Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Babylonian Talmud·Chapter III

Source context

Theme

rabbinic legal and ethical discourse within the Babylonian Talmudic tradition

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

• Jewish Talmudic traditionTalmudic legal reasoning (halakha) operates through dialectical case analysis, structurally analogous to the scholastic method of sic et non, in which contradictory authorities are reconciled through hierarchical principle.
• Oral Torah / Mishnaic transmissionThe chapter participates in the layered tradition of Oral Torah, where Mishnaic rulings are amplified by Amoraic commentary, preserving a living chain of interpretive authority from Sinai through the rabbinic academies of Babylon.

Chapter III

REGULATIONS CONCERNING FISHING AND HUNTING ON FESTIVALS.

MISHNA: It is not allowed to catch fish from aquaria on festivals, nor to give them food; but one may hunt beasts or birds in parks, and feed them. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Not all aquaria and parks are regarded in the same light. This is the general rule. In case the animals have to be hunted it is prohibited; but when no hunting is required, it is not.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction. We have learned in a Tosephta that in parks beasts and fowls must not be caught on the festival, and must not be fed. The contradiction between the Tosephta and Mishna concerning the beasts could be explained that the Tosephta is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who prohibits this (Sabbath, p. 216); but the contradiction about fowls, how can it be explained? And if it be said, that here also there is no difficulty, because the Tosephta meant an unroofed park, while the Mishna spoke of a roofed park, did not the Mishna in Tract Sabbath state that according to all a fowl must not be caught in a house, and a house is certainly meant a roofed one? Said Rabha bar R. Huna: The Tosephta meant a bird called Durur in Arabic, which it is very difficult to catch, and which never becomes domesticated. As the disciples of R. Ishmael taught: Why is this fowl named Durur? Because to it the house and the field are the same. Now, when we know this, the contradiction about beasts can also be explained, that the Mishna speaks of a small park, and the Tosephta of a great one, where it is difficult to catch. What is called a small park, or a great park? Said R. Ashi: If the shadows of the two walls on the ground touch, then it is small, but otherwise it is great.

"R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says," etc. Said R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah quoting Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Said Abayi to him: Is there any one that differs from him, that it is necessary for you to declare that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b.

Gamaliel? Said the former: And what difference is it to you? Rejoined Abayi: Shall the Gemara be like a song, to learn it without knowing any reason for each decision?

"This is the general rule," etc. What is meant by "have to be hunted"? The same authority says in the name of the same authority: If one must say, bring a net to catch it. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Of geese and chickens it is usually said, bring a net, we will catch them. Nevertheless we have learned in a Boraitha that whoso catches geese and chickens is not culpable? Said Rabba bar R. Huna in the name of Samuel: The latter come to their places in the evening, and the owner is responsible for their feeding (therefore whoso catches them is not culpable), but animals of a park do not do so, and the owner is not obliged to feed them.

MISHNA: If nets have been spread for fish or wild game on the eve of a festival, it is not allowed to take from them, on the festival, unless it is known that they have been caught before its commencement. It once happened that a Gentile brought on the festival a present of fish to Rabban Gamaliel, when he said: It is allowed to use them, but I do not wish to accept presents from that man.

GEMARA: Is the deed of R. Gamaliel not in contradiction with the teaching of the Mishna? The Mishna is not completed. It must be read thus: If it is doubtful whether a thing was prepared from the day before, it is prohibited; but R. Gamaliel permits it; and it once happened also that a Gentile brought fish on a festival, in the morning, as a present to R. Gamaliel, and he said: They are permitted, etc. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The Halakha does not prevail according to R. Gamaliel. According to others, R. Jehudah declared his decision about the following Boraitha: Beasts from parks may be slaughtered, but not from nets (because it is not known on what day they were found there, on the festival or before it). R. Simeon b. Elazar said: If one found the nets disturbed on the eve of a festival, it is certain that they had been caught before the festival, and they are permitted; but if he came on the festival, and saw them disturbed, it is certain they were caught during the festival, and they are not allowed. Is this saying not contradictory in itself? It says: If he found it disturbed on the eve of a festival, it is certain that they were caught before the festival, and they are allowed, from which it is to be understood, that if it was doubtful, it is not allowed; and in the latter part it says:

{If he found it disturbed on the festival, etc., it is certain that they were caught during the festival, and they are not allowed, from which it is to be inferred that when there is a doubt it is permissible? It means to say thus: If he found it disturbed on the eve, it is certain that they were already caught, and are permissible; but if it was doubtful, it is to be considered that they were caught on the festival, and are not permissible. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b. Elazar.

"When he said, it is allowed," etc. Allowed what? Rabh said: They are permitted to be received, but Levi said, they are permitted to be eaten.

Said Rabh: A man should never absent himself from the house of learning, even for one hour, because I and Levi both were in the college when Rabbi declared this Halakha. In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten; but in the morning he said: They are permitted to be received. I, who was in the college in the morning and heard his second decision, gave up the first; but Levi, who was not, did not.

R. Papa said: The Halakha is as follows: If a Gentile brought a present to an Israelite on a festival, if the same kind of productions are found yet on the trees or ground, it is prohibited; and even in the evening, one must wait till the time when such a thing may be gathered and brought. But if that kind of production is no longer found on trees or on the field, then, if the present has been carried from within the legal limit, it may be accepted, but if from beyond the legal limit it may not. And if it has been brought for one Israelite, another may use it.

Rabba bar R. Huna said in the name of Rabh: When one has choked a pond, on the eve of a festival, and on the morrow he found there fish, they are permitted. Said R. Hisda: From the teaching of our Master we can infer that a beast which was overnight in the garden need not have been prepared on the preceding day (may be used). Said R. Na'hman: My colleague has attempted to decide the quarrel of great men. In the case of the fish, the man does nothing; but in this case, he must catch it. But how could R. Hisda decide that it has not to be prepared, did we not learn in a Boraitha, that a beast that was overnight in a garden must have been prepared, and a bird must have had its wings bound that it should not be exchanged for another? And this law is one of those which it has been testified, that they were said by Shemaia and Abtalian? This objection remains.

{p. 49[paragraph continues]

MISHNA: It is not allowed to kill on a festival an animal suffering from a mortal disease, unless there is time to eat thereof, on that day, at least the size of an olive, roasted. Rabbi Aqiba allows it, if there be only time to eat thereof the size of an olive, raw, even in the very place where it is slaughtered. If it has been killed in the field, the entire carcass may not be carried home on poles or sticks, but only piecemeal, by hand.

GEMARA: Said Rami bar Abba: The taking off the skin, and the cutting of a burnt-offering (which could be burnt without this) is only to teach the latter generations, that one shall not eat meat of a slaughtered animal before the skin is taken off, and was not cut in the usual pieces. Is this also a necessary teaching? Yea, as we have learned in a Boraitha, a man shall not commence eating garlic or onions from the roots, but from the leaves; otherwise his taste is coarse. Likewise, a man should not empty his goblet at a draught, otherwise he resembles a drunkard. 1

A Boraitha states in the name of R. Meir: Why was the Law given to Israel? Because they are bold (difficult to be vanquished). The disciples of R. Ishmael taught: It is written [Deut. xxxiii. 2]: "From his right hand he gave a fiery law unto them." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The Israelites are so bold that a fiery law must be given to them. According to others, the law of this people is like fire, because if such a law had not been given to them, no nation and tongue could stand before them. And this is as R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The boldest nation of all nations is Israel. 2

"The entire carcass may not be brought on poles." The rabbis taught: A blind man should not walk with his stick on a festival, nor a shepherd with his bag (pouch); also, a man must not be carried in a chair. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman. This is not so? Did not R. Jacob bar Iddi send a message that an old man was in his neighborhood and he was carried in a litter (Lectica), and they went to R. Joshuah b. Levi and asked him whether it was lawful, and his answer was, that if he was needed by many people, he could do so. And our Masters use as a sup. port to this opinion words of Ahi Shakia, who said: I have carried R. Huna in a chair on the festival from Hini to Shilli, and back. And R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak told: I have carried Mar Samuel

from the shadow into sunshine, and back. The reason is stated, because if many people needed him it was allowed.

Says R. Na'hman to Hama bar Adda, the messenger of Zion: When you go to Palestine, turn down from your road and ascend the "Ladder of Tzur" and visit R. Jacob bar Iddi and ask him: How is their custom with a litter? When he arrived there, R. Jacob bar Iddi was dead, and he found R. Zrika, and asked him: How is your custom in regard to litters? And he answered: So said R. Ammi: One may be carried in them, provided he shall not put his hands on the shoulders of the bearers. What is meant by this? Said R. Joseph the son of Rabha: He shall not be carried in a palanquin (a kind of litter which required that he who is carried should hold by the shoulders of the bearers). Is that so? Did not R. Na'hman allow his wife Yalta to be carried in a palanquin? The case with Yalta was different; she was timid.

Amemar and Mar Zutra were carried on the Sabbath before the festivals on a palanquin, because there was a great crowd and it was feared they would be injured. According to others: Because it was so crowded by the people who came to hear, that they could not pass through.

MISHNA: If a first-born animal fall into a pit on the festival (and it is not known whether it was injured), R. Jehudah says: An expert may descend and see whether it had already an in. curable and permanent blemish, in which case it may be drawn up and killed, but not otherwise. R. Simeon, however, said: If a blemish in a first-born animal was not recognized on the eve of the festival, this is not considered prepared, and must not be killed on the holiday.

GEMARA: On what point do they differ? Shall we assume that the point is, if it is allowed to examine blemishes on the festival, that according to R. Jehudah it is allowed, and according to R. Simeon it is not, then let him say so plainly. Why do they differ here when it fell in a pit? This case was necessary, lest one say that, because here is pity for the living thing which falls in the pit, it shall be allowed to be taken out for the purpose of slaughtering it, if it has a blemish, as R. Joshua said further on (Chap. V., p. 75). Therefore it comes to teach us that even in this case there is yet a difference of opinion.

If it is so, then the Mishna should say, he shall bring it up and slaughter it? And the difference on this point is only whether it should be slaughtered or not? The case is, when he has already brought it up, lest one say that when it is brought up

it may be slaughtered. Slaughtered! is it not a first-born without a blemish? That means, if it got a blemish. But if it has the blemish now, is it not yet Muktzah? The case is when it has a blemish which has to be examined on the eve of the festival, and now through its fall it has got a permanent blemish, and it can be slaughtered without any examination, lest one say that because a blemish was from yesterday, the owner had it in his mind, and might be slaughtered to-day, the Mishna comes to teach us that it is not so.

The rabbis taught: Of a first-born animal which was without blemish (if it fall into a pit on a festival), R. Jehudah the Nassi said: An expert shall descend and see whether it had a blemish, and then it may be drawn up and slaughtered; and if not, it shall not be slaughtered. Said R. Simeon b. Menasia to him: Did not the sages say that blemishes must not be examined on a festival? How so? If it got a blemish on the preceding day it must not be examined on the festival; but if it got the blemish on the festival, R. Simeon said that it could not be killed, because it was not prepared from the day before. They all agree, however, that if it was born on a festival with a blemish, it is considered as prepared. Rabba bar R. Huna lectured: If the animal was born with a blemish, the examination may be commenced on the festival. Said R. Na'hman to him: Abba, 1 we have learned if he has transgressed and had already examined, the examination can be useful, and thou sayest that they may commence the examination? Said Abayi: It seems to me that Rabba bar Huna is right, because the Boraitha teaches three cases. If it got a blemish on the eve it must not be examined on the festival. From this we may infer that it must not be examined, but that if it has already been examined, it may be used. (The second case is) if the blemish was got on the festival, R. Simeon said that it is not prepared. From this we see that, even if it has been examined and a real blemish found, it must also not be used. (And the third case is) all agree that if it was born with a blemish on a festival, it is considered prepared. Consequently, the examination may be commenced.

(Is that so?) We know that when R. Oshija came from Palestine he brought a Boraitha. Either when he got a blemish on the eve of the festival, or on the festival, according to the

sages it is not to be considered prepared (and the Boraitha must be in accordance with R. Simeon, who says that it must not be examined on the festival; and nevertheless the Boraitha teaches that even if the blemish was from the eve of the festival, it is also not to be considered as prepared, we can say, then, that if it was born with a blemish, it is permissible only when it was examined, but it is not allowed to commence the examination, as R. Na'hman said above?) Yea, it can be said so, but the following Boraitha is yet a contradiction to him (why, then, should you prefer the Boraitha which R. Oshiya brought to the former?) Because the former Boraitha came from the sources of Adda bar Ukhmi, 1 who was known to be erratic in the Boraithas which he taught. Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It seems from our Mishna also that it is in accordance with the Boraitha of R. Oshiya, because it states: R. Simeon said: If the blemish was not recognized on the eve, etc., it is not considered prepared. Now let us see what is meant by "recognized"? Shall we assume that it was not visible at all? This would be self-evident. We must then say that it was not examined whether it was a permanent blemish or a temporary one; nevertheless it states that it is not considered prepared, even when one slaughtered it. (Consequently the latter part of the Mishna, which states that "all agree," etc., "it is prepared," must be explained as R. Na'hman corrected.)

Hillel asked of Rabha: Does the law of Muktzah exist for a half of Sabbath (i.e., whether a thing is fit for one half of Sabbath, but not for the other half)? How can such a case be? If it was fit in twilight, then it was fit for the whole Sabbath; and if it was not fit at twilight, then it was not fit for the whole Sabbath?

He meant to say it was fit at twilight, but afterwards it got wet from rain, and dried again, as it was in the beginning, and not fit during one part of Sabbath., and then fit again. How is it? The answer was: There is no law of Muktzah for a half of Sabbath. Shall we assume that the above Boraitha, which declares that if it was born with a blemish it shall be considered as prepared, is a support to Rabha's decree? Because the first-born, when it was yet in the womb of its mother, was fit along with its mother (because it was not reckoned a firstling before its birth); and as soon as it is born, it is not fit; and after its being examined by an expert and found blemished it becomes again fit (from this we see that the law of Muktzah does not exist for a half of Sabbath, as it was fit before its birth, became unfit at birth, and became fit again after examination).

Nay, said Abayi in the name of R. Saphra: It may be that the case was, the expert was by when it was born, and saw it was fit from its birth.

R. Jehudah the second possessed a firstling, and sent it to R. Ammi on a festival for examination. At first he thought he would not examine it. Said R. Zrika, or according to others R. Jeremiah, to him: If R. Simeon and R. Jehudah differ, the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah.

At another time he sent it to R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha, and the same happened again. Said R. Abba to R. Zrika: Why did not you let people do a thing in accordance with R. Simeon? And he answered him: Have you heard any decision that the Halakha is according to R. Simeon? And he said: Yea, so I have heard from R. Zera. Said some one of the disciples present: If I will be worthy to go to Palestine, I would like to learn the Halakha from the mouth of R. Zera. Later when he came to Palestine, he asked R. Zera: Did the Master say that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon? And he answered: I did not say it is so, but I said: It seems so to me, because the Mishna relates, R. Simeon said: If the blemish was not recognized while it was yet day, it is not prepared, and the Boraitha teaches the same in the name of the sages (in plural). And I thought the Boraitha did so because the Halakha prevails accordingly. How is it in reality? Said R. Joseph: Come and hear. I will base my decision on the words of great men, that R. Simeon ben Pazzi in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi, quoting R. Jose b. Saul in the name of Rabbi, upon the authority of the Holy Assembly of Jerusalem, said that R. Simeon (b. Menasseh) and his colleagues

decide the above Halakha according to R. Meir. How can they have decided it according to R. Meir? They lived (the Holy Assembly of Jerusalem) in an earlier age than he. Say, they decided it in accordance with the system of R. Meir (this will be explained in Tract B'choroth).

Ammi of Vardinaa was the examiner of the firstlings of the Nasi; and he did not examine on festivals. When this was told to R. Ammi, he said, he does right. Is it so? Did not R. Ammi himself examine the blemishes of the firstlings? Nay, he used to see them the preceding day, but he kept his decision until the morrow, when he asked the owner how the animal had come by the blemish. As it happened when a man brought a firstling before Rabha on the eve of a festival, after noon, and at that time Rabha was washing his head. He raised his eyes, and looked on the blemish, and told the man: Go away to-day, and come to-morrow. The next day he asked him what was the cause of the blemish, and he answered: I have given it barley on one side of thorns, and it was on the other side; when it wanted to eat, it put forth its head between the thorns and thus tore its lip. And Rabha asked him: Perhaps you did it intentionally? And he said: No.

MISHNA: An animal which dies on the festival may not be removed thereon. It happened once, when Rabbi Tarphon was questioned on the subject, and also concerning a separate piece of dough, which had become polluted, he went to the college and inquired. They told him: They may not be removed from the spot.

GEMARA: Shall we say that this anonymous Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon (see Sabbath, p. 375)? Nay, the Mishna can be explained in accordance with him, but he owns that animals that died on Sabbath are prohibited. This would be right according to Mar bar Amemar, who said in the name of Rabh that R. Simeon owns it; but according to Mar b. R. Joseph, who declares in the name of Rabha that R. Simeon differs, even when the animals died on Sabbath, and said that they may be used? (What can be said to that?) Zera explained this Mishna, that it refers to an animal that was consecrated for sacrifice. And it seems Zera is right in his explanation, because the Mishna speaks further on about Hala that became unclean; and as the Hala was a consecrated thing, so must be also the animal in question.

MISHNA: An association for the purpose of jointly purchasing

an animal may not be formed on the festival; but if this was arranged before the festival, the animal so purchased may be slaughtered and shared on the festival.

