‘Sacred and Defiles the Hands’: The Canonical Status of the Biblical Books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5)

This piece analyzes one of the most consequential passages in the Mishnah: Yadayim 3:5–4:2. Framed as having occurred on a single day of institutional change—the appointment of R' Elazar ben Azariah as head of the academy at Yavne¹—the text presents a rare convergence of halakhic decision-making, canon formation, and sacrificial law. The repeated refrain 'on that day they ruled'² signals a moment of formal consolidation, where competing positions are either resolved or authoritatively codified.

The first half addresses the sanctity of biblical books and their capacity to transmit tum'at yadayim—a technical form of ritual impurity that rabbinic law links to sacred texts.³

The Mishnah not only preserves conflicting views about Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs but also stages their resolution as a tradition from ‘72 elders’ (שבעים ושנים זקן), reinforcing the authority of canonical decisions.

R' Akiva’s emphatic defense of Song of Songs as kodesh kodashim (“holy of holies”) positions it as the literary apex of sacred writ.

The second half (which I bring in Appendix 2) shifts from books to vessels and sacrifices, adjudicating obscure cases related to ritual purity: whether cracked footbaths can contract midras impurity, and which offerings remain valid despite improper intent. Again, the authority of precedent—especially from the same pivotal day—is foregrounded. Ben-Azzai repeatedly invokes traditions from that moment, though not all are accepted.

Overall, the Mishnah passage acts as a meta-halakhic narrative: a reflection on how rabbinic law is established, transmitted, and bounded. The text's legal content is inseparable from its self-understanding as a moment of foundational closure—part canonization, part bureaucratic reform, and part theological assertion.

The Talmud’s discussion in Shabbat 30b re the canonical statues of the Books of Kohelet, Shir ha-Shirim, and Proverbs

Compare the Talmud’s discussion in tractate Shabbat 30b re these two biblical books.⁴ The Talmud there states:⁵

אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת, משמיה דרב:

בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת

מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav:

The Sages sought to suppress (לגנוז) the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal

because its statements contradict (סותרין) each other and it is liable to confuse its readers.

And see also later in that sugya:⁶

ואף ספר משלי בקשו לגנוז,

שהיו דבריו סותרין זה את זה.

And they sought to suppress the book of Proverbs as well

because its statements contradict each other.

From a historical-critical perspective, these three books were written relatively late, compared to other books of the biblical canon. In addition, they are more philosophical than the rest of the the biblical books. These factors are the likely reasons for their controversial aspects.

Outline

Intro

1. The Talmud’s discussion in Shabbat 30b re the canonical statues of the Books of Kohelet, Shir ha-Shirim, and Proverbs

‘Sacred and Defile the Hands’: The Canonical Status of the Biblical Books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5)

1. A page from a Bible scroll with at least 85 letters imparts impurity to the hands

2. Tanna Kamma: Both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands

3. R' Yehuda: Only Song of Songs defiles; Ecclesiastes is disputed

4. R' Yosei: The reverse—Ecclesiastes does not defile; Song of Songs is disputed

5. R' Shimon: Ecclesiastes reflects a leniency of Beit Shammai and a stringency of Beit Hillel

6. Ben-Azzai (citing tradition): Both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands

7. R' Akiva: No one disputed Song of Songs—it's “holy of holies”—dispute was only about Ecclesiastes

8. R' Yoḥanan ben Yehoshua: Confirms Ben-Azzai’s account of debate and conclusion

Appendix 1 - ‘On that day they were counted and they decided’ (בו ביום נמנו וגמרו): Footbath and Midras Impurity; Disqualified Sacrifices (Mishnah Yadayim 4:1-2)

1. Footbath and Midras Impurity

2. Disqualified Sacrifices

3. Ben-Azzai reports a tradition (again from the day of R' Elazar's appointment) confirming these exceptions and adding Olah, though the other sages reject that addition

Appendix 2 - ‘Yeshiva’ (formal Torah study) always existed - A List of 6 major periods and personalities from the Pentateuch (Yoma 28b): the Biblical Patriarchs, and in Egypt and in the Wilderness

The Passage

Mishnah_Yadayim.3.5

A page from a Bible scroll with at least 85 letters imparts impurity to the hands

A page from a Bible scroll (ספר / מגלה) with at least 85 letters—equivalent to the the short biblical section in Numbers 10:35-36⁷—imparts impurity to the hands.

ספר שנמחק ונשתיר בו שמונים וחמש אותיות,

כפרשת "ויהי בנסע הארן" --

מטמא את הידים.

מגלה שכתוב בה שמונים וחמש אותיות

כפרשת "ויהי בנסע הארן" --

מטמא את הידים.

