according to the Rabbis. But it is not difficult at all, for we hold that one’s hands do not become defiled in the Temple, when they decreed on the defilement of the hands, they didn’t decree about it in the Temple.