GEMARA: What is meant by "may not be formed"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The price of the animal must not be fixed on the festival; but how shall it be done? Said Rabh: Two animals shall be brought, and placed side by side, and it shall be said: The value of this animal shall be as the value of that. We have learned also in a Boraitha: One shall not say to his neighbor: I will be a partner with you in this animal for one Sela or more; but he may say: I would be a partner with you for one half, third, or quarter of it.

MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: (A butcher who sells meat on a festival) may weigh it against a vessel or hatchet; but according to the sages he may not even look on the scales at all.

GEMARA: What is meant by "at all"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to preserve the meat from mice, he must not put it on the scales. Said R. Iddi bar Abbin: That is, when the scales hang on the lever. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel says again: A butcher who is a specialist must not weigh the meat on his hand. He says again: The same must not weigh the meat in water. R. Hyya bar Ashi said: It is not permitted to make a hole in the meat, to use it as a handle. Said Rabina: But if he made it with his hand, not with a tool, it is allowed. R. Huna said: One may make a sign upon the meat, as Rabba bar R. Huna would cut the meat in the shape of a triangle for a sign. R. Hyya and R. Simeon the Great used to weigh one piece against the other, and they did it according to R. Joshua, as we learn in the following Boraitha: R. Joshua said: One may weigh one piece against the other. And R. Joseph said: The Halakha prevails according to R. Joshua, because there is a Mishna in Tract B'choroth in accordance with his decision.

MISHNA: Knives may not be ground or set on the festival; but it is permitted to sharpen one knife with the other.

GEMARA: Said R. Huna: It is only on a whetstone, but on wood one may. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even on a whetstone it is only prohibited to sharpen, but to remove the fat from it one may. We may infer from this, that on wood it is allowed even to sharpen.

Who is the Tana who holds that on a whetstone it is not permitted? Said R. Hisda: It is at any rate not according to R.

[paragraph continues] Jehudah, as we have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah allows to make on a festival even the arrangements for the preparation of food (Sabbath, p. 309).

Said Rabha to R. Hisda: Shall we lecture in thy name that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah? And R. Hisda answered: It may be the will of the Lord that all good things like this shall ye lecture in my name.

R. Nehemiah b. R. Joseph said: Once I was standing before Rabha, and saw that he took the knife and made passes with it over a basket. And I said to him: Does Master intend to sharpen it, or to remove the fat? And he said: To remove the fat. But I saw that he intended to sharpen it. From this it is understood that the Halakha prevails thus, but is not to be proclaimed to the people. Abayi told that the same thing happened to him and his Master, Rabba.

The schoolmen propound a question: May one give the slaughtering-knife to the wise for examination on the festival? R. Mari the son of R. Bizna allowed this, but the rabbis prohibited. R. Joseph, however, said: A scholar (Talmud Hakham) may examine the knife for his own use, and then lend it to others. R. Joseph said again: A knife that becomes blunt may be sharpened by pressure, provided that the knife becomes only blunt, but not injured.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: A spit that became crooked must not be repaired on a festival. Is not this self-evident? He meant to say, that even with the hand, without the aid of tools, it is not allowed. The same says again: After the meat has been roasted on the spit, it may not be handled more (because the blood defiling it makes it unfit for use until cleaned). Said R. Adda bar Ah'bah in the name of R. Malkiya: He may, nevertheless, take it to put into a corner, the same as it is permitted to do with a thorn that is seen in public ground. (Sabbath, p. 75.)

MISHNA: One must not say to a butcher: Give me meat for a Denar; but the butcher may slaughter the animal, and divide it among the customers.

One may say to another (on the festival), fill me this vessel, but it must not be a vessel appropriated to measure with. R. Jehudah says: If a measure is used it must not be quite filled. Abba Saul b. Batnit used to fill his measures on the day before the festival, and delivered them to the customers on the festival. The same Saul said: One may do so even on the intermediate

days, on account of the froth in the measure. The sages, however, say: One may do so also on week-days in order to let out the entire contents of his measure into the vessels of his customers.

GEMARA: What is meant by "vessel appropriated to measure with"? Said Rabha: That is, he shall not mention the kind of measure, but if the vessel is a measure he may do so. And R. Jehudah comes to teach that even this must not be done. From this we see that, about the enjoyment of the festival, R. Jehudah is more rigorous, and the sages are more lenient; but did we not learn in the Mishna about the scales (p. 55), that R. Jehudah is more lenient and the sages are more rigorous? And this would be a contradiction to that teaching? It presents no difficulty. The above Mishna referred to a thing which was not a weight, but this speaks of a vessel that is a measure. This reconciles the contradiction between one teaching of R. Jehudah. and the other. And as regards what sages teach about the scales? They merely say that a man shall not do as is usually done on week-days, but here he does not do as on week-days, because it is not usual that a man should give wine to his guest to drink from a measure.

"Abba Saul b. Batnit," etc. A Boraitha taught: One may do it in the intermediate days to prevent interruption in the house of learning (if he will busy himself with the measuring, he will fail to go to the college).

The rabbis taught: Abba Saul collected three hundred pitchers of wine barely from the froth of the measures; 1 and his colleagues collected the same amount from what remained in the measures after emptying them for the customers. Both brought this wine to the treasurers of charity at Jerusalem. The treasurers said to them: It is not necessary for you to do so (because it is your own). But they replied: We do not wish to use (because we do not consider it ours). And the treasurers rejoined: If you are so rigorous towards yourselves, go and dispose of it for the benefit of the people.

R. Hisda accompanied Rabbana Uqba, and the latter lectured: One must not measure barley to give it to cattle; but one may nevertheless take a Kab full, or two Kabs, and give it to the cattle without fear. But the baker (cook) may measure the quantity of spices for putting into the pots, lest he spoil the flavors.

R. Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Rabh said: A woman may measure the flour on a festival for her dough, for the purpose of separating a due share of the first dough. Samuel, however, prohibited to do so. But did not the disciples of Samuel teach in his name that it is allowed? Said Abayi: Now, when the disciples declared in his name that it is permitted, and from himself it was beard that it is not, we may assume that he retracted his decision in order to teach us how to act.

The rabbis taught: One must not resieve flour on the festival; but R. Papias and R. Jehudah b. Bthera both permit it. All agree, however, that if some dust or a chip fell into the flour, that may be done. One disciple taught in the presence of Rabina that if a chip has fallen into it, he shall remove it with the hand. And Rabina rejoined that this is by an a fortiori argument, not allowed, because it looks as though he sifts it.

Rabha bar R. Huna the Minor lectured at the gate of Nehardai: One may resieve flour on the festival. Said R. Na'hman to the people of Nehardai: Go and tell Abba, Take thy favor and put it on the thorns (i.e., he did not any good with his lecture). Go and see how many sieves are used in Nehardai on the festival (even before his lecture).

The wife of R. Joseph has sifted flour on the back of a sieve, and he said to her: See, I want to have good bread (it means, you should not make any change). The wife of R. Ashi sifted the flour on the back of the table (to show a change from the week-days). Said R. Ashi: My wife is the daughter of Rami bar Hama, who was very particular in his deeds, and if she had not seen it done in the house of her father, she would not do it.

MISHNA: One may go to a shopkeeper with whom one is used to deal, and say to him: "Give me so many eggs or nuts," because the master of a house is used to count similar articles by numbers.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: One may go to his shepherd who is an acquaintance, and ask him for one goat or one sheep; to his butcher, to ask him for a shoulder or leg; to the birdseller, and ask him for one old or young pigeon, to his baker, and

ask him for a loaf or roll; and to his grocer, and ask him for twenty eggs or fifty nuts or ten peaches or five pomegranates or one lemon--provided one does not mention any numbers of measures. R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Provided one does not mention the prices.

Footnotes

48:1 See Tract Pesachim, p. 171.

48:2 This is explained in our periodical "Hakol," also in our "Lebaker Mishpat," and we will touch upon it in our present translation.

51:1 Rabba's name was Abba, and Rabba means Rab Abba. R. Na'hman as a colleague addresses him by name.

52:1 This name is mentioned only once in the whole Babylonian Talmud. In the Palestinian Talmud, however (Chap. I., Halakha 3) is mentioned R. Adda bar Uikhuma. The different pronunciation of the two Talmuds is usual, and so this Amora is the only one who was erratic. We are surprised why Zacuto and Heilprin, in "Seder-Hadoroth," ascribed this to Adda bar Abhimi, who is also mentioned only once in the whole Talmud. (In our edition, Vol. III., p. 24, and in the old edition the same saying is repeated, 9 b and 12 a), and there is not to be found even a hint that he was erratic. Also in the Palestinian Talmud the same is mentioned twice (Berakhoth, Chap. I., Halakha 3), with whom two great men of the Amoraim, R. Tanhurn and R. Hezekiah, communicated. There it is also said that he was a disciple of R. Zera (Zeera--according to the pronunciation of the Palestinian Talmud). Why, then, should it be ascribed to such a man that he was erratic? Moreover, Heilprin does not mention Adda bar Ukhmi among the Amoraim at all, although he mentions his name in the paragraph of Adda bar Abhimi, and gives also all our citation mentioned above. We also do not know the sources from which Heilprin states that according to others it is Abba bar Abhimi.

57:1 Rashi explains thus: It was known to him how many lugs there had been in his barrel, and also how many he sold out to his customers, and the remainder which was in the barrel he considered was left because of the froth of the measures, and during the year it amounted to three hundred pitchers. And his colleagues who sold oil, which makes no froth, collected the same number from the remainder of the measures, as there is always some oil left in them, and during many years they collected from this the same amount.

Chapter III

REGULATIONS CONCERNING PALM BRANCHES, MYRTLES, WILLOWS, AND CITRONS USED ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.

MISHNA: A palm branch 1 which has been acquired by theft, or which is dried, is not valid. One which comes from a grove (devoted to idolatry) or from a rejected town 2 is not valid; if the point has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, it is not valid; if they are only dissevered, it is valid. R. Jehudah says: It must be tied together at the top. A palm branch from the Iron Mount 3 is valid. A palm branch that is three spans long, sufficient to shake it by, is valid.

GEMARA: The Mishna does not mention on which day it is valid, and on which not; and from this we can infer that it is invalid even for the second day. This would be right only in case of a dried one, because it is written hadar, which means "beauty," which a dried one has not; but a robbed one--that is prohibited only because it must be his own, as stated above (p. 34)--but on the second day, which is wholly rabbinical, why should it be invalid? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jochi: Because it is a religious duty that is performed by a sin. R. Johanan said again in the name of the same authority: It is written [Is. lxi. 8]: "For I, the Lord, love justice: I hate robbery with burnt-offering." It resembles a human king who passed the custom-house and said to his servants: "Pay the duty to the officers"; and the servants said to him: "Why shall we give duties? All the duties are thine"; and he said: "All passengers shall learn it from me, and shall not shirk to pay their duty." So the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "I, the Lord, hate robbery with a burnt-offering of me shall my children learn, and avoid robbery."

It was taught also in the name of R. Ami: A withered one

is invalid, because it has no beauty; and a robbed one is invalid, because it is a religious duty done by a sin.

R. Huna said to the sellers of the myrtles: If you buy myrtles from the heathen, do not cut them off yourselves, but let themselves cut off, and give them to you. Why so? Because most heathen have robbed the ground from the Israelites, and the robber is not considered the owner of the ground, even when the original owner has despaired of it (but the law is different about movable property). And therefore, if you will cut off yourselves, that will be as taking a robbed thing; but when they cut off, and as the original owners have despaired, the cut-off myrtle boughs become theirs, and you may buy them.

The rabbis taught: A robbed Succah or a roof made in a public street, R. Eliezer makes invalid, but the sages make it valid. Said R. Na'hman: They differ only when the ground on which the Succah is built belongs to his neighbor, and he put out the neighbor and took the Succah to himself. This is according to R. Eliezer's theory, who said that one cannot fulfil his duty in his neighbor's Succah. It is invalid in any case. According to those who say that the robber of ground is considered the owner of it, after the original owner has despaired, it is a robbed Succah; and even according to those who say that he can never become the owner of the ground, it is nevertheless a borrowed Succah (because it is not a robbed one). But the sages hold to their theory that one can fulfil his duty in a borrowed Succah, and also that ground cannot be robbed; therefore it is valid, because it is considered as a borrowed Succah. But if one has robbed wood, and made a roof, according to all, the owner of the wood has only to claim his money, but the wood becomes the property of the robber, and the Succah is valid. And he infers this from the expression of the Mishna, "a robbed Succah or a roof made in public ground," as in the latter case the ground was certainly not his, so also the robbed Succah means, that the ground was also not his and he has robbed it.

It happened once that an old woman came to R. Na'hman and said: The exilarch, and all the sages of the house of the exilarch, are sitting in a robbed Succah. She complained, but he did not answer her. Said she again: A woman whose father had three hundred and eighteen slaves complains before you, and you do not pay attention. R. Na'hman said to the sages: The woman is only a prattler: she has to claim only the money for the wood that has been taken for the use of the Succah.

Rabhina said: If a beam of the roof of a Succah has been robbed, the sages have arranged that only money for it should be returned to the owner, and not the beam itself. Is this not self-evident? What is the difference between a beam and wood, as just mentioned above? One might say wood can be found in any place, and one can buy it for the money; but a beam, which is not so common, should be returned. They come to teach us that during the seven days of the festival, one can lay claim only to money, but after the festival it must be returned, provided one has not attached it with clay; but if one has, even after the seven days only the money shall be given.

We have learned in a Boraitha: A withered palm branch is invalid, but R. Jehudah makes it valid. Said Rabha: They differ only about a Lulab that is rabbinical. The sages hold that we compare a Lulab to a citron: as the citron must be beautiful, because it is written hadar (beauty), so the Lulab must be beautiful; and R. Jehudah does not hold this theory, and says that a Lulab need not be beautiful, but a withered citron, according to all, is invalid. Does R. Jehudah require that a citron shall be beautiful? Did we not learn in a Boraitha: The four kinds that are with the Lulab, as there must not be less, so nothing shall be added to them? If one did not find a citron, he cannot replace it with a lemon or a pomegranate, or anything else; and if they are withered they are valid, but if dried, then invalid. R. Jehudah, however, said: Even when dry, they are valid. And he says again: The inhabitants of great cities used to transmit their Lulabs to their grandchildren. And they answered him: This cannot prove, because the places where such things are rarities do not prove. Hence we see that R. Jehudah said that even dry ones are valid, and this includes also citrons? Nay, R. Jehudah meant only the Lulab when he said dry ones are valid.

The text says: "If he cannot find a citron, he shall not replace it with a lemon," etc. Is not this self-evident? One might say, he shall replace it with something, lest the command. of a citron should be forgotten: it comes to teach us that if it would be done so, the later generations might use such things forever. Come and hear: An old citron is invalid, but R. Jehudah says it is valid. Is this not a contradiction to the saying of Rabha 1 above, that R. Jehudah meant only the Lulab, and not a citron? Yea, it is

a contradiction. But how can R. Jehudah say that an old one is valid? is it not written hadar (beautiful)? R. Jehudah explains the word hadar 1 not to mean "beauty," but "dwelling"; that means, a fruit which dwells on its tree the whole year.

"If the point was broken off." Said R. Huna: If it is broken off; but if it is only split, it is valid. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: A bristly Lulab or one crooked like a scythe, a split one, a hardened one, is invalid. But if it seems hardened, and in reality is not, it is valid. Hence we see that a split one is also invalid? Said R. Papa: By "split" is here meant one growing as a fork, into two different directions. "Crooked like a scythe," said Rabha; "that is only if it is bent forward, but if backward it is natural, and it is valid." Said R. Na'hman: If bent sideways, it is as if forward. According to others, R. Na'hman says it is as if bent backward. Rabha said again: A Lulab that has all the leaves on one side, and on the other side none at all, is blemished and is invalid.

"If the leaves were torn off." Said R. Papa: By torn off is meant that it is made like a broom. What is meant by dissevered? When the leaves grow as branches of a tree, in different directions.

R. Papa put a question: If the "twins" of the Lulab are divided, how is the law (the double leaves on a palm branch are called "twins")? Come and hear: R. Mathun in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi said: If the "twins" are divided, it is as if the leaves were torn off, and it is invalid.

"R. Jehudah says," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Tarphon: The expression "branches of palm trees" is Kapoth Tmarim. As the word kapoth signifies in Aramaic "bound," "tied," if the Lulab was separated, it must be tied together. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: How is it known that by Kapoth Tmarim is meant a young Lulab that has been the first year on the tree? Perhaps the branches are meant when they are two or three years old, when the leaves spread on all sides? We require that they shall be tied together, and in that case they cannot be tied at all.

"A Lulab from the Iron Mount." Said Abayi The case is only when the top of one reaches the lower part of the one that grows over it; but if not, they are invalid.

"A Lulab three spans long." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The prescribed size for a myrtle bough and willow is three spans, and of the Lulab four, so that the Lulab shall be one span higher than the myrtle bough and willow when they are tied, R. Parnach in the name of R. Johanan said: (Not the leaves, but) the back of the Lulab, should be one span higher. Come and hear: The prescribed size of a myrtle bough and willow is three spans, of a Lulab four spans: is it not meant with the leaves? Nay, it is meant, besides the leaves. The Boraitha says farther on: R. Tarphon says: It shall be measured with an ell of five spans. Said Rabha: May the Lord forgive R. Tarphon for such teaching: A myrtle bough of three spans is not to be found, and he calls for a myrtle bough of the length of five spans. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said that R. Tarphon meant to say so: An ell which was five spans, consider it as if it was six spans, and three spans of this take off for the myrtle bough, and the remainder, which is about two and a half, for the Lulab. If it is so, then it is a contradiction to Samuel, for according to R. Tarphon the myrtle bough would be only two and a half spans, and Samuel said it must be three spans? Samuel was not particular in his decision, and said more rigorously, three. But, nevertheless, R. Huna says in his name that the Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon.