כל כתבי הקדש --

מטמאין את הידים.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and 85 letters remain,

as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) --

defiles the hands.

A single sheet on which there are written 85 letters,

as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" --

defiles the hands.

All the Holy Scriptures --

defile the hands.

Tanna Kamma: Both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands

• שיר השירים

• וקהלת --

מטמאין את הידים.

• The Song of Songs

• and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) --

defile the hands.

R' Yehuda: Only Song of Songs defiles; Ecclesiastes is disputed

רבי יהודה אומר:

• שיר השירים --

  • מטמא את הידים,

• וקהלת --

  • מחלקת.

R' Yehuda says:

• the Song of Songs --

  • defiles the hands,

• [but about] Kohelet --

  • there is a dispute

R' Yosei: The reverse—Ecclesiastes does not defile; Song of Songs is disputed

רבי יוסי אומר:

• קהלת --

  • אינו מטמא את הידים

• ושיר השירים --

  • מחלקת.

R' Yose says:

• Kohelet --

  • does not defile the hands,

• [but about] the Song of Songs --

  • there is a dispute

R' Shimon: Ecclesiastes reflects a leniency of Beit Shammai and a stringency of Beit Hillel

רבי שמעון אומר:

קהלת --

• מקלי בית שמאי

• ומחמרי בית הלל.

R' Shimon says:

[the ruling about] Kohelet --

• one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai

• and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.

Ben-Azzai (citing tradition): Both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands

Ben-Azzai quotes a ruling from “72 elders on the day when they appointed⁸ R' Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy:⁹

Both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands (like the first opinion cited in this Mishnah section, that of the Tanna Kamma).

אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי:

מקבל אני מפי שבעים ושנים זקן,

ביום שהושיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישיבה,

ששיר השירים וקהלת --

מטמאים את הידים.

R' Shimon ben Azzai said:

I have received a tradition from the 72 elders

on the day when they appointed R' Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy

that the Song of Songs and Kohelet --

defile the hands.

R' Akiva: No one disputed Song of Songs—it's “holy of holies”—dispute was only about Ecclesiastes

R' Akiva strongly asserts that no one ever disputed Shir ha-Shirim, which he calls “holy of holies,” (i.e. it has an elevated literary-theological status); dispute existed only over Kohelet.

אמר רבי עקיבא:

חס ושלום!

לא נחלק אדם מישראל על שיר השירים --

שלא תטמא את הידים,

שאין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שנתן בו שיר השירים לישראל,

שכל הכתובים קדש,

ושיר השירים קדש קדשים.

ואם נחלקו,

לא נחלקו אלא על קהלת.

R' Akiva said:

Far be it!

No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] --

that it does not defile the hands.

For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel;

for all the writings are holy

but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies.

If they had a dispute,

they had a dispute only about Kohelet.

R' Yoḥanan ben Yehoshua: Confirms Ben-Azzai’s account of debate and conclusion

R' Yoḥanan ben Yehoshua--R' Akiva’s brother-in-law¹⁰--confirms this account as both the state of the debate and its final resolution:

“So they disputed (נחלקו), and so they reached a decision (גמרו)”.

אמר רבי יוחנן בן יהושע

בן חמיו של רבי עקיבא

כדברי בן עזאי,

כך נחלקו

וכך גמרו

R' Yohanan ben Yehoshua

the son of the father-in-law of R' Akiva

said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai:

so they disputed

and so they reached a decision.

Appendix 1 - ‘On that day they were counted and they decided’ (בו ביום נמנו וגמרו): Footbath and Midras Impurity; Disqualified Sacrifices (Mishnah Yadayim 4:1-2)

Mishnah_Yadayim.4.1-2

Footbath and Midras Impurity

A cracked footbath (from 2 log to 9 kav in volume) can still become impure via midras (pressure impurity from one who is impure), based on its functional designation.

R' Akiva emphasizes that status is defined by usage.

בו ביום נמנו וגמרו:

על ערבת הרגלים

שהיא משני לגין ועד תשעה קבין שנסדקה,

שהיא טמאה מדרס.

שרבי עקיבא אומר: ערבת הרגלים כשמה

On that day the votes were counted and they decided that:

a footbath

holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked

could contract midras uncleanness.

Because R' Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation.

Disqualified Sacrifices

Sacrifices offered with the wrong intent (לא לשמן) are valid but do not fulfill the owner's obligation, except:

• Passover sacrifice (פסח): if offered in its proper time.

• Sin offering (חטאת): at any time.

• R' Eliezer adds Guilt offering (אשם) to the exceptions.

בו ביום אמרו:

כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן --

כשרים,

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה,

חוץ

1. מן הפסח

2. ומן החטאת.