MISHNA: A myrtle bough which has been acquired by theft, or which is dry, is not valid. One which comes from a grove or from a rejected town is invalid. If the tip has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, or if one has on it more berries than leaves, it is invalid; if the berries are diminished in number it becomes valid, but this must not be done on the festival. A willow of the brook, which has been acquired by theft, or which is dry, is invalid. One which comes from a grove, or a rejected town, is not valid. If the point has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, or if it be a Tzaphtzapha, 1 it is invalid. One which is faded, or from which some leaves have dropped off, or which has grown on dry ground (not near a bank), is valid.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written: "Boughs of the myrtle tree"; that is, a tree whose branches cover the whole tree, and this is only a myrtle tree. Rabha said: We take a myrtle bough because it is written [Zechariah, viii. 19]: "Only

love ye the truth and peace" (as a myrtle is an emblem of peace and love, therefore we take it on the festival). 1

The rabbis taught: A branch that is twined like a chain, that is the myrtle. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It is written: "The branch of a twined tree." That means, a tree whose trunk and fruit have the same taste, and that is a myrtle. In a Boraitha we have learned: A branch that is twined, is valid; if not, it is invalid. What is meant by twined? Said R. Jehudah: On each stem are three leaves. R. Kahna however, says: Even if on one stem are two, and on the other one, it is also reckoned three. R. A'ha the son of Rabha was looking for a myrtle bough which had two and one and two and one because this has been announced by R. Kahna. Said Mar bar Amemar to R. Ashi: My father calls such a myrtle a wild myrtle.

The rabbis taught: If the greater number of leaves have dropped, and on three stems they remained, it is valid. The rabbis taught: If the greater part of the leaves on the bough have dried up and only three twigs, each containing three leaves, remained, it is valid. Said R. Hisda, provided that the remainder are on the top of each.

"If the tip has been broken off." Ulla bar Hinna taught: If the tip has been broken off, and in its place is a green fruit like a date (Rashi explains this, that on the top of a myrtle there happen to be green fruits, with which women paint their vails), it is valid. R. Jeremiah put a question: If the tip had been broken off on the eve of the festival, and this green fruit grew up on the festival, how is the law? Shall it be said that, because it was not fit on the eve, it has been rejected, and cannot be used any more; or, the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties? This question is not decided. Shall we assume that this is a point of difference between the following Tanaim: We have learned: If one has transgressed, and cut off the berries on the festival, it is invalid, according to R. Elazer b. R. Zodok; but according to the sages it is valid? Must we not assume that he who says it is invalid does it because he holds the law of rejecting applies to religious duties, and as this branch with the berries was rejected on the eve of the festival, it was rejected for the whole festival, and he who says it is valid does so because he holds that the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties? Nay, all agree that

the law of rejecting applies to the positive commandments of religious duties, but in this case they differ whether a Lulab must be tied or not, as on this point differ the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: A Lulab, whether tied or not, is valid. R. Jehudah, however, said: A tied one is valid; if not, it is invalid. What is the reason of R. Jehudah? He infers it from an analogy of expression. It is written here [Lev. xxiii. 40]: "Ye shall take unto yourselves on the first day," and [in Ex. xii. 22] "and ye shall take a bunch of hyssop"; as there it is plainly written a bunch, so also here it must be tied as a bunch, and the sages do not take into consideration this analogy of expression. 1

"If one has more berries on it than leaves." R. Hisda said: The following thing said our great rabbi (i.e., Rabh), and the Lord come to his help: The case is only if it was in one place, but if the berries were in two or three places, then it is valid. Said Rabha to him: If it was in two or three places, it seems spotted, and it is invalid? Therefore if such a thing was taught, it was taught thus, said R. Hisda: The following thing our great rabbi said, and may God come to his help: The case is only when the berries were black; but if they were green, they are the same as the myrtle bough, and it is valid.

"If they have been diminished in number," etc. They have been diminished in number when? If before it was tied, it is self-evident, and if after it was tied, then it was rejected for the festival, and how made good? Infer from this that the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties! Nay, we can say that the case is even after it had been tied, but the Tana of the Mishna holds that the tying is not considered a construction, but only a preparation, and does not therefore count it.

The rabbis taught: They must not be diminished in number on the festival. In the name of R. Eliezer bar Simeon, however, it was said: It maybe done. But is not this like repairing a utensil on the festival? Said R. Ashi: R. Eliezer means to say, that if he took off the berries for the purpose of eating, and he holds as his father, that a thing which was done unintentionally is allowed.

The rabbis taught: If the binding of the Lulab was loosened on the festival, one shall tie it as he usually ties a bundle of herbs. Why? Let him tie it into a loop (not a knot). That is according to R. Jehudah, who said in Sabbath (p. 233), that tying into a loop

is like a knot, for either is culpable. But according to R. Jehudah the Lulab must be tied not as a bundle of herbs, but in a good knot? This Tana holds as R. Jehudah in one thing, and differs from him in the other.

"A willow of the brook," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written "A willow of the brook." That means, they usually grow near every brook. According to others, the willow of the brook means that it has leaves smooth as a brook. In another Boraitha we have learned: The willows of the brook! Whence do we deduce that willows from dry ground and mountains are valid? It is written "willows," in the plural: all are included. Abba Shaul, however, said: The plural signifies that two are needed: one for the Lulab and one for the Temple. And whence do the rabbis deduce that One for the Temple? They hold it is Sinaic (as will be explained farther on).

The rabbis taught: Willows of the brook, that grow only at brooks; but the Tzaphtzapha, which grows only between mountains, is excepted.

The rabbis taught: How can we recognize what is a willow and what is a Tzaphtzapha? The willow's stem is red, with the leaves elongated and their edges smooth. But a Tzaphtzapha has the stem white, and the leaves round, and their edges like a scythe. But have we not learned, if it is like a scythe, it is valid, and when like a saw it is invalid? Said Abayi: This we learned of the willows of Hilpha Gila: they are valid. Abayi said again: We may infer from this that the same willows may be used for the seventh day when Hosha'noth are used. Is not this self-evident? One would say that because the willows of Hilpha Gila have an additional name, they are not valid, he comes to teach that it is not so. But perhaps it is so? Because it is written in the plural, all are included.

MISHNA: R. Ishmael says: Three myrtle boughs, two willows, one palm branch, and one citron are needed. If two out of the three myrtle boughs had the tips broken off, they may be used. R. Tarphon says: Even if all three should have the tips broken off. R. Aqiba says-: As one Lulab and one citron are needed, so are only one myrtle bough and one willow needed.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha,: It is written: The fruit of the tree hadar," in the singular. one fruit; "a branch of a palm tree," in the singular, 1 one branch; "boughs

of the myrtle tree, "in the plural, three; and "willows of the brook," also in the plural, two. And even if two had the tips broken off, it is valid. R. Tarphon, however, said: Three are needed; and if all the tips are broken off, it does not matter. R. Aqiba said: As the Lulab and the citron are only one, so of the myrtle boughs and the willows is needed only one. Said R. Eliezer to him: According to thee, the citron must be tied together with the Lulab? And he answered: Did the verse say: "The fruit of the tree hadar and a branch of a palm tree"? It mentions them separately. If so, whence do we know that one depends upon the other? Because it is written: "Ye shall take." That means, you shall take all things that are enumerated, and not one without the other. How shall we imagine the case, according to R. Ishmael? If all kinds have to be entire, why are the myrtle boughs allowed if they are broken? And if it is not required that they should be entire, let even the other kinds, if broken, be used? Said Birah in the name of R. Ammi: R. Ishmael retracted this decision. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon, and Samuel said this according to his theory, because he said to the sellers of the myrtles: Make the price lower, and if you will not do so, I will lecture that the Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon. Let him then lecture according to R. Aqiba, who is more lenient, and says only one is needed? Three with the tips broken are more easily procurable than one uninjured.

MISHNA: A citron which has been robbed, or is withered, is invalid. One coming from a grove or a rejected town is invalid. One taken off a tree less than three years old 1 is not valid. Nor one taken from heave-offering that is unclean. From clean heave-offering a man is not to take a citron; but if he has taken, he has fulfilled his duty. One taken from Demai (fruit from which it is doubtful whether the legal dues have been paid) Beth Shammai hold invalid, but Beth Hillel hold it valid. A man is not to take a citron from second tithe in Jerusalem; but if he has taken one, he has done his duty. If a stain spread over the greater portion of the citron, if it has lost its crown, or the fine rind has been peeled off, or if it is split, or perforated, if ever so little thereof is wanting, it is not valid. If, however, the stain is spread over the smaller portion of the citron, if it has lost its stalk, or if that be perforated (but the citron itself is entire) so

that no part, however small, be wanting, it is valid. A dark-colored one is invalid, a leek-green one R. Meir pronounces valid, but R. Jehudah invalid.

The minimum size of a small citron, R. Meir says, is like a nut; R. Jehudah says, like an egg; and of a large citron, that one can hold two in one hand. So is the decree of R. Jehudah; but R. Jose says, even one must be taken with both hands.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The fruit of the tree hadar; that is, a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste, and that is a citron. Perhaps it is pepper, as we learn in the following Boraitha: R. Meir used to say: Because it is written [Lev. xix. 23]: "Plant any kind of tree, bearing edible fruit." Why was it needed to say, a tree bearing edible fruit? Is it not self-evident that if it is bearing fruit it is edible? From this we infer that to pepper, whose wood and fruit have the same taste, the law of Arlah applies. And in the land of Israel nothing is lacking (even pepper), as it is written [Deut. viii. 9]: "A land . . . wherein thou shalt not lack anything"? Because it is impossible: how shall we do? Shall we take one pepper-grain, that will not be noticed at all, many of them; the law says one, not two or three; and therefore it cannot be. R. Abahu says: Do not read hadar, but ha-dar; that is, a thing that dwells on its tree the whole year. Ben Azzai said: Do not read hadar, but adur, because in Greek they call water ὕδωρ, and that means a tree which can grow in all waters, and that is only a citron.

"One that comes from a grove," etc. Because it must be burned, and therefore it is considered to have no size.

"From a tree less than three years," etc. Why so? R. Hiya bar Abbin and R. Assi differed: one says, because it is not allowed to eat it, it must not be used either; and one says, because at that time it is worth nothing (because it must not be used for any purpose).

R. Assi said: With a citron of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a man cannot fulfil his duty; but according to the sages, he can. The same is the case with Matzah of second tithe. And dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from Halah, and according to the sages, is not.

"From unclean heave-offering." Because it is not allowed to eat it. And from clean heave-offering? "One shall not take," etc. R. Ami and R. Assi differ: one says, because he makes it subject to defilement, and one says, because he spoils it (because, when he holds it in the hand, it gets black, and is spoiled).

"But if he has taken, it is valid." According to those who say that it must not be taken, because it is not allowed to be eaten, this law is according to all; and according to those who say because it has no value, this Mishna is only in accordance with the rabbis.

"From Demai." What is the reason of Beth Hillel? Because if one wishes, he can relinquish his estates, and then he would be poor, and he would be allowed to eat it; therefore now also we consider it proper.

"If a stain," etc. Said R. Hisda: The following thing our great rabbi said, may the Lord come to his help: The case is only when it is in one place (of the citron), but if it is in two or more places, it is like a spotted one, and is invalid. Said Rabha: On its top, even if it is but trifling, it is invalid.

"Its crown," etc. R. Itz'hak b. Elazar taught: The crown, but not the stalk at the bottom.

"Peeled off," etc. Said Rabha: If a citron has been peeled, and gets the color of a red date, it is valid. But did we not learn in our Mishna that if peeled, it is invalid? It presents no difficulty. If it was in part peeled off, it is like a spotted one, and invalid; but if entirely peeled, it is valid.

"Split or perforated," etc. Ulla bar Hanina taught: When it is perforated through and through, even if it is trifling, it is invalid; but otherwise, then if the hole is of the size of an Isar (a coin), it is also invalid, but if less it is valid.

A citron that is swollen, ill-smelling, soaked, boiled, black or white, or spotted, is invalid. A citron round as a sphere (not elliptical) is invalid. According to some, twins (two growing together) are also invalid. An unripe citron R. Aqiba makes invalid, and the sages do not. If it was made to grow in a mould, and it came out of an irregular shape, it is invalid.

It was taught: "A citron that mice have perforated," said Rabh, "cannot be called beautiful."

"And of a large citron," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said it once happened to R. Aqiba that he came to a prayer-house with his citron, and it was so large that he brought it on his shoulder. Said R. Jehudah to him: It proves nothing, because the sages told him then: This cannot be considered beautiful,

MISHNA: The Lulab must only be tied with its own kind (threads of palm branches). So says R. Jehudah. But R. Meir says: It may be tied even with twine. R. Meir also said: It

happened that the inhabitants of Jerusalem tied a Lulab with gold lace. But the sages answered: Yes, they did so, but beneath the gold lace they tied it with its own kind.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: With the bark or the root of the same tree it may be tied. And he says again: What is, the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? Because according to him the Lulab must not be used unless it is tied, and if it be tied with another kind, it should be five kinds, and not four. He says again: Whence do I deduce that the bark and the root of the palm tree are considered of the same kind as the Lulab itself? From the following Boraitha: It is written: "Ye shall dwell in booths." That signifies, a booth of any materials: so is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, said: A booth must be made only of the four kinds used for the Lulab. And it seems to me that such is right, because if a Lulab which is used only in the day, and not in the night, must have the four kinds only, for a Succah which is used both by day and by night, so much the more are the four kinds needed. Replied the sages to him: Every law which is at the beginning more rigorous, and is finally more lenient, is no law at all. And our case, according to your opinion, if one did not find the four kinds, he should sit in his house, doing nothing; and the Torah says: "Seven days ye shall dwell in booths." Therefore we say a Succah should be made of any materials. And so it is written in Nehemiah, viii. 15: "Go forth unto the mountain and fetch olive leaves, and oleaster leaves, and myrtle leaves, and palm leaves, and leaves of the three-leaved myrtle to make booths." R. Jehudah, however, explains this verse thus: That olive leaves and oleaster leaves are for the walls of the Succah, and myrtle leaves, etc., are for the covering. And we have learned in a previous Mishna: It may be roofed with boards, so is the decree of R. Jehudah. Hence we see that, although R. Jehudah requires only the four kinds for the covering, nevertheless, if one has covered it with boards, it is valid, because the boards of the bark and of the roots of the same tree are considered by him of the same kind. But have we not learned in a Boraitha that if one has covered it with boards of cedar, it is valid according to R. Jehudah? By cedar is also Meant myrtle, as Rabha bar R. Huna says elsewhere: There are ten kinds of cedar, and the myrtle is among them, as it is written [Is. xli. 19]: "I will place in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle."

Said Rabba to the men who tied the Hosha'noth for the

exilarch When you tie them, leave the breadth of a hand at the bottom there shall be no intervention between the hand and the Hosha'na. 1 Said Rabha: All that was made to beautify it, does not intervene. Rabba says again: A man shall not hold the Hosha'na through a cloth, because it is written: "Ye shall take," with your own hands. Rabha, however, said: Even if one takes it through another thing, it is still called taking. Rabba says again: After the Hosha'na and the myrtle bough have been tied, one shall not insert the Lulab, lest some leaves be torn off from them, and they will be an intervention between the Lulab and them. Rabba, however, said: A thing of the same kind makes no intervention.

Rabba says again: A myrtle bough used for the religious purpose may not be smelled, but a citron may. Why so? Because the myrtle is only used because of its odor, and as it has been designated for a religious purpose, it must not be smelled; but a citron, which is made for eating, has been designated only for eating, and may be smelled. The same authority says again: A myrtle attached to the ground may be smelled on the festival, but a citron must not. Why so? Because a myrtle, which is used only for smelling, if one will be allowed to smell it, when yet attached to the ground, he will not cut off; but a citron, which is for eating, if he will be allowed to smell, he will cut off, and eat. He says again: The Lulab must be held in the right hand, and the citron in the left hand. Why so? Because by the Lulab three duties are performed, and by the citron only one.

Said R. Jeremiah to R.. Zrika: Why do we pronounce the benediction over the Lulab only? Because it is higher than the other kinds. But let one raise the citron, and pronounce the benediction over it? And he answered: Because by nature it grows higher than the other kinds..

MISHNA: When must the Lulab be shaken? At the verse: "Praise ye the Lord" (in the prayer), at the beginning and ending (of that part of the prayer), and at the verse: "O Lord, we beseech thee, save us": so is the decree of Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai hold, also at the verse: "O Lord, we beseech thee, prosper us." R. Aqiba said: I watched Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshuah (in the time of prayer), and I saw while all men shook the Lulabs at both the above-mentioned verses, they shook theirs only at: "O Lord," etc., "save us."

GEMARA: Where is it mentioned that it should be shaken? In the first Mishna of this chapter: it teaches, a Lulab which is three spans long "sufficient to shake it by"; and now it is asked, When shall it be shaken? Said R. Johanan: The shaking shall be towards all four sides--to the Creator, that all the sides are His; and it shall be raised and lowered to Him to whom the heaven and the earth belong. In the West they taught so: R. Hama bar Uqba in the name of R. Jose bar Hanina said: He shall shake towards all sides, to prevent bad winds; and up and down, to prevent bad dews.

MISHNA: If one is on the road, and has no Lulab, he must, when he gets home, shake it before his meal. If he has not done it in the morning, he must do it toward evening, as the duty may be done during the whole day.

If a slave, woman, or minor reads hallel (see Pesachim, Chap. X., pp. 242-46) to a man, he should repeat after them word for word, but it is a disgrace to him (not to have learned to read). If a grown man reads to him, he only responds "Hallelujah." At the places where certain verses are said twice, he is to do so. Where they are recited once, he must do so. Where a benediction is said after the Lulab, he must say it. In every case he must do as is the custom of the country.

GEMARA: Rabha said: Great Halakhoth can be inferred from the custom of saying Hallel: From the custom of our time, when almost all men can read the Hallel themselves, nevertheless they repeat the beginnings of the chapters after the reader, we may infer what are the essential portions of Hallel, and how it was done in the ancient times, when the people could not read themselves, and a man was wanted to read it, for them to repeat after him. The Mishna says: He responds "Hallelujah." From this we see that Hallelujah is of the essential portions which must be responded. We see also in our time, when the reader begins: "Praise, O ye servants of the Lord," and the people respond, "Hallelujah," we may infer that if a grown man is the reader of the Hallel, it is sufficient for the hearer to respond "Hallelujah," and not to repeat the whole chapter (part of the prayer). From what we see, that when the reader says, "Praise ye the Lord," they also repeat, "Praise ye the Lord," we infer that it is a merit to repeat the first verses of the chapter.

[It was also taught: R. Hanan bar Rabha said: It is a merit to repeat the first verses of the chapter.] When the reader says: "O Lord, save us," they should repeat it. If the reader is a

minor, however, one must repeat after him word for word. When he says: "O Lord, prosper us," they repeat it, and from this we see that if one wishes to say it twice, he may do so. When he says, "Blessed be he that cometh," they respond, "in the name of the Lord." From this we see that he who listens to the prayer is equal to him who himself repeats it.

R. Hiya bar Abba was asked: If one has listened to the prayer, and not responded, how is the law? And he answered: The sages, the scribes, the heads of the people, the preachers, all have decided that he who has listened, and not answered, has fulfilled his duty.

"At the places where verses are said twice," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi used to say twice in the Hallel same parts. R. Elazar b. Parta has added parts to the same prayer. What is meant by "added"? Said Abayi: He added the manner of saying twice every verse from the 21st verse of Psalm cxviii. to the end of that psalm.

"When it is the custom to say a benediction," etc. Said Abayi, that is only at the end of the Hallel; but before, it is not a custom, but obligatory. As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: All the religious duties must have a benediction pronounced before they are performed.

MISHNA: If one buys a Lulab from a man of the common people in a Sabbatical year, he shall ask of him that the citron shall be given to him as a gift, because it is not allowed to buy a citron in the Sabbatical year.

GEMARA: But how is the law if the seller does not want to give him this as a gift? Said R. Huna: He shall include the price of the citron in the price for the Lulab. Why? Let him give it to him publicly? Because one must not give money for fruits forbidden to be sold on the Sabbatical year to a man of the common people. As we have learned in a Boraitha: One must not give money for fruit on the Sabbatical year to a man of the common people more than is sufficient for three meals; and if one has done it, he shall say: This money that I give to this man shall be exchanged for the fruit which I have in my house, and after that he uses the fruit which he has had in the house only for purposes for which fruit of the Sabbatical year may be used. When is that the case? When he saw that the man sold to him fruit from a field left to the public, which had no owner; but if he sold it from his own field, one must not buy even for half an isar. If it is so, why only the citron? What is the

case with the palm branch? The Lulab cannot be of the Sabbatical year, because it had been ripe on the sixth year. But the same is the case with the citron? In case of a citron, it is not counted from the time of its ripeness, but its removal from the tree (as is explained in Tract Rosh Hashana, p. 19). But we know that according to both R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer, in reference to the Sabbatical year, in case of the citron it is counted from the time of its budding. As we have learned in the following Mishna: The citron is equal to a tree in three respects, and to herbs in one respect--to a tree in three respects, to wit: Of arla (the first three years), rebai (the fourth year) [Lev. xix. 22-24], and of the Sabbatical year, in reference to which it is counted from the time of its budding; and to a herb in one respect, that it must be tithed when it is gathered (i.e., the tithe must be used for the purpose of that year). So is the decree of Rabban Gamaliel. R. Eliezer, however, said: A citron is equal to a tree in all respects (hence we see that all agree that in reference to the Sabbatical year it is counted in case of the citron from the time of its ripeness, not of its budding). The Tana of our Mishna holds as the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Jose said: Abtulmus testified in the name of five elders, thus: The citron must be counted from the time when it is gathered for tithe. Our Masters, however, have voted and decided in the city of Usha that in reference both to tithe and Sabbatical year it is to be counted from the time of its gathering. But where is here mentioned the Sabbatical year? The Boraitha is not completed, and must read thus: The citron is counted when gathered in reference to tithe, and from budding in reference to the Sabbatical Year. Our Masters in Usha, however, have decided that in both cases it is counted from the time of the gathering.

R. Elazar said: The fruit of the Sabbatical year does not become exchanged, unless it is done in the manner of buying and selling. R. Johanan, however, said: It becomes exchanged even through exchanging. What is the reason of R. Elazar? Because it is written [Lev. xxv. 13]: "In this year of the jubilee," and the next verse says, "shall he sell," from this we infer, only through buying and selling. What is the reason of R. Johanan? Because it is written [ibid., ibid. 12]: "For it is the jubilee, holy shall it be unto you"; and as in case of all holiness there is no difference between selling and exchanging, the same is the case with the fruit of the Sabbatical year. We have learned in one

[paragraph continues] Boraitha in accordance with R. Elazar, and in another Boraitha we have learned in accordance with R. Johanan.

A Boraitha according to R. Elazar: The Sabbatical year holds the money exchanged for its fruit, because it is written: "It is a jubilee year and shall be holy." As the holy things hold the money exchanged for it, and makes it holy, so also do the fruit of the Sabbatical year. But should we assume, as the holy things become ordinary, when exchanged, the same shall be with the Sabbatical year, therefore it is written: "It shall be"--which means, so shall it stay. How so? I.e., if one bought for its fruit meat, both must be destroyed; if, however, he bought fish for the meat, the fish becomes its substitute, and the meat is free; the fish, again, exchanged for wine, the latter becomes the substitute. The same is the case when the latter is exchanged for wine: the very last always becomes the substitute of the preceding one, except the original fruit, which remains as it was. Now, then, when the Boraitha mentions at every exchange the word "lokah," which means bought, we may infer from it that it was done only by purchase, but not by exchange (hence R. Elazar's opinion).

A Boraitha according to R. Johanan: Both the fruit of the Sabbatical year and of the second tithe may be exchanged for wild game, cattle, and fowl when they are either alive or slaughtered. So is the decree of R. Meir. But the sages say that only for slaughtered ones, but when alive they must not be taken in exchange, lest he shall raise a herd from them. Said Rabba: They differ only as to males, but females, all agree that only slaughtered ones may be exchanged, but not living ones, for the precautionary measure stated above.

Said R. Ashi: They differ only about the fruit exchanged already for the Sabbatical fruit, but about the Sabbatical fruit itself all agree, only through selling and not through exchanging. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: The fruit of the Sabbatical year and second tithe may be exchanged for animals, wild beasts, and fowls? By this is meant, not the fruit but the money obtained for it. And this must be so, because it is mentioned together with second tithe, and by second tithe could not be meant the fruit itself, because it is written [Deut. xiv. 25]: "Bind up the money in thy hand."

MISHNA: Formerly the Lulab was used in the Temple all the seven days of the festival; in the country, however, only one day. When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan b. Zakkai

ordained: In the country it shall also be used all the seven days, in memory of the Temple. He ordained also at the same time that on the sixteenth day of Nissan, called the day of Noph (the day of waving the omer: Lev. xxiii. 11), it should not be allowed to eat new grain.

GEMARA: Whence do we infer that it must be done in memory of the Temple? Said R. Johanan: Because it is written [Jeremiah, xxx. 17]: "This is Zion, whom no one seeketh after." From this we infer that it must be sought after.

"The day of Noph," etc. What is the reason? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: R. Johanan b. Zakkai said this in accordance with the system of R. Jehudah, who said that it is biblically prohibited to eat the whole day, because it is written [Lev. xxiii. 14], "until the self-same day"; and the self-same day means this day shall be included. Does R. Johanan b. Zakkai indeed hold with R. Jehudah, did he not differ from him? As we learn in the following Mishna: When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that the whole day of Noph it shall be prohibited. And R. Jehudah said to him: Why such an ordinance? Is it not biblically prohibited, as it is written, "on the self-same day," which means to include the whole day? R. Jehudah erred, because he thought R. Johanan b. Zakkai intended to make his ordinance rabbinical, and it was not so; R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained this biblically. If biblically, what is meant by the expression "ordained"? Read: He lectured that this is biblical and so ordained.

MISHNA: If the first day of the festival falls on a Sabbath, the people bring their Lulabs to the synagogue on the eve of Sabbath and leave them there, and on the next morning they come early to synagogue, and each seeks out his own Lulab, and performs with it his duty, because the sages bold that the duty cannot be fulfilled on the first day by means of a Lulab belonging to his neighbor; but it can be fulfilled on the subsequent days of the festival.

R. Jose says: If the first day of the festival falls on the Sabbath, and one carries out the Lulab into public ground through forgetfulness, he is not culpable, because he carried it out with the intention to do a religious duty.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 40]: "Ye shall take," that means, it shall be taken with the hand; "unto yourselves," it shall be your own, but not a borrowed one or robbed one; and

from this the sages said that one cannot fulfil his duty with the Lulab of his neighbor on the first day, unless he has made of it a present to him. And it happened to Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshuah, R. Elazar b. Azariah, and R. Aqiba, when they were on board a ship, that they had but one Lulab, which was the property of Rabban Gamaliel, who had bought it for a thousand Zuz; and R. Gamaliel performed with it his duty, and then made of it a present to R. Joshuah; R. Joshuah did the same, and gave it away to R. Elazar, who did the same, and gave it as a present to R. Aqiba; and R. Aqiba, after having fulfilled his duty, returned it to Rabban Gamaliel. To what purpose do they tell us that R. Aqiba returned it to Rabban Gamaliel? It is to teach us by the way, that a present with the condition that it shall be returned after, is called a present. As Rabha said elsewhere: "If one say: I present to you this citron to fulfil your duty with it, and afterwards you shall return it to me," if the man returned it afterwards, he had fulfilled his duty, but if he failed to return it, it is not counted as anything. And to what purpose do they tell us that he bought it for a thousand Zuz? To let us know how dear to them were religious duties. Said Mar bar Amemar to R. Ashi: My father used to pray, holding the Lulab in his hand. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar 1 bar Zadok says: So was the custom of the men of Jerusalem: when one was going out of his house, the Lulab was in his hand; when he went to the house of prayer, the Lulab was in his hand; when he read the Shema and prayed, the Lulab was in his hand; when he read in the Torah and raised his hands (when a priest) to bless Israel, he laid it away, on the floor, and afterwards took it up. If he went to visit the sick, or console mourners, the Lulab was in his hand. When he went, however, to the house of learning, he sent it away through his son, or servant, or messenger. To what purpose is all this told? To let us know how mindful they were of religious duties.

"R. Jose said," etc. Said Abayi: He is not culpable so long as he has not fulfilled his duty with it; but if he has, he is. But has not the duty been performed as soon as he has taken it into his hand and raised it? Said Abayi: It means, if he carried it out inverted (because the duty is not fulfilled so long as he does not hold it as it grows). Rabha said: Even if he has not inverted it, but carried it out in a vessel. But did not Rabha himself

say that taking through any other thing is called taking? That is, if he took it thus to honor it; but if in a vessel not appropriate to a Lulab, it is not called taking.

MISHNA: A woman may receive a Lulab out of the hand of her son or of her husband, and put it back into water on the Sabbath. R. Jehudah says: On the Sabbath it may be put back, on the festival they may add fresh water, and on the intermediate days they may change the water. A minor who understands how to shake the Lulab is bound to perform that duty.

GEMARA: Is this not self-evident? Lest one say, that because the Lulab is not obligatory for a woman, she must not handle it, it comes to teach us that she may.

"A minor," etc. The rabbis taught: A minor who knows how to shake the Lulab is bound to perform this duty. If he knows how to wrap himself in a cloth, he is bound to perform the duty of Tzitzith; if he is able to take care of Tefilin, his father may buy for him Tefilin. As soon as he can talk, his father shall teach him the Torah, and to read Shema. [What is meant by Torah? Said R. Hamnuna: The verse of Deuteronomy, xxxiii. 4: "The law which Moses commanded us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." What is meant by Shema? The first verse.] (The Boraitha says farther on): If he knows how to slaughter animals, it may be eaten of his slaughtering. Said R. Huna: Only if an adult was standing by. If he is capable to eat bread the size of an olive, one must remove from him to the distance of four ells (if one has to pray or to study), on certain occasions. Says R. Hisda: This is only if he can eat the piece of bread in the same length of time that a grown person can eat bread of the size of three eggs, or more. Said R. Hiya the son of R. Yeba: In the case of a grown man who is sick and unable to eat as much, in the above-mentioned length of time, one must nevertheless remove four ells. Because it is written [Eccl. i. 18]: "Where there is much wisdom, there is much vexation." If the minor is able to eat roasted meat of the size of an olive, the Paschal offering may be slaughtered for him, as it is written [Ex. xii. 4]: "Every man according to what he eateth." R. Jehudah, however, said: It must not be given to him until he is able to distinguish. How? If he is given a chip, he drops it; but a nut, he accepts it.

Footnotes

42:1 Lev. xxiii. 40.

42:2 Deut. xiii. 12.

42:3 A mountain near Jerusalem, southward, the palm branches of which wen very short.

44:1 The name of Rabha is not mentioned above, but it must have been known to him that Rabha said so.

45:1 The word hadar in Hebrew has two meanings: "Beauty" and dar means "dwelling" (see Ps. lxxxiv. 11). Hence R. Jehudah explains this in the latter sense.

46:1 The Gemara will explain the term.

47:1 Rashi explains it in another manner, which is complicated. We, however, think that our explanation is right.

48:1 See page 14, lines 32-37, beginning "But according," etc., which also belong here.

49:1 The word Kapath is written in the singular, but is read Kapoth, in the plural.

50:1 Lev. xix. 23.

54:1 The Gemara calls Hosha'na the Lulab, and the myrtle bough and willow tied together.

60:1 See foot-note in Tract Pesachim, p. 78.

Chapter III

REGULATIONS REGARDING MOURNING ON FESTIVALS, REGARDING THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE BAN, AND WASHING.

MISHNA: The following may shave (trim their hair) on the middle days: One who arrives from the sea countries, or returns from captivity, or has been discharged from prison; or one who was absolved by the sages from the ban, or from his vow (not to cut his hair for a certain period of time); also a Nazarite and the leper who is restored to cleanness. The following may wash their garments on the middle days: One who arrives from the sea countries, or returns from captivity, or has been discharged from prison; and one whom the sages have absolved from the ban, or from his vow. Towels, barbers' napkins, and bathing towels (may be washed). Men and women who have had a running issue, women after their courses or lying-in, and all persons who from uncleanness are restored to cleanness, are permitted to wash their garments; but all other persons are forbidden.

GEMARA: What is the reason for not permitting other persons? As we have learned in the following Mishna (Taanith). "The priests of the weekly watch and the standing Israelites are prohibited from shaving their beards and washing their clothes; but on Thursday they are allowed to do so in honor of the Sabbath." And Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Elazar said: "The reason why they are prohibited to do so the whole week is in order that they shall not enter upon the fulfilment of their duties when they are filthy (if they would be allowed to do so during the days of their duty)." The same reason applies to the festival (if they will be allowed to do so in the middle days they will not shave themselves before the festival).

"Who arrive from the sea countries." Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: "One who returns from the sea countries may not shave, for he went to sea of his own accord." Said Rabha: "If he went to sea for adventurous purposes, all agree that he may not; if to earn his bread, all agree that he may. They only

differ in case he went to sea to accumulate profits (i.e., one who was well provided with an income, but went to sea to increase his riches). One equals it to the case of adventurous purpose; and the other, to that for the purpose of earning his bread. Samuel said: "A minor (child) may be shaved on the middle days, and it makes no difference whether he was born on or before the middle days." Said R. Pin'has: "We also have a Mishna to the same effect: All those who were permitted to shave on the middle days may also do so during their mourning." From this we must assume that those prohibited to shave on the middle days are also prohibited from doing so during their mourning? Now, if a minor would be prohibited, then mourning would be customary to a minor also, but the following Boraitha states: "The garments of a minor mourner are rent for the purpose of moving others to mourn?" Hence we see that to a minor himself mourning is not customary? Said R. Ashi: Does, then, the Mishna state "those who are prohibited"? (It only states "those who are allowed") and possibly some are prohibited who are not mentioned in the Mishna.

A mourner must not observe mourning on festivals, for it is written [Deut. xvi. 14]: "And thou shalt rejoice on thy feast." Then, if the mourning commences before the festival the positive commandment of the rejoicing of the feast which relates to the whole public is relieving from the positive commandment of mourning of an individual; and in case it began on the festival, the commandment of mourning to an individual cannot relieve from the commandment (of rejoicing) to the public. What is the law of one who is under the ban as regards the festival? Said R. Joseph: Come and hear: "Cases involving capital punishment or stripes, or civil cases, may be tried (on the middle days), and if one (of the parties) is in contempt he may be put under the ban." Now then, if you should think that if one who was already under the ban the festival comes and postpones it, how could we put one under the ban originally on the festival? Said Abayi to him: "Perhaps the Boraitha meant, by 'tried,' the examination only (but not the result)?" Therefore said Abayi: This can be decided from our Mishna, which states: "One whom the sages absolved from the ban." And if the festival would postpone it, why then the absolving by the sages?

Said Rabha: Does, then, the Mishna state: The sages have absolved the ban? It states: "Who was absolved by the sages from the ban," which means that he has previously arrived at an

understanding with his opponent and then come to ask the rabbis that they should absolve him. (Hence the question remains undecided.)