1. הפסח --

   1. בזמנו,

2. והחטאת --

   1. בכל זמן.

רבי אליעזר אומר:

אף האשם.

1. הפסח --

   1. בזמנו,

2. והחטאת והאשם --

   1. בכל זמן.

On that day they said:

all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering --

are [nevertheless] valid,

but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations,

with the exception of

1. the pesah

2. and the sin-offering.

1. [This is true of] the pesah --

   1. in its correct time

2. and the sin-offering --

   1. at any time.

R' Eliezer says:

[with the exception] also of the guilt-offering;

1. [so that this refers to] the pesah --

   1. in its correct time

2. and to the sin- and guilt-offerings --

   1. at any time.

Ben-Azzai reports a tradition (again from the day of R' Elazar's appointment) confirming these exceptions and adding Olah, though the other sages reject that addition

Ben-Azzai reports a tradition—again from the day of R' Elazar ben Azariah's appointment— confirming these exceptions.

Ben-Azzai also added Burnt offering (עולה), but the Sages reject that addition.

אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי:

מקבלני מפי שבעים ושנים זקן,

ביום שהושיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישיבה,

שכל הזבחים הנאכלין שנזבחו שלא לשמן --

כשרים,

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה,

חוץ

1. מן הפסח

2. ומן החטאת.

לא הוסיף בן עזאי אלא העולה,

ולא הודו לו חכמים

R' Shimon ben Azzai said:

I received a tradition from the 72 elders

on the day when they appointed R' Elazar ben Azariah head of the college

that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name --

are nevertheless valid,

but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations,

with the exception of

1. the pesah

2. and the sin-offering.

Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering,

but the sages did not agree with him.

Appendix 2 - ‘Yeshiva’ (formal Torah study) always existed - A List of 6 major periods and personalities from the Pentateuch (Yoma 28b): the Biblical Patriarchs, and in Egypt and in the Wilderness

Yoma.28b.6-8

R' Ḥama bar Ḥanina states that “yeshiva” (ישיבה - formal Torah study) always existed, listing 6 major periods and personalities from the Pentateuch:

In Egypt and in the wilderness (i.e at the time of the Exodus) there was a yeshiva, as seen in commands to gather the “elders of Israel”.¹¹

The biblical Patriarchs are each described as elders/elderly, interpreted to mean a Torah scholar who sat in yeshiva.¹²

And finally, Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, is called “elder of his [=Abraham’s] house” and “ruler” (Genesis 24:2), which R' Elazar interprets to mean he “ruled over his master’s Torah”.

אמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא:

מימיהן של אבותינו

לא פרשה ישיבה מהם:

1. היו במצרים —

   1. ישיבה עמהם,

   2. שנאמר: ״לך ואספת את זקני ישראל״.

2. היו במדבר —

   1. ישיבה עמהם,

   2. שנאמר: ״אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל״.

3. אברהם אבינו,

   1. זקן ויושב בישיבה,

   2. שנאמר: ״ואברהם זקן בא בימים״.

4. יצחק אבינו,

   1. זקן ויושב בישיבה היה,

   2. שנאמר: ״ויהי כי זקן יצחק״.

5. יעקב אבינו,

   1. זקן ויושב בישיבה היה,

   2. שנאמר: ״ועיני ישראל כבדו מזוקן״.

6. אליעזר עבד אברהם,

   1. זקן ויושב בישיבה היה,

שנאמר:

״ויאמר אברהם אל עבדו

זקן ביתו

המשל בכל אשר לו״,

אמר רבי אלעזר: שמושל בתורת רבו.

R' Ḥama, son of R' Ḥanina, said:

From the days of our ancestors,

yeshiva never left them.

Our ancestors were leaders of their generations, who taught Torah to students who came to them.

1. When they were in Egypt

   1. there was a yeshiva with them,

   2. as it is stated: “Go and gather the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16), indicating that there were rabbis among them who studied Torah.

2. And similarly, when they were in the desert,

   1. there was a yeshiva with them,

   2. as it is stated: “Gather for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel” (Numbers 11:16).

3. Abraham our Patriarch

   1. was himself an Elder and would sit in yeshiva,

   2. as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, advanced in years” (Genesis 24:1). From the apparent redundancy of the terms old and advanced in years, it is derived that old means that he was a wise Elder and prominent in Torah, and advanced in years means that he was elderly.

4. Similarly, Isaac our Patriarch

   1. was an Elder and sat in yeshiva,

   2. as it is stated: “And it came to pass when Isaac was old and his eyes were dim” (Genesis 27:1).