Is the law of leprosy customary on the festival? Said Rabha: "Come and hear: It is written [Lev. xiii. 45]: "And the leper." That means to include even if it was the high-priest. Now, it is certain that as to the high-priest all the week-days are considered feast-days, as we have learned in a Mishna (Sebo'him): "The high-priest may sacrifice in his mourning before the interment of the corpse, but not to eat of it." Infer from this that the law of leprosy is customary on festivals. 1

Rabha said: Whence do we know that the court has power to summon one to appear before them; to appoint a time for the trial before the chief of the court; and to fix a time for the appearance of both parties? It is written [Num. xvi. 12-16]: "And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab," etc. "And Moses said unto Korah, thou and thy company be ye before the Lord," etc. "Thou and they and Aaron to-morrow." And whence do we know that the court has power to postpone the trial to another day? It is written [Jerem. xlvi. 17]: "They called out there," etc., "he hath let the time appointed pass by." And whence do we know that the report of the court messenger, that the summons is disobeyed, is not considered slander? From the report of the messengers to Moses [Num. xvi. 114]. And whence do we know that a great man has the power to put one under the ban? From [Judges, v. 23]: "Curse ye Meroz, said the messenger of the Lord." [It means that he was a great man.] And whence do we know that the court has power to excommunicate him and to prohibit to eat or drink in his company, or to stand near him within a distance of four ells? From the passage [ibid., ibid.]: "Curse ye bitterly, curse its inhabitants." And whence, that his disobedience is made public? From [ibid., ibid.]: "Because they came not to the help of the Lord." And whence, that his property may be confiscated (made ownerless)? From [Ezra, x. 8]: "And that whosoever should not come within three days," etc., "all his substance should be forfeited 2 and himself separated from the congregation

of the exiles." Whence, that he may be cursed, beaten, his hair plucked, and made to swear? From [Nehem. xiii. 25]: "And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked out their hair, and made them swear," etc. Whence, that his hands and feet may be bound, and he may be tied to the whipping post, and prosecuted? From [Ezra, vii. 26] Whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to a fine on goods, or to imprisonment." What is meant by "banishment"? Said Ada Mari in the name of Ne'hemiah bar Baruch in the name of R. Hyya bar Abin, quoting R. Jehudah: "It means, prosecution." What kind of prosecution? Said R. Jehudah, son of R. Samuel bar Shilath, in the name of Rabh: "It means that he is put under the ban at once, and if he does not repent within thirty days the ban is continued; and if he still continues to be disobedient, he is excommunicated after the lapse of sixty days." Said R. Huna bar Hinna to him: "But has not R. Hisda stated: He is first warned on a Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday"? This relates only to cases involving money; but if he is accused of having denounced the authorities, he is at once put under the ban. A certain butcher was disobedient to R. Tubi bar Mathna, and be was put under the ban by the concurrence of Abayi and Rabha. Subsequently he came to an understanding with his opponent. Said Abayi: "What shall be done in such a case? Shall we absolve him? Thirty days have not passed yet? Shall we not? The rabbis need him?" And he turned to R. Idi bar Abin and asked him: "Do you know anything about such a case?" And the latter answered him: "R. Ta'hlipha bar Abimi said in the name of Samuel: 'The horn that announced that he was placed under the ban, may announce that he was absolved.'" And Abayi rejoined: "This is only in cases involving money; but in the case of denouncing the authorities, the ban must continue for thirty days." Ameimar said: "The Halakha prevails, that if scholars declare the ban over a person, he may be absolved therefrom by three other scholars." Said R. Ashi to Ameimar: Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one of the scholars who declared the ban over a person died, his part cannot be absolved from? Shall we not assume that it cannot be absolved from at all? Nay; that means, only until other three absolve him.

The rabbis taught: The ban is declared for not less than thirty days; rebuke, however, is only for seven days; and although

there is no explicit proof for that, there is a hint [Num. xii. 14]: "If her father had spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" R. Hisda said: "Our (Babylonian) ban equals in point of time their (Palestinian) rebuke; and their rebuke is only for seven days." Is that so? Has it not happened that R. Simeon bar Rabbi and Bar Qappara have been studying together, and they came across a difficult question? Said R. Simeon to Bar Qappara: "This question must be solved by Rabbi (my father)." And Bar Qappara answered him: "What could Rabbi say to this?" 1 R. Simeon reported this statement to his father, and he became angry. Subsequently Bar Qappara came to visit him, and Rabbi said to him: "Bar Qappara, I have never known thee." Bar Qappara understood this reproach, and he reprimanded himself for thirty days? It also happened that Rabbi ordered not to teach disciples in the public streets. R. Hyya disregarded the order, and did teach his two nephews, Rabh and Rabba bar bar Hana, in a public street. When Rabbi heard of it, he was angry. Subsequently R. Hyya came to visit him, and Rabbi said to him: "Eyya, you are wanted in the street." R. Hyya understood what was hinted at, and he reprimanded himself for thirty days.

[On the thirtieth day Rabbi sent a message to him to come; and a short while after he sent him another message not to come. Subsequently R. Hyya came. Said Rabbi to him: "Why didst thou come?" He answered: "Because the Master sent for me to come." Said Rabbi: "But did I not subsequently send thee not to come?" And he replied: "The first message I received, the second one I did not." And Rabbi applied to him the following passage [Proverbs, xvi. 7]: "When the Lord receiveth in favor a man's ways, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him."] Hence we see from this that the rebuke of the Palestinians is for thirty days? The rebuke of a prince is different.

For how long, however, is our rebuke? For one day only, as seen from the following: Samuel and Mar Uqba, studying together, the latter used to sit (out of respect to Samuel) four ells distant from the former; but when sitting as a court, the reverse used to be the case, and Mar Uqba used to sit on a low platform (near the candelabrum 2) in order that his voice might be heard

well. Mar Uqba was in the habit of accompanying Samuel every day to his residence. One day he was so engrossed in a case that he forgot to do it, and the latter, instead, followed him to his house. When they reached the house, Samuel said to him: "Is this sufficient for thee? May I now return?" And Mar Uqba understood that Samuel was angry, and he reprimanded himself for one day. There was a woman who was sitting in a pathway, and was in the habit of stretching out her foot to pick up the barley. A young scholar happened to pass by and she paid no attention to him, and he remarked: "How insolent this woman is!" The woman came before R. Na'hman and he asked her: "Did he utter the ban?" And she answered: "Nay." He then ordered her to be reprimanded for one day. Zutra bar Tubiah was once arranging biblical passages before R. Jehudah. When he came upon the passage [II Sam. xxiii, 1]: "And these are the last words of David," he said to him: "If these were the last, what were the first words of David?" R. Jehudah remained silent. But when he (Mar Zutra) repeated the question, R. Jehudah said: "Art thou of, the opinion that if one cannot explain this he is no more a great man?" And Mar Zutra understood that R. Jehudah was angry, and he reprimanded himself for one day. How is this passage, however, to be explained? It plainly reads "the last"; then there must be the first words? [Ibid. xxi. 1]: "And David spoke unto the Lord the words of this song, on the day that the Lord had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul." This passage was expounded thus: The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto David: "David, thou singest songs over the downfall of Saul; if thou wert Saul and he were David, I would annihilate many a David for his sake." And this is meant by [Psalms, vii. 1]: "A Shiggayon of David 1 which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the affairs of Cush (the Ethiopian) the Benjamite." Was then his name Cush? It was Saul, but as an Ethiopian is distinguished from others by the color of his skin, so was Saul distinguished from others by his good deeds. Likewise [Num. xii. 1]: "On account of the Ethiopian woman which he had married." Was then her name Ethiopian? Was it then not Ziporah? But it is to state, that as an Ethiopian is distinguished by the color of his skin, so was she distinguished by her kind deeds. Likewise [Jerem. xxxviii. 7]: "Now when the slave of the king, the Ethiopian,"

etc. Was then his name Ethiopian? 1 Was it then not Zedekiah? But as it is stated above. Likewise [Amos, ix. 7]: "Are ye not like the children of the Ethiopians, O children of Israel?" Was then their name Ethiopians? Was it then not "Israel"? But as the Ethiopians differ from others in the color of their skin, so does Israel differ from all idolaters by their good deeds.

R. Tan'hum said in the name of R. Huna, and according to others R. Huna himself said it: A disciple who put one under the ban for disobedience to himself, the ban is valid, as we have learned in a Boraitha: "One who is put under the ban by the Master is considered so also towards the disciple; but if put by a disciple, is not so towards the Master." Hence towards the Master he is not so, but as towards the general public he is so. Now, then, let us see: To what case is this applicable? Shall we assume that it applies to Heavenly things? Is it not written [Psalms, xxi. 30]: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord"? Hence it must be assumed, even for the disobedience to himself. R. Joseph said: "Even a young scholar, if only he is certain that his demand against another is just, may render judgment in his own favor." There was one young scholar concerning whom evil rumors were current. Said R. Jehudah: "What shall be done in this case? Shall we put him under the ban? The rabbis need him. Shall we not? The name of Heaven will be profaned." And he asked Rabba bar bar Hana: "Do you know anything about such a case?" He answered him: So said R. Johanan: "It is written [Malachi, ii. 7]: 'The priest's lips are ever to keep knowledge, and the law are they to seek from his mouth, for he is the messenger 2 of the Lord of hosts.' That means: If the Master is equal to an angel, law may be sought from his mouth, but not otherwise." Thereupon R. Jehudah put him under the ban. Subsequently, R. Jehudah was taken ill and the rabbis made him a sick-call, among whom was also that young scholar. When R. Jehudah beheld him, he smiled. Said he to R. Jehudah: "Is it not enough that you put me under the ban, that you still laugh at me?" R. Jehudah answered him: "I do not laugh at you, but in the world to come I will be proud to say that I was not biased even towards so great a man as you."

When R. Jehudah died the young scholar came to the college and asked to be absolved from the ban, and the rabbis answered him: "There is not here a man equal in esteem to R. Jehudah to absolve you. Go to R. Jehudah the Second, and he may absolve you." He went to him. Said the Nasi to R. Ami: "Go and examine his case, and if found favorable, absolve him." R. Ami did so, and was about to absolve him when R. Samuel bar Na'hmeni arose and said: "Even when the maid-servant of the house of Rabbi declared one under the ban the sages did respect it for three years, and so much the more we must respect Jehudah our colleague." Said R. Zera: "How did it happen that this old man came to-day to college after an absence of several years? It is a token that the young scholar is not to be absolved." He left weeping, and on the way he was stung by a bee and he died. He was brought to the vaults of the Pious, and was not accepted; he was then removed to those of the Judges, and was accepted. Why so? For he acted as R. Ilai of the following Boraitha: "If one cannot withstand the temptation, he shall go to a place where he is not known, and shall dress in black and wrap himself in black and do as he pleases, but shall not profane the name of Heaven openly."

What was the occurrence with the maid-servant of the house of Rabbi? The maid-servant of the house of Rabbi saw once one beating his grown-up son, and she said: "Let that man be under the ban, for he has transgressed the commandment [Lev. xix. 14]: 'Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind.'" And the following Boraitha states that this passage relates to one who beats his grown-up son. Resh Lakish was watching an orchard, and there came a certain man and ate of the figs. Resh Lakish shouted to him not to do it, but he paid no attention to him. Resh Lakish then said: "Let this man be under the ban." And the man answered him: "On the contrary, let that man be under the ban; for if I am responsible to thee in damages, am I then liable to be put under the ban?" When Resh Lakish came to the college, he was told: "His placing you under the ban is valid, but not yours." "How can it be corrected?" "Go and ask his pardon." "But I do not know where to find him?" And he was told: "You have to go to the Nasi in order to be absolved, as we have learned in a Boraitha: 'One who was put under the ban and he does not know the person, he must go to a Nasi in order to be absolved.'"

R. Huna said: It was enacted in Osha that if the chief of tile court should be delinquent, if for the first time he should not be put under the ban, but should only be told: "Be dignified and stay at home." But if for the second time, he should be put under the ban, lest the name of Heaven be profaned. This is not in accordance with the following statement of Resh Lakish: A scholar who is delinquent is not put under the ban publicly, for it is written [Hosea, ii. 5]: "Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day-time, and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night," which means: See that he is devoid of publicity, as the night is devoid of daylight.

Mar Zutra the Pious, when a young scholar was delinquent and deserving to be reprimanded, first reprimanded himself and then the young scholar. When he entered his residence, he first absolved himself and then the young scholar. R. Giddel said in the name of Rabh: "A scholar may first put himself under the ban (for a certain period of time) and afterward absolve himself therefrom." Said R. Papa: "I may be rewarded; for, as a matter of fact, I have never put a young scholar under the ban."

"And the Nazarite and the leper," etc. R. Jeremiah questioned R. Zera: "Does it mean in the case when they had no opportunity to do so before, or even when they had?" And he answered him: "We have learned this in the following Boraitha: All those who were said to be permitted to shave on the middle days, may do so only when they had no opportunity to do it before, but not otherwise. A Nazarite, however, may do so, although he had the opportunity to do so before, in order that his sacrifice be not delayed.

The rabbis taught: "All those who were said to be permitted to shave on the middle days, may also do so in their mourning." But have we not learned in another Boraitha that they may not? Said R. Hisda ill the name of R. Shila: "The first Boraitha relates to a case where the mournings succeeded one another." If this is the case, why only "those who were said," etc.? Why not every one? As we have learned in a Boraitha: "When one mourning succeeds the other, and so on for a long time, and his hair has become heavy, it may be made light by a razor, and he may wash his clothes in water?" Yea, but as to this, it was taught that R. Hisda said: The Boraitha means by a razor only, but not by scissors; in water, but not with Spanish chalk (which was used then instead of soap) or lye. Said R. Hisda:

[paragraph continues] "From this it may be inferred that a mourner must not wash his clothes."

The rabbis taught: "As it is not allowed to shave on the middle days, so also is it not allowed to trim the nails. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, permits it." And the same is the case in regard to mourning. Said Ula: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah in regard to mourning, and according to R. Jose in regard to the middle days." Samuel, however, said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose in regard to both mourning and the middle days." As Samuel said elsewhere: The Halakha prevails according to the one who is lenient, in regard to mourning. R. Shaman bar Aba said: I was present once on the middle days in the college of R. Johanan, and saw him trimming his nails with his teeth and throwing the parings away. And from the above occurrence three things were inferred: that the nails may be trimmed on the middle days; that there is no aversion to trimming them with the teeth; and that the parings may be thrown away. 1 R. Itz'hak bar Jacob bar Geurah in the name of R. Johanan sent the following message: "Flaxen garments may be washed on the middle days."

MISHNA: The following documents may be written on the middle days: contracts of betrothing, bills of divorce, and receipts in discharge of debts; also wills or codicils; deeds of gift; premonitions; and deeds of maintenance, certificates of Halitza, and certificates of refusal; arbitration bonds; decrees of the Beth Din; and powers of attorney.

GEMARA: Samuel said: "One is permitted to become betrothed to a woman on the middle days, for fear that he may be preceded by another one." Rabh said in the name of R. Reuben b. Atztrubli: It appears from the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa that the union of a woman to her husband comes from God himself. The Law [Gen. xxiv. 50]: "Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: The thing hath proceeded from the Lord," etc.; the Prophets [Judges, xiv. 4]: "But his father and his mother knew not that it was from the Lord"; the Hagiographa [Prov. xix. 14]: "Houses and wealth are an inheritance from fathers; but from the Lord cometh an intelligent wife." 2 Rabh further said in the name of the same authority; and according to others this was learned in a Boraitha:

[paragraph continues] "R. Reuben b. Atztrubli said: 'No one is suspected of having done something (wrong), unless he has really done it; and if he has not done it all, he has done part of it; and if not even that much, he at least had in mind to do it; and if not even that much, he probably approved of it when it was done by others.'" An objection was made: Come and hear [Psalm cvi. 16]: "Moreover, they envied Moses in the camp and Aaron the holy one of the Lord." And R. Samuel bar Itz'hak said: "From this it is inferred that every one suspected his own wife of having relations with Moses?" (Hence we see that one may be suspected although there is no particle of foundation for it?) In that case it was different, for it was done out of hatred. Another objection was made: Come and hear: R. Jose said: "May my share in the world to come be with those who were groundlessly suspected." And R. Papa said: "I was once suspected without any ground whatever?" This presents no difficulty. The one is the case when the suspicion has ceased; the other is, when it has not. What is meant by not having ceased? Said Abayi: My mother told me: 'A town rumor is for a day and a half.' The case is only if it has not ceased at intervals, but if it has it does not matter; and if, however, it has ceased out of fear, it is not taken into consideration; and even if it was not out of fear, the case is when it was not circulated again more vigorously. All this, however, is the case when the person suspected has no enemies; but if he has, the latter circulated it.

MISHNA: Bonds of debts must not be written on the middle days; but if the lender does not otherwise want to trust the borrower, or the latter has nothing to eat, they may be written. Holy Scrolls, Phylacteries, or Mezuzoth must not be written on the middle days, and not a single letter may be corrected--even in the Book of Ezra. 1 R. Jehudah, however, says: "One may write Phylacteries and Mezuzoth for his own use, and he may also spin sky-blue wool for show-threads in his garment."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: One may write Phylacteries and Mezuzoth for his own use and may spin sky-blue wool for show-threads in his garment; but for others he may do it as a favor only (without compensation). Such is the dictum of

R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, said: "One may connive and sell his own, and then write another one for his own use." But R. Jose said: "He may write and sell in the usual way as much as necessary for his living expenses." Rabh, and according to others Rabba bar bar Hana, rendered his decision to R. Hananel: "The Halakha prevails, that one may write and sell in the usual way as much as necessary for his living expenses."

MISHNA: One who buried his dead three days before the commencement of the festival is freed from the observance of the seven (days of deep mourning); if eight days before the festival, he is freed from the observance of the thirty days; for the sages hold: "The Sabbath enters into the computation, but does not supersede the mourning, whereas the festivals supersede the mourning, but do not enter into the computation." R. Elazar said: "Since the destruction of the Temple, Pentecost is to be considered (in respect to mourning) like the Sabbath." R. Gamaliel said: "The New Year and the Day of Atonement are to be considered like festivals; the sages, however, say that it is neither as the one nor as the other, but hold that there is no distinction between the Pentecost and any other festival, but the New Year and the Day of Atonement are like the Sabbath."

GEMARA: Rabh said: "Only the observance of the thirty days is dispensed with, but not the days themselves." So also said R. Huna. R. Shesheth, however, said: "Even the days are dispensed with." In what case may it happen that the days shall still not be dispensed with? If (the observance of the thirty days being dispensed with) one had not shaved himself on the eve of the festival, he may not do so after the festival (during all the thirty days). We have so also learned in a Boraitha: One who buries his dead three days before the festival is freed from the observance of the seven days; if eight days, he is freed from the observance of the thirty days, and he may shave himself on the eve of the festival; if he, however, failed to do so on the eve of the festival, he must not do so after the festival. Abba Saul, however, said: "He may do so, for as the observance of the three days frees from the observance of the seven days, so also does the observance of the seven days free from the observance of the thirty days. "Seven days? Have we not learned eight? Abba Saul is of the opinion that a portion of a day counts for a whole day, and the seventh day enters into the computation of both. Said R. Hisda in the

name of Rabina bar Shila: "The Halakha prevails according to Abba Saul, and even the sages concede to Abba Saul that in case the eighth day falls on a Sabbath which is incidentally the eve of a festival, he may shave on the eve of Sabbath." According to whom is the statement of R. Amram in the name of Rabh: "A mourner, as soon as his condolers have left him, is permitted to wash himself"? It is according to Abba Saul. Said Abayi: The Halakha prevails according to Abba Saul in regard to the seventh day; and the sages concede, in regard to the thirtieth day, that a portion of a day counts for a whole day. Rabha said: The Halakha prevails according to Abba Saul regarding the thirtieth day, but not regarding the seventh day. But the sages of Nehardea maintained that the Halakha prevails according to Abba Saul in both cases, as Samuel said: "The Halakha prevails according to the one who is lenient in regard to mourning." Abayi inquired of Rabba: "If one buried his dead on the festival, does, or does not, the festival enter into the computation of the thirty days? Certain it is to me that it does not enter in regard to the seven days, for the observance of the seven is not customary on the festival; but my question is in regard to the thirty days, because the observance of the thirty days is customary on the festival?" And he answered him: "It does not enter." Abayi raised an objection based on the following Boraitha: The festival enters into the computation of the thirty days. How so? If the burial took place in the beginning of the festival, the observance of the seven days begins after the festival, and his work may be done by others, and his male and female servants may do their work privately, and the public need not condole with him during the seven days, for they have already done so on the festival; and the festival enters into the computation of the thirty days? This objection remains unanswered. When Rabbin came from Palestine he said in the name of R. Johanan: "Even if he was buried on the festival" (the festival enters into computation). So also has R. Elazar decided to his son R. Padath.

The rabbis taught: If one has observed the lowering of the couch for three days prior to the festival, he need not observe it any more after the festival. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, hold: "Even one day, and even one hour." Said R. Elazar b. R. Simeon: These are, respectively, the decrees of the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. For the school of Shammai decrees: "Three days"; and the school

of Hillel decrees: "Even one day." Said R. Huna in the name of R. Hyya bar Abba, quoting R. Johanan, and according to others R. Johanan said to R. Hyya bar Abba and R. Huna: "Even one day, and even one hour." Rabha said: "The Halakha prevails according to our Tana (of the Boraitha), who holds three days."

Rabina happened to be in Sura of Euphrates. Said R. Habibha to him: "What is the Halakha?" And he answered him: "Even one day, and even one hour." R. Jose bar Abin said: "One who receives information which is recent on the festival, but becomes remote after the festival, the latter counts, and mourning is observed only one day." Rabbi Ada of Kisri taught before R. Johanan: "One who receives information which is recent on the Sabbath but becomes remote thereafter, must mourn one day only." Must he rend (his garments) or not? R. Mani said: "He may not." R. Hanina, however, said: "He may." Said R. Mani to R. Hanina: "As to my statement, it is correct, because rending is customary only together with the observance of the seven days; but as to your statement, is then there a case in which one must rend although there is no mourning of the seven days?" Is there not such a case? But has not R. Isi the father of R. Zera, and according to others the brother of R. Zera, taught before R. Zera: "One who has no garment to rend and he becomes a mourner, if within the seven days, he must rend; if after the seven days, he may not"? And R.1 Zera rejoined: "This is the case only in the five cases of relatives whom one is bound to bury, but over his father and mother he must rend notwithstanding (the lapse of the seven days?). In this case it is only out of respect to his father and mother."

"Because the sages held that Sabbath enters into computation," etc. The inhabitants of Judea and the inhabitants of Galilea: Those hold that the law of mourning applies on Sabbath (to things done privately), because the Mishna states: "It enters into computation"; and these hold that it does not apply, because the Mishna states: "But it does not supersede."

But does not the Mishna state that it enters into computation? It is only because it has to state in the latter part, that it does not enter, he uses also in the first past "enter." But did not the Mishna state plainly "it does not supersede"? This is for the same reason, as it has to state in the latter part "it does supersede" it uses the same term in the first part also.

Raphram bar Papa said: "We have learned in Tract 'Great Mourning': 'A mourner is prohibited to have sexual intercourse during his mourning. It happened once that one did have sexual intercourse with his wife during his mourning, and his corpse was dragged about by hogs.'" Samuel said: "To remove the wrapping from the head, the rent from the front to the back, and to put the couch in proper condition (on the Sabbath) is obligatory; but to wear shoes, to have sexual intercourse, and to bathe the hands and feet in warm water on Friday evening is optional." Rabh, however, said that even removing the wrapping is also only optional.

Abayi found R. Joseph during his mourning walking around in the house with his mantle wrapped around his head (on the Sabbath), and he said to him: "Does not the Master hold that mourning is not customary on the Sabbath?" And he answered him: "So said R. Johanan: 'Things of a private nature are permitted.'"

"R. Elazar said: Since the destruction of the Temple," etc. R. Giddel bar Menasiah said in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha prevails according to Rabban Gamaliel (Berachoth), who said that a mourner on the Sabbath is bound to observe all the commandments."

R. Anni bar Shashan lectured in front of the house of the Nasi: "If (the mourning is) observed one day before Pentecost and on Pentecost, it is considered to have been observed fourteen days." (For Pentecost counts for seven days, and so also does the day preceding it, as stated above.) When R. Ami heard of this he was angry, and said: "Is this then his own? This was stated long ago by R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshiya." The same thing was stated in a lecture by R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha in Babylon at the cottage of the Exilarch, and R. Shesheth became angry because R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshiya, the author of this statement (Hagiga, 40), was not. mentioned. R. Papa, accompanying R. Avia the elder, lectured: "One day (of observance of mourning) before the New Year and the day of New Year count for fourteen days." Said Rabina: "Therefore, one day before the Tabernacles, the Tabernacles, and the eighth day (which counts for a separate festival) count (regarding mourning) twenty-one days." Rabina happened to be in Sura of Euphrates. Said R. Habibha of same place to him: "Do you, Master, hold: 'If observed one day before the New Year and on the New Year it counts fourteen

days'?" And he answered him: "I have only stated that it seems to me that the Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel."

MISHNA: The garments are not rent, nor the shoulders laid bare, nor the funeral meal eaten (on the middle days), unless by the near relatives of the deceased. The funeral meal is not to be taken except on a couch standing up properly.

GEMARA: Does this apply to a scholar also? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: "When a scholar dies, all must rend their garments, bare their shoulders, and partake of the funeral meal served in the public thoroughfare, for all are considered as his relatives"? Nay, this Mishna refers to one who is not a scholar, but an upright man over whom also rending is obligatory, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "Why do little children die? Because their parents failed to weep (mourn) over the death of an upright man; to one who does so, all his sins are forgiven, for the honor he has done to the deceased." In the case of the death of an ordinary person, however, rending is obligatory only on the one who is present at the time of the death, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "R. Simeon b. Elazar said: 'One who is present at the time when the death occurs is bound to rend his garments, for it is similar to the case of one who is present at the time the Holy Scrolls are burned, in which case he is bound to rend his garments.'" When R. Saphra's soul passed unto rest, the rabbis intended not to rend their garments, for they said: "We received no teachings from him." Said Abayi to them: "Does, then, the Boraitha treat of a rabbi? It treats of a scholar, and still more so in the present case, when his Halakhas are always on our lips in the college?" Still they were inclined not to rend, for they said: "The time for doing so has already passed." Said Abayi to them: "We have learned: In the case of a scholar, so long as the funeral orations are still going on, one is bound to rend." They then wanted to rend at once (without holding funeral orations). Said Abayi to them: "There is a Boraitha that states that the honor paid to the remains of a scholar lies in the funeral oration." When R. Huna departed, it was intended to place the Holy Scrolls on his bier. Said R. Hisda to them: "Shall we now act against his will? Has not R. Ta'hlipha said: 'I was once present when R. Huna wanted to sit down on a cot on which the Holy Scrolls were lying, and he first removed the latter and then sat down'? Hence we see that he was of the

opinion that one must not sit on a cot on which the Holy Scrolls are placed?" When the cot was to be removed from the house, it was found out that it could not pass through the door; and it was about to be removed through the roof opening, when R. Hisda remarked: "We have a tradition from him that the honor to a deceased scholar demands that he be removed through the door opening." They then wanted to place him on a cot of smaller dimensions, but R. Hisda again remarked: "We have a tradition from him that the respect to a deceased scholar demands that he be removed in the cot he died on." Then they broke away the door-posts, and passed him out. Then R. Abba began the following eulogy: "Our rabbi was worthy that the Shekhina should rest upon him, but Babylon prevented it." When his corpse arrived in Palestine, R. Ami and R. Assi were informed that "R. Huna had arrived." And they said (under the impression that he was alive): "When we were in Babylon we could not raise our heads on account of him (for his great learning), and now he has followed us here." And they were then told: "His coffin has arrived." R. Ami and R. Assi went out (to pay their respects). R. Aila and R. Hanina remained in the house. Others, however, said that only R. Hanina remained. What was the reason of those who went out? The following Boraitha: "When a coffin is being removed from one place to another, those present must stand in a row and must pronounce the mourning benediction and the words of consolation." The reason, however, of those who did not go out is the follow me, Boraitha: "When a coffin is being removed from one place to another, those present need not stand in a row," etc. But do not these Boraithas contradict each other? Nay, the one relates to a case where the skeleton is still in good condition; the other where it is not. But R. Huna's skeleton was still in good condition? They were not aware of that. They then began to deliberate where to place his remains, and concluded to place them alongside of those of R. Hyya. For they said: "R. Huna diffused the Torah among Israel as much as did R. Hyya." The question then came up as to who should do the placing. Said R. Haga to them: "I will do it, for I was his disciple since the age of eighteen. I never had a wet-dream, and I have served him since then and knew his ways: once it happened that one of his phylactery fillets turned over, and he fasted forty days." When R. Haga brought in the coffin into the arch, he noticed that Jehudah was sleeping at the right of his father and

Hezekiah at his left. He heard Jehudah say to his brother: "Rise, for it would not be correct not to pay respect to R. Huna." When he arose, a pillar of fire arose with him. R. Haga became frightened and, lifting up the coffin of R. Huna, left the arch.

When R. Hisda died they wanted to place the Holy Scrolls on his bier. Said R. Itz'hak: "A thing which was not approved by his Master (R. Huna), we must not do to him." They also intended to leave their rent garments unmended, when R. Itz'hak bar Ami said to them: "In case of a scholar, the rent may be sewed together as soon as those who follow the coffin turn away their faces from the latter." When Rabba bar Huna and R. Hamnuna had died in Babylon, their bodies were brought on camels to Palestine. Arrived at a narrow bridge, where the two camels could not pass at once, both remained standing. An Ishmaelitish merchant present, surprised. at the interruption of the journey, asked for the reason, and was told that each of the deceased wished to give the other the preference of the way. "If I were to give my view of the matter," the Arab said, "I should decide in favor of Rabba bar Huna (as he was known to me as a venerable man)." The Arab had hardly concluded his remarks, when the camel bearing Rabba passed the bridge. (As a punishment for not paying proper respect to R. Hamnuna), the molars and front teeth of the Arab fell out. A disciple declaimed the following elegy:

A learned scion of an ancient race Upward to Sacred Palestina draws, And bears into illimitable space The code of battles, the great book of laws. The cormorant and the hedgehog nightly gloat Upon destruction spreading far and wide; For God His wrath upon the earth has hurled, Our pious sage His voice has called away; And God is glad that from this sinful world His dearest servant has come home to stay. 1

When Rabina died, the funeral orator held the following oration:

Bend, ye majestic palms, in grief sincere O'er one who like a palm had flourished here Nor cease your mourning when the moon's soft ray Changes to shadowy night the brilliant day. p. 43 For moon's broad glare had oft to midnight waned Ere slumber o'er his studious eyelids reigned.

R. Ashi said to Bar Kipuk (the funeral orator): "What oration will you make on that day (of my death)?" And he answered him: "The following.

How can the lowly hyssop still survive, When with devouring flames the cedars strive? With huge Leviathan the angler's prey, What have the fishes of the pond to say? If the dry torrents shame the fisher's hook, How fares it with the waters of the brook?

Said Bar Abhin to him: "Heaven forbid that 'net' and 'flame' be used in orations over the righteous." "What, then, would you say?" "I would say: 'Weep for the losers but not for the lost (deceased), for he passed into rest but we into grief.'" R. Ashi felt discouraged (for one orator used the words "net" and "flame," and the other the word "lost"), and their (of the orators) feet upturned. When he died, neither of the orators came to hold orations. And this was meant by R. Ashi when he said: "Neither Bar Kipuk nor Bar Abhin would be bound to perform the ceremony of Halitza." (Vide Yebamoth, 103a, where it is stated that those who have deformed feet are not bound to perform Halitza.)

When Rabha came to Hiddekel, he said to Bar Abhin: "Pronounce an (appropriate) prayer," and the latter began: The major part of Israel went through water; remember, and have mercy. We went astray from Thee as a woman goeth astray from her husband; do not cast us off, for it may have the same indication as that of the bitter-water." [Vide Num. v. 11-28.]

R. Hanin, the son-in-law of the Nasi, had been for a long time childless; he prayed and was answered. On the day of the birth of the child he died. The funeral orator on this occasion declaimed the following elegy:

Parental joy was changed to hopeless pain Where bliss had entered, grief was doomed to reign For in the moment of his hope fulfilled, The joyful beating of that heart was stilled.

The child was named Hanin after his father. When R. Johanan died, R. Itz'hak b. Elazar began the eulogy as follows: "This day is as momentous to Israel as the day of which the prophet

spoke [Amos, viii. 9] 'And it shall come to pass in that day that I will cause the sun to go down at noon,'" which R. Johanan explained to have reference to the day of the death of the King Josiah. When R. Johanan departed, R. Ami observed both the seven and the thirty days (of mourning). Said R. Abba the son of R. Hyya bar Abba: "R. Ami stands alone in his action, for so said my father in the name of R. Johanan: 'Even over an instructor in science one need not mourn more than one day.'" When R. Zera departed, the funeral orator delivered the following oration:

In Babylon this noble sage was born, In Palestine he was admired and cherished; "Woe unto me!" doth Reketh 1 sadly mourn, "For my most precious jewel now has perished."

When R. Abuhu died, the pillars of Kisri shed tears; when R. Jose died, the gutters of Sepphoris were overrun with blood; when R. Jacob died, the stars were seen in the day-time; when R. Assi, all the trees were rooted out; when R. Hyya, fire-balls fell from heaven; when R. Mena'ham (ben R. Simai), all the images became obliterated and as smooth as if passed upon with a roller; when R. Tan'hum bar Hyya died, all the impressions upon the images were effaced; when R. Eliashib, seventy burglaries were committed in Nehardea; when R. Hamnuna, hailstones fell from heaven; when Rabba and R. Joseph died, the bridge-arches of Euphrates collapsed; when Abayi and Rabha, the bridge-arches of Hiddekel collapsed; when R. Mesharshia died, the trees were laden with thorns (instead of fruit). 2

MISHNA: The food for the funeral meal is not placed before the mourners on a table, nor in a silver tureen, nor in a dish, but in wicker baskets. The mourning prayers must not be pronounced on the middle days, but the rows are formed and the consolation is pronounced and the people assembled are at once dismissed. The bier must not be set down in any public place, that the mourning may not spread (in the middle days). The bier of women must at no time be there set down, on account of respect (to the sex of the deceased). 3

"The bier must not be set down in any public street." Said R.

[paragraph continues] Papa "No middle days are considered in regard to a scholar (Talmid-Hakham), and so much the more so the half-feast of Hanuka or Purim. This, however, is the case only in the presence of the corpse." This is not so? Has not R. Kahana lamented over the death of R. Zbhid of Nehardea on the banks of the river (and surely the corpse was not there)? Said R. Papa: "That was on the very day he received the information, which is equivalent to the presence of the corpse."

MISHNA: The mourning women may wail during the middle days, but not clap (their palms together). R. Ishmael said: The nearest to the bier may clap. On the days of the New Moon, on the half-festivals of Hanuka and Purim, they may wail and clap, but must not sing lamentations; but when the corpse is interred, they must neither wail aloud nor clap.