5. Similarly, Jacob our Patriarch

   1. was an Elder

   2. and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Israel’s eyes were heavy with age” (Genesis 48:10).

6. Eliezer, servant of Abraham,

   1. was an Elder and sat in yeshiva,

as it is stated:

“And Abraham said to his servant,

the elder of his household,

who ruled over all he had” (Genesis 24:2).

R' Elazar said: The verse means that he had mastery over the Torah of his master, having gained proficiency in all of the Torah of Abraham.

1. In mid-2nd century CE, see next note.

On the Mishnah section subsequent the ones discussed here, see my piece “Counting the Letters in the Mishnah: Measuring the Length of All Four Thousand Individual Mishnayot (With analysis of Mishnah Yadayim 4:3)”.

For a scholarly discussion of this extended passage, see Moshe Simon-Shoshan, “"On That Day": The Deeds of the 72 (m. Yadayim 3:5-4:4) as Foundational Narrative for Rabbinic Judaism” in Jewish Studies Quarterly (JQR) 29 (2022), pp. 109-132.

2. בו ביום נמנו וגמרו / אמרו.

See the well-known Talmudic line in Berakhot.28a.4, regarding the day that that R' Elazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the academy at Yavne (after Rabban Gamliel was deposed):

תנא:

עדיות בו ביום נשנית.

וכל היכא דאמרינן ״בו ביום״ —

ההוא יומא הוה.

ולא היתה הלכה שהיתה תלויה בבית המדרש שלא פירשוה

It was taught: There is a tradition that

tractate Eduyyot was taught that day.

And everywhere in the Mishna or in a baraita that they say “On that day” —

it is referring to that day.

There was no halakha whose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explain and arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion.

For additional sources related to the tension between Rabban Gamliel of Yavne and contemporary rabbis—especially R’ Yehoshua—see the extended dramatic story in Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.2.8b-9, which I cite in my “Mishnah Tractate Rosh Hashanah“, section “The Story of Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua: A Dramatic Dispute Over the New Moon and Yom Kippur“ (p. 21-24).

And see the well-known stories in Bekhorot.36a.12-16 and Berakhot.27b.15-28a.13; I quote these stories in my “A Preliminary analysis of stories of deception in the Talmud“, p. 29 (unnumbered).

And see Hebrew Wikipedia, “הדחת רבן גמליאל דיבנה”; see also Wikipedia, “Council of Jamnia“.

Compare also the extended Talmudic passage on Yavne at the end of tractate Berakhot, that I discuss in my 2-part series: “The Four Sermons of the Mid-Second Century Sages in Yavne: On Hospitality (Xenia) and the Honor of Torah Sages (Berakhot 63b)“, final part here.

3. See Hebrew Wikipedia, “טומאת כתבי הקודש”.

4. Discussed in my 2-part series “The Biblical Books Nearly Suppressed: Reconciling Contradictions in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs (Shabbat 30b)”, final part here.

5. I cite this ibid., Part 1, section “Suppression of the Book of Ecclesiastes Considered and Rejected”.

6. Which I cite ibid., Part 2, section “Contradictory Wisdom: The Consideration of Suppressing the Book of Proverbs”.

7. See Wikipedia, “פרשת ויהי בנסוע”, my translation:

The section "Vayehi binso'a ha'aron" is the shortest parashah (section) in the Torah (=Pentateuch), containing just two verses and only 85 letters.

It appears in the Book of Numbers, chapter 10, verses 35–36, and describes the journeying of the Ark of the Covenant (ארן) along with the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings.

This parashah is notable not only for being the shortest in the Torah, but also—along with eight verses from Psalms—for being framed on both sides by an unusual character: an inverted (backward) nun [...]

[V]arious interpretations have been offered to explain this feature (=inverted nun).

The Babylonian Talmud notes, among other things, that this marking suggests the verse appears out of its proper place.

8. הושיבו - literally: “seated”.

9. ישיבה - literally: “the sitting, Yeshiva”; see my Appendix 3 at the end of this piece: “Appendix 3 - “Yeshiva” (formal Torah study) always existed - A List of 6 major periods and personalities from the Pentateuch (Yoma 28b): the Biblical Patriarchs, and in Egypt and in the Wilderness”.

10. בן חמיו - literally: “his father-in-law’s son”.

11. זקני ישראל.

Compare Hebrew Wikipedia, “שבעים הזקנים“.

On the term Elder as referring to a older, wiser person, compare the Latin source for the terms senate / senator, Wikipedia, “Senate“, section “Overview“:

The modern word senate is derived from the Latin word senātus (senate), which comes from senex, 'elder man'.

12. זקן ויושב בישיבה - literally: “Elder and would sit in yeshiva”.