What is meant by wailing? When all of them join in one chorus. What is meant by lamentation? When one recites and the others respond, as it is written [Jer. ix. 20]: "Teach your daughters wailing and every one her neighbor lamentation." But of the age that is to come it is written [Isa. xxv. 8]: "He will destroy death to eternity; and the Lord Eternal will wipe away the tear from off all faces."

GEMARA: R. Levi bar Hitha said: One who takes leave of the dead shall not say, "Go in peace," but "Go with peace," as it is written [Gen. xv. 15]: "But thou shalt come to thy fathers with peace" (Besholom); but the contrary must be said when taking leave of the living. When David said to Absalom: "Go with peace "[II Sam. xv. 9], the latter hanged himself; while, when Jethro said to Moses [Exod. iv. 18]: "Go in peace" (Lesholom), Moses went and was successful. R. Levi further said: One who goes from the college to the prayer-house, and vice versa, is rewarded by receiving the appearance of the Shekhina, as it is written [Psalms, lxxxiv. 8]: "They go from strength (college) to strength (the prayer-house); each of them appeared before God in Zion." R. Hyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rabh: "Scholars (Talmide-Hakhamim) have no rest even in the world to come, as it is written [ibid.]: 'They go from strength to strength; each of them appeareth before God in Zion.'"

END OF TRACT MOED KATAN (MINOR FESTIVALS).

Footnotes

27:1 All the laws of mourning not belonging to festivals we transfer to Tract Ebel Rabbathi (Great Mourning) as the proper place, and they will be published in the next volume, which will complete this section.

27:2 Leeser translates "devoted."

29:1 Rashi explains this to mean: "There is no scholar who could answer this." But our explanation seems to us more proper.

29:2 For Mar Uqba was an Exilarch.

30:1 The root of Shiggayon is ‏שגה‎ meaning "error."

31:1 The Talmud translates the meaning of the words literally. Hence our translation.

31:2 The text reads "Malach," which means a messenger, and also an angel.

34:1 This subject will be explained in Tract Niddah.

34:2 See our "Maamar Ha'ishuth," Wien, 1887, p. 6.

35:1 It means the first Pentateuch which Ezra wrote. Rashi, however, says that he heard that it should not be read "Ezra," but, ‏עזרה‎, which means the Temple; as to his knowledge, there was a correct copy of the Holy Scrolls, from which all the others are corrected.

42:1 From "The Poetry of the Talmud," by Sekels, with metrical corrections, as also the verses following.

44:1 Reketh is Tiberias. (Rashi.)

44:2 All this must not be understood literally but allegorically.

44:3 The Gemara belonging to this Mishna, which properly does not come in here, will be found in its proper place.

Chapter III

REGULATIONS CONCERNING OCCURRENCES ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH FAST-DAYS ARE ORDERED, OR ALARMS ARE SOUNDED. WHEN FASTING ON ACCOUNT OF RAIN IS STOPPED.

MISHNA: The order of procedure on fast-days, as mentioned (in the preceding Mishna) above, applies only when the first fructifying rains do not descend; but when the sprouts commence to degenerate, they shall immediately commence to sound an alarm. It should also be immediately sounded if there be an interval of forty days between each rain; for that is a general plague on the land, causing dearth.

If sufficient rain for the growth of sprouts and herbs had fallen, but not for the growth of trees; or sufficient for the growth of trees, but not enough for the growth of herbs; or sufficient for both, but not enough to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves (creeks), an alarm is immediately to be sounded.

Thus, also, if no rain should have fallen over some particular city, similar to that which is written [Amos, iv. 7]: "I caused it to rain upon one city, and upon another city I caused it not to rain; one piece of land was rained upon," etc.--the inhabitants of such a city must fast and sound an alarm, and those of the circumjacent places shall fast, but not sound. R. Aqiba, however, says, "They are to sound, but not to fast."

Thus, also, when pestilence is raging in a city, or when the walls fall down, the inhabitants of such a city must fast, and those of the adjacent places should fast, but not sound. R. Aqiba, however, says: "They should sound the alarm, but not fast." What is considered a pestilence? If in a city capable of furnishing five hundred able-bodied men three persons die in three consecutive days, it is a pestilence; less than this is not a pestilence.

An alarm should be sounded in all places for the following plagues: For a corn-blast, mildew, locusts, crickets, attacks of wild beasts, and hosts of armed men; for all these an alarm should be sounded, because they are spreading evils.

It once happened that some elders going from Jerusalem, each to his own place, decreed a fast, because a corn-blast, the grainless stalks of which were sufficient to heat an oven, had been seen near Ascalon.

They also decreed a fast on account of two children having been devoured by wolves on the other side of Jordan. R. Jose says: "It was not ordered because of the wolves having devoured the children, but because of their presence (in the towns prowling for food)."

On account of the following calamities an alarm should be sounded even on the Sabbath: For a city surrounded by enemies, for a flood threatening to inundate the country, and for a ship in imminent danger of being wrecked at sea. R. Jose says: "This sounding is intended to obtain assistance from men, and not as an imploring cry to God." Simeon the Temanite says: "They shall also sound on the Sabbath in case of pestilence"; but the sages did not coincide with him.

On account of every plague--with which may the community never be visited!--an alarm should be sounded except on account of an excess of rain.

It once happened that Honi Hama'gel (the circle-drawer) was asked by the people to pray for them, that rain might descend. Said he to them: "Go and bring in the Passover ovens, 1 that they may not be spoiled by the rain." He prayed, but the rain did not descend. What did he then? He drew (marked out) a circle around him, and placing himself within it, prayed as follows: "Creator of the Universe! Thy children have always looked up to me as being like a son of Thy house before Thee. I swear, therefore, by Thy Great Name, that I will not move from this place until Thou wilt have compassion on Thy children." Whereupon the rain commenced to drop down gently. Said he: "It was not for this I prayed, but for rain sufficient to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves." The rain then fell in torrents, and he said: "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for mild, felicitous, and liberal showers." The rain then descended in the usual manner, until the Israelites of Jerusalem were obliged to seek refuge from the city to the Temple Mount, on account of the rain. They came and said to Honi: "Even as thou didst pray that the rain might descend, so pray now that it may cease."

[paragraph continues] And he replied: "Go and see whether the stone To'yim 1 is covered by the waters." Simeon b. Sheta'h sent him word, saying: "If thou wert not Honi, I would order that thou be anathematized. But what shall I do with thee, since thou art petulant towards God, and yet He forgiveth and indulgeth thee like a petted child who is petulant towards his father and is nevertheless forgiven and indulged? To thee may be applied the passage [Prov. xxiii. 25]: 'Let thy father and thy mother rejoice, and let her that hath born thee be glad.'"

If, while the people are fasting, rain should fall before sunrise, they shall not continue to fast the whole day; but they must do so if the rain fall after sunrise. R. Eliezer says: "If it rains before noon, they need not continue to fast the whole day; but they must do so if the rain commenced after noon is passed." It once happened that a fast was ordered in Lydda and it rained before noon, whereupon R. Tarphon said unto the people: "Go, eat and drink, and make a feast." They went, ate and drank, and made a feast; but in the evening they returned and sang the great Hallel.

GEMARA: "When the first fructifying rains do not descend." A contradiction was made: "We have learned in a Boraitha: 'If the first and second fructifying rains did not descend, prayers for rain must be commenced, and only if the third fructifying rain was withheld fasting is resorted to'?" Said R. Juhudah: "The Mishna means to say this: If the time for the first, second, and third fructification had passed without rain having descended, then the order of fasting goes into effect; but if the first fructification has taken place, yet the seed had not sprouted, or the sprouts had degenerated, then the alarm must be sounded." Said R. Na'hman: "Only if the sprouts had degenerated the alarm is sounded, but not if they had withered (for in the latter event there is still hope that they might revive). Is this not self-evident? It says, distinctly, 'if the sprouts had degenerated'?" R. Na'hman means to say that, even if the sprouts had already reached the stage of stalks and had then withered, it might be assumed that there was no hope of their ever again reviving-hence we are told that all hope is not yet lost.

"For that is a general plague on the land, causing dearth." What is considered a "plague causing dearth"? Said R. Jehudah: "That is a plague which eventually results in a famine." Said R. Na'hman: "If a town had no grain, but could procure a supply from another town by means of ships, it cannot be said to be suffering from an actual famine, but merely from temporary want; but if the entire land has no grain and it can procure a supply only from another country, and not by means of ships but by means of asses, then a state of famine can be said to exist."

R. Hanina said: "Even if the price of grain has reached the sum of one Sela for one Saah, but at that price it is obtainable, this would merely constitute a case of want; if, however, the price of grain remained one Sela for four Saah, but it was not obtainable at all, then a state of famine actually exists." Said R. Johanan: "All this applies when grain is dear but money is plentiful; if, however, grain is not dear but money is scarce, an alarm must immediately be sounded; for I recollect it happened at one time in Tiberias that although four Saah of grain were to be had for one Sela, still many people were starving to death, because they did not have the necessary coin with which to purchase their grain."

"If sufficient rain for the growth of sprouts . . . had fallen," etc. It may well be that sufficient rain can descend for the growth of sprouts that would not be beneficial to the growth of trees--for instance, a heavy rain; or that the rain be sufficient for trees but inadequate for the growth of sprouts--for instance, a light rain (see page 5). It might also be that sufficient rain should descend for both the trees and the sprouts, which would, however, be inadequate to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves; but how can that take place, after what we have learned in a Boraitha, namely: "that sufficient rain descended to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves, which was, however, inadequate for the trees and sprouts"? That (Boraitha) refers to a rain which fell in torrents and filled up the wells, etc., but did no good to the trees and sprouts.

The rabbis taught: In the midst of Passover, if sufficient rain had not yet fallen for the trees, the alarm is already to be sounded; and if there was not sufficient rain by the time the middle (day) of the Feast of Tabernacles was reached, the alarm must immediately be sounded; and at all times where there is not sufficient drinking-water on hand, the alarm should at once be sounded, What is meant by "at once"? The Monday,

Thursday, and Monday following; and the sounding must be effected in the capital of the province concerned.

On account of croup (quinsy or whooping-cough), if fatalities arise therefrom, the alarm must be sounded; but if all affected become cured an alarm is not necessary. On account of locusts (Gobai), 1 as soon as they make their appearance the alarm is to be sounded. R. Simeon ben Elazar said: "Also on account of grasshoppers" (Chagabim). 2

The rabbis taught: An alarm may be sounded on account of the trees (when they have not succeeded) in ordinary years; but when there is a want of rain for the wells, cisterns, and caves, this may be done even in the Sabbatical years. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, said: "It may so be done in Sabbatical years even on account of the trees, as they constitute the means of livelihood of the poor." The same we have learned in another Boraitha, with the addition that even on account of the . . . it may be done, as they are the means of livelihood of the poor.

The rabbis taught: It once happened that the Israelites came to Jerusalem for the festivals, and there was not sufficient water for drinking purposes. So Nakdimon ben Gurion went to a certain master (a heathen), and requested him to lend him twelve wells of water for the pilgrims, promising to return either the twelve wells of water or in lieu thereof twelve talents of silver, at a certain time. When the time arrived, the master sent to Nakdimon in the morning demanding either the wells of water or the silver, and Nakdimon replied: "I have still the whole day's time." At noon the same demand was made, and the same answer given. Late in the afternoon the master sent the same demand, and received a reply that the day had not yet passed. So the master laughed at the idea, saying that if a whole year had elapsed without it having rained, was it possible that it should still rain on that day? and went to his bath rejoicing over the prospect of soon possessing the money due him. At the same time that he entered his bathroom, Nakdimon went into the Temple, wrapped himself in his cloak, and commenced to pray, saying: "Creator of the Universe! It is known to Thee, that not for the sake of glory for me nor for my father's house, but

for the glory of Thy name, that the pilgrims in Jerusalem might have water, did I borrow those wells." Immediately upon this the sky became clouded, rain began to fall, and the twelve wells became filled up to overflowing.

When the master stepped out of his bath-house, Nakdimon went out of the Temple, and they met. Said Nakdimon to him: "Refund to me the amount for the water in excess of that which I borrowed from thee." And he replied: "I know well that the Holy One, blessed be He, caused the world to storm only on thy account, yet I can still claim the amount due me, for the sun has already set and the rain descended after the stated time had expired." Nakdimon then reëntered the Temple, again wrapped himself in his cloak and commenced to pray, saying: "Creator of the Universe! Announce to the world that Thou hast favorites here on earth!" Whereupon the clouds immediately scattered, and the sun again commenced to shine. The master seeing Nakdimon, said to him: "Had the sun not reappeared, I should have had a valid claim for the amount of money due me." We have learned in a Boraitha: His name was not Nakdimon, but Boni, and he was called Nakdimon because on his account the sun hastened. 1

The rabbis taught: "For the sake of each of three men alone the sun shone, and they are Moses, Joshua, and Nakdimon ben Gurion." This is correct in the case of Nakdimon ben Gurion, from the above-mentioned tradition. In the case of Joshua it is also correct, because so is it written [Joshua, x. 13]: "And the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens." But whence do they adduce that the sun shone for Moses alone? Said R. Elazar: This may be inferred from the analogous term: "I will commence." It is written [Deut. ii. 25]: "This day will I commence to put the dread of thee," and [Joshua, iii. 7]: "This day will I commence to make thee great," etc. R. Johanan said: "(No analogous comparison is necessary, for) it may be adduced from the passage itself [Deut. ii. 25]: 'Whoever will hear of thee shall tremble and shall quake because of thee.' Why will they do this? Because on Moses' account alone the sun shone."

The rabbis taught: A man should always be soft (i.e., pliable, yielding) as a reed, and not hard as a cedar-tree. It once

happened that R. Elazar ben R. Simeon (should rather be R. Simeon ben Elazar) went from the tower of Gador, where resided his Master, riding on an ass. He rode leisurely on the banks of the river, being greatly rejoiced and feeling very proud on account of the wealth of knowledge he had accumulated from his Master. On the way he met a man who was terribly ugly (of face). 1 That man greeted R. Elazar respectfully, and said to him: "Peace be with thee, Rabbi!" The rabbi did not, however, return the greeting, and, moreover, said: "Vain man, how terribly ugly art thou! Are all thy townsmen as ugly as thou art?" And the man replied: "That I know not; but it would be seemly if thou wert to go to the Creator who formed me and say to Him: 'How ungainly is the creature Thou hast made!'" Realizing that he had offended against the man, R. Elazar dismounted and, making an obeisance, said: "I have sinned against thee--forgive me, I pray!" But the man refused, saying: "Nay, I shall not forgive thee until thou shalt go to the Creator and say to Him: 'How ungainly is the creature Thou hast made!'" R. Elazar, however, would not leave the man, and followed him on foot until they reached the city where R. Elazar dwelt. As soon as the townsmen perceived him they thronged towards him with greetings. "Peace be with thee, Rabbi, Rabbi! Master, Master!" The ugly man who preceded R. Elazar asked them whom they were addressing with "Rabbi" and "Master," and they answered: "The man who is following thee." Said he: "If he be a rabbi, may there not be many like him in Israel." And they asked: "Why not?" So he replied that thus and so had he been served by him. They then pleaded with him: "Still forgive him, for he is a great man in the study of the Law." And he said: "For your sakes I will forgive him, but upon the condition that he shall not do likewise again." Immediately following this, R. Elazar went forth and preached: "A man should be soft as a reed and not hard as a cedar."

On account of having been compared with man, it was destined for a reed that the Scrolls, Phylacteries, and Mezuzoth should be written with it.

"When walls fall down." The rabbis taught: "By 'walls' are meant sound walls; i.e., such as were not expected to fall,

but not such as were tottering." What is meant by "such as are tottering"? Walls that stand on the banks of a stream. As it once happened in Neherdai there was a wall resting on a weak foundation; and although it had been standing for thirteen years, Rabh and Samuel would never pass by beneath it. One day R. Ada bar Ahabha came to Neherdai, and together with Rabh and Samuel set out to go somewhere. Said Samuel to Rabh:, Let the Master go with me in a roundabout way, so as to avoid the wall." But Rabh replied: "To-day this is not necessary. For R. Ada is with us, and his merits are such that a wall would not fall where he is about to walk; hence I have no fear."

R. Huna had wine in a room which was in an unsafe condition, and the walls of which were momentarily expected to fall. He wished to remove the wine, but was afraid to enter the room. So he got R. Ada bar Ahabha to enter the room with him, engaged him in a discussion concerning a Halakha, and while they were arguing R. Huna's men removed the wine. After they left, the walls of the room fell in. When R. Ada realized how he had been used, he became angry.

(What R. Ada did to be so eminently favored will be related in Tract Megilla.)

Rabha asked Raphram bar Papa: "Canst thou not relate to me the good things which R. Huna did?" And he replied: "I do not remember anything of his youth; but when he was of mature age, I know that whenever there was a storm in the city where he lived, which caused any damage to the buildings, he would have himself carried about in a golden palanquin and examine the city, and wherever he noticed an unsafe wall, would order its demolition. Wherever the owner of that building could not afford to have it rebuilt, R. Huna would have it done at his own expense. On every eve of Sabbath he would send his servants to the markets with instructions to purchase all the vegetables, which the marketers had left on their hands, and throw them into the stream, in order that they might not be put on sale again the following week in an unwholesome condition." [Why did he not rather distribute them among the poor than throw them into the stream? Because the poor would depend upon receiving them free the second time, and would not buy any at all. Then why did he not use them as food for the animals? Because R. Huna held that articles which a man can use as food should not be purchased as fodder for cattle to commence

with.] "Whenever the sickness of Shaibatha 1 occurred in his city, he would examine it and give the sufferers relief; outside of his house he placed a jar of water for the use of all who desired him to relieve them. When sitting down to a meal, he would order a servant to throw open the doors and call out: Whoever desires to eat, let him come in and do so."

Said Rabha: "I could accomplish all that R. Huna did, with the exception of throwing open my doors and inviting everybody to eat; for there are a great many poor people in Mehuzza, and I could not feed them all." (According to another version, he said that he could not do this on account of the many soldiers and Persians stationed in Mehuzza, who would take advantage of such an invitation and eat him out of house and home.)

Ilpha and R. Johanan studied the Law together. They were in very poor circumstances and were in want of food. So they said: "We will lay aside our studies and engage in some remunerative occupation, thereby carrying out what is written [Deut. xv. 4]: 'Indeed, there should be no needy man among thee.'" In the meantime they sat down to eat beneath an unsafe wall. So two angels appeared, and R. Johanan heard one of them say to the other: "Let us throw this wall down upon them, for they are about to leave the pursuit of the future life in order to obtain a worldly livelihood." But the other angel replied: "Let them be; for there is one of them whom the time will succor and who will shortly become great." R. Johanan heard this, but Ilpha did not, and the former asked "Did Master hear anything?" And Ilpha replied: "Nay; I heard nothing." So R. Johanan thought: "Because I heard it and Ilpha did not, in all probability I am the one who is referred to as shortly to become great." And he said to Ilpha: "I have reconsidered it and will return to the study of the Law, thus fulfilling what is written in another passage [ibid. 11]: 'For the needy will not cease out of the land.'" Thus R. Johanan returned to his studies and Ilpha engaged in business. By the time Ilpha returned, R. Johanan became the chief of the college. The schoolmen afterwards

said to Ilpha: If thou hadst stayed here with us, we would have made thee the chief of the college. 1

It was said of Nahum the man of Gim-Zu--who was blind in both eyes, crippled in both hands, both of whose legs were crushed and whose whole body was covered with sores, and who was lying on a bed the feet of which stood in buckets of water so as to prevent worms from reaching his body, and his bed stood in a house which was in a tottering condition--that his disciples at one time wished to remove his bed from that house and then remove all the other vessels contained therein. So he said to them: "My children! First take out everything contained in this house and then remove my bed; for ye can rest assured that as long as I am in this house it will not fall." They did so, and after removing his bed the house fell in. Said the disciples to him: "As we can perceive, Master, thou art a truly upright man. Why, then, art thou so terribly afflicted?" And he replied: "My children! I myself am the cause of it. I was at one time on my way to the house of my father-in-law and had with me three asses, one laden with food, another with drink, and the third with delicacies. In the course of my journey a poor man came to me and said: 'Master, give me some food,' and I answered: 'Wait until I can unload my asses.' But before I had done so, the poor man expired. So I fell on his face and said: 'My eyes, which had no compassion on thy eyes, may they become blind! My hands, which had no mercy upon thy hands, may they become crippled! My feet, which had not pity with thy feet, may they be crushed!' And I could not assuage my grief until I had said May my whole body become covered with sores.'" Said the disciples to him: "Woe is unto us that we must see thee in this condition." And he replied: "Woe would be unto me if ye did not see me in this condition."

Why was he called Nahum the man of Gim-Zu? 2 Because whenever something happened to him he would say: "Gam Zu Le-Toboh" (This also is for good).

It once happened that the Israelites had to send a present to the imperial house, and Nahum was selected to carry out the mission, because it was quite usual for miracles to be performed

on his account. They intrusted to him a casket containing precious stones and pearls. When he arrived at his quarters for the night, thieves became aware of his treasure, and they removed the valuables contained in the casket, substituting therefor dry earth. When he arrived at the imperial palace, the casket was opened, and it being observed that it contained nothing but earth, the emperor became very wroth and determined to destroy all the Jews, thinking that they had merely mocked him. Nahum, however, said to himself: "Even this will lead to good." When a conference was held as to the manner in which the Jews were to be destroyed, Elijah appeared disguised as one of the councillors, and after the conference said: "Perhaps this earth is of the greatest value, as it may be the same earth which Abraham their father had within his domain, and which possessed the merit of turning into swords which would cut down the enemy when thrown at a hostile army. The coarser pieces would turn into arrows when thrown at the enemy, as it is written [Isaiah, xli. 2]: He rendered as earth his sword, as driven stubble his bow.'" 1

His advice was taken, and they said: "There is one land which we cannot conquer, let us try this earth and test its powers." This was done, and the land was conquered. The earth was thereupon deposited in the treasury, and the casket filled with precious stones and pearls. Nahum (who had been kept a prisoner in the meantime) was sent away with an escort and laden with great honors. On the return, it happened that Nahum and his escort had to pass the night in the same quarters where the precious stones had previously been stolen. When it was observed with what honors Nahum returned, he was asked what gifts he had brought the emperor, to be thus honored. He replied: "I brought the same casket there that I took away with me from this place." The men then, thinking that their earth was so valuable, tore down their houses, gathered up the earth, and sent it to the emperor, saying: "The earth which Nahum brought thee was our earth and not that of the Jews, for we took out the precious stones contained in his casket when he spent the night here and substituted this earth." The earth was examined and found to be unlike the other, so the senders were all put to death.

"What is considered a pestilence? If in a city capable of furnishing 

[paragraph continues] five hundred able-bodied men," etc. The rabbis taught: A town that can furnish fifteen hundred able-bodied men--as, e.g., the village of Ako--and nine deaths occurred in three days, i.e., three deaths each on three consecutive days, is said to be afflicted with pestilence. If, however, all the nine died in one day or in four days, it is not considered a pestilence. A town that has not more than five hundred able-bodied persons--e.g., the village of Amigo--and three deaths occurred in three days, i.e., one on each consecutive day, can be said to be afflicted with a pestilence. If, however, all three died in one day or in four days, no pestilence can be said to exist (for it is considered as only an accident).

In the town of Darograth, which had five hundred able-bodied persons, three deaths occurred in one day, and R. Na'hman the son of R. Hisda ordered a fast-day. Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak', to him: "Thou art presumably of the opinion of R. Meir, who regards a bull as vicious if he had gored three men in one day (as explained in Tract Baba Kamma)."

R. Na'hman bar Hisda requested R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak to remove to his (the former's) city (so that they could study together). Said the latter: We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said: Not the place where he lives makes the man distinguished, but the man makes the place distinguished. And so we find with respect to Mount Sinai, that so long as the Shekhina rested there, cattle were not allowed to graze even near the mountain, as it is written [Exod. xxxiv. 3]: "Neither let, flocks or herds feed near the mount," and after the Shekhina, had withdrawn from the mount, it is written [Exod. xix. 13]: "They may come up to the mount." A similar instance can be found with respect to the Tabernacle, near which the leprous could not come (as well be explained in Tract Menachoth).

Said R. Na'hman bar Hisda to him: "If this be so, then will I go to the place where thou, Master, dwellest." And he answered: "Nay, that would not be right; for thou art a rabbi and a son of a rabbi, while I am the son of one who was not among the scholars; therefore it would be more fitting that I should come to thee."

It happened that pestilence raged in Sura, but in the neighborhood where Rabh resided the pestilence was not prevalent. The townsmen concluded that this was due to the especial merits of Rabh; but in a dream they were told that this would be but a small object wherewith to demonstrate Rabh's merits, and that

this was so in consideration of the merits of a man who lends his hoe and other digging-tools used for burials, without compensation.

In Darograth there was a great conflagration, but in the neighborhood where R. Huna lived the fire did not reach, and it was thought that it was on account of the merits of R. Huna that it was spared; but they were also told in a dream that this would be but a small recognition of R. Huna's merits, and that it was merely in consideration of a certain woman who would heat her oven and then place it at the disposal of such as desired to bake their bread, without remuneration.

R. Jehudah was apprised of the fact that locusts had made their appearance, and he ordered a fast-day. Subsequently he was told that the locusts were not doing any damage, and he replied: "Did the locusts then bring their food with them?"

R. Jehudah was also advised that a pest had broken out among, the swine, and he ordered a fast-day. Does then R. Jehudah hold that if a pest break out among one kind of animals it affects all others? Nay; but with swine it is different, for the entrails of a swine are similar to those of a human being (and the pest may prove contagious).

Samuel was told that a pest had broken out in Huzai, so he ordered a fast-day. He was reminded, however, that the place was a great distance off, and he replied "Is there then a partition between here and there that would prevent the entrance of the pest in this place?

R. Na'hman was told that a pest had broken out in Palestine, so he ordered a fast-day, saying: "If the princess is stricken, surely the slaves are affected." Is it only when a princess is stricken that a slave is affected? What about slave and slave? Did not Samuel order a fast-day in Neherdai when Huzai was stricken? From Huzai to Neherdai there was a regular caravan traffic, and Samuel apprehended lest one of the caravans should carry the pest. from Huzai into Neherdai.

Abba the (expert) bleeder received greetings every day from the heavenly college; Abayi received such a greeting only once every eve of Sabbath; and Rabha would receive such a greeting only once every eve of the Day, of Atonement. Abayi was grieved because of the greater distinction conferred upon Abba, and he was told: "The thing.; that Abba does, thou canst not do." [What did Abba do that was so inimitable? First of all, he had a separate place for bleeding men and a separate place for

women. Then he had a certain garment for women with which he would clothe them, and which was split so that he could insert the lancet at any place without looking at the woman. Then he had a certain place where his fee for bleeding was deposited, and which was so arranged that as soon as it was touched a ring was heard; but he never looked at the amount deposited, and, those that had not the necessary amount would merely touch the place and depart. If a young scholar came to him to be bled, he would not alone refuse to accept money, but would give him money, saying: "Take this and become well, for after bleeding a good meal should be eaten."]

One day Abayi sent two of his disciples to Abba to examine into his actions. Abba entertained them with meat and drink, and even made for them couches of fine wool to use as beds. On the morrow the disciples folded up their woollen couches and carried them into the market in order to sell them. They there encountered Abba. Said they to him: "Let Master estimate the worth of these." And he said: "So much." And they rejoined: "Perhaps they are worth more." And he answered: "For so much money I can purchase them," Said they to him: "These couches are thine; we took them from thee." And they continued: "What didst thou suspect us of?" And he replied: "I thought that perhaps some prisoners had to be ransomed, and ye did not wish to tell me what amount that would require last night. So ye took the couches, and probably thought to tell me this day." They then said: "Then take them back; they are thine." But he answered: "Nay; I have already made up my mind to devote them to charitable purposes, and hence I cannot take them back."

Rabha was grieved over the greater distinction conferred upon Abayi, who was greeted on the eve of every Sabbath, while he only received the heavenly greeting on the eve of every Day of Atonement; so he was told that it was sufficient for him that the entire town where he lived profited by his merits,

To R. Beroka of Huzaah, Elijah would frequently appear, when he (R. Beroka) would be standing in the market of Be-Lepht. One day he asked Elijah whether there was any one in the market who would have a share in the world to come, and Elijah answered: "Nay." Suddenly Elijah perceived a man wearing black shoes, and the garments of that man had no show-threads. So he pointed him out to R. Beroka, and said: "That man will have a share in the world to come." R. Beroka ran up

to the man and asked him his occupation, and the man answered: "I have not time to-day. Come on the morrow." On the morrow R. Beroka again approached him and asked to know his occupation. The man replied: "I am a warden of a prison; I keep the men and women prisoners in separate compartments, and my own bed stands between the two compartments. There I sleep alone, and take care that no evil acts are perpetrated. If there is a daughter of Israel upon whom evil eyes have been cast (by the higher officials), I do my utmost, even at a personal sacrifice, to save her. One day it happened that a betrothed girl, upon whom the higher officials had cast an eye, was brought to my prison; so I took lees of wine, spread them over her couch, and said to the officials that she was suffering from her menstruation and could not be approached."

R. Beroka then asked the warden why he wore black shoes and garments without show-threads, and he replied: "In order that I should not be recognized as a Jew; for thus, if I hear of any plots that are formed against the welfare of my co-religionists, I can immediately advise the rabbis that they may pray to God to avert the impending calamity. And yesterday, when thou didst approach me, I told thee to come on the morrow, because I had heard a discussion pertaining to action to be taken against the Jews and I hastened to learn the true facts of the case."

Again it happened that two brothers were passing by, and Elijah said to R. Beroka: "These two brothers shall also have a share in the world to come." R. Beroka approached them and asked to know their occupations, and they replied: "Our occupation is to cheer and comfort all those who are downcast, and when we see two men quarrelling, to make peace between them."

"An alarm should be sounded in all places for the following plagues," etc. The rabbis taught: For a corn-blast, mildew, locusts, crickets, and attacks of wild beasts an alarm must be sounded wherever they make their appearance. And R. Aqiba said: "For the first two, as soon as they make their appearance ever so slightly in any place, an alarm must be sounded; but for locusts, as soon as the wing of one single locust is perceived in Palestine, an alarm must be immediately sounded."

"Attacks of wild beasts." The rabbis taught: "For attacks of wild beasts an alarm should be sounded only if it is obvious that the attacks are in the nature of a curse, but otherwise no alarm need be sounded. How can the distinction be made? If the wild beasts are seen in a city, then it is to be considered in

the nature of a curse; but if they are seen in the field, it is nothing unusual. If seen in the day it is a curse, at night it is not. If the wild beast saw and pursued two men together, then it is a curse; but if it slank away and sought to hide, it is not. If the wild beast killed two men and only devoured one, it is to be considered a curse; but if it devoured both (then it was simply hungry, and) it is not considered a curse. If the beast climbed up on a roof and snatched a child from the cradle, it is most assuredly a curse.

"Hosts of armed men." The rabbis taught: Even if hosts of armed men are seen, who have no intention of attacking the place, but merely desire to pass through to make war upon others, an alarm must nevertheless be sounded; for there can be no more friendly intentions in a host of armed men than in that which was sent by Necho, King of Egypt, to Josiah, King of Judah, and still Josiah lost his life on their account, as it is written [II Chron. xxxv. 21]: "But he (Necho, King of Egypt) sent ambassadors to him (Josiah), saying: What have I to do with thee, thou King of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war, and God hath commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God who is with me, that He may not destroy thee." What is meant by "God who is with me"? What God could Necho have had with him? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "It was an idol, and for the reason that Necho had confidence in the idol, Josiah thought that he could surely vanquish him in battle."

Further it says [ibid. 23]: "And the archers shot at King Josiah; and the king said to his servants: Carry me away; for I am sorely wounded." What is meant by "sorely wounded"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "From that it may be inferred that his whole body was perforated by the arrows like a sieve." Before Josiah died, Jeremiah the prophet noticed that his lips were moving, and thinking that, God forbid, he was saying something blasphemous on account of the terrible pain he was suffering, Jeremiah stooped down and heard Josiah justifying the judgment which had befallen him, saying the passage f, [Lament. i. 18]: "Righteous is the Lord; for against his orders have I rebelled." Whereupon Jeremiah lamented his death with the words [ibid. iv. 20]: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of our Lord, was caught in their pits."

"Should be sounded even on Sabbath." The rabbis taught

[paragraph continues] On account of a city surrounded by foes, a ship that was wrecked at sea, or even on account of an individual pursued by foes, robbers, or evil spirits, a man may keep a fast-day himself (without waiting for the order instituting it). R. Jose, however, said: "A man is not allowed to do this by himself, lest he become weak through fasting and unable to work, when he would become dependent upon others who might have no pity for him, because he himself was the one responsible for his condition." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "What reason has R. Jose for this assertion? Because it is written [Genesis, ii. 7]: 'And the man became a living being,' which implies, that man should let the living soul, given him by the Creator, live and not wilfully kill it."

"Simeon the Temanite says," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: For a pest an alarm should be sounded on a Sabbath, and so much the more on a week-day; but R. Hanan bar Pitom, the disciple of R. Aqiba, said in the name of his Master that for a pest no alarm need be sounded even on a week-day.

"On account of every plague," etc. The rabbis taught: On account of every plague--with which may the community never be visited--an alarm should be sounded, except on account of an excess of rain. What is the reason? Said R. Johanan: "Because it is not permitted to pray for the cessation of too much good." Said Rami bar R. Jod: "In the land of exile (Babylon) an alarm should be sounded for an excess of rain." We have also learned in a Boraitha that in a year when there is an excess of rain the priests of the weekly watch would send word to the standing men: "Take care of your brethren in exile, that their houses may not become their graves."

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxvi. 4]: "Then will I give you rains in their due season," which means, that the earth s all not become too full of water nor that it shall be thirsty, but have just sufficient; for if there is too much rain, the earth becomes too sodden and fruit cannot grow. Another explanation of the term "in their due season" is, that the rains will fall on the night of the fourth day of the week and on the night of Sabbath, when men do not go out; for so do we find, that in the days of Simeon ben Sheta'h rain fell only on those nights, and grain prospered so that wheat-grains became as testicles, barleycorns as the kernels of olives, and lentils as golden Dinars; and part of these fruits of the earth were preserved to show to future generations, in order to demonstrate to them that the only reason

why crops were not as prosperous as they formerly were was because of the transgression-; of the people, as it is written [Jeremiah, v. 25]: "Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden what is good from you."

So it was also at the time when Herod built the new Temple. It would rain only at night, and in the morning the wind would disperse the clouds, the sun would commence to shine, and the people would go to their work in peace, so that all men knew that they were engaged in a heavenly undertaking.

"It once happened that Honi Hama'gel," etc. The rabbis taught: It once happened the greater part of the month of Adar had passed, and no rain had yet fallen. Honi Hama'gel was thereupon requested to pray for rain. He prayed, but no rain descended. So he marked out a circle around him, the same as Habakkuk did, as it is written [Habakkuk, ii. 1]: "Upon my watch will I stand, and place myself upon the tower," placed himself in the midst of it, and said: "Creator of the universe! Thy children have always looked up towards me as being like a son of Thy house before Thee. I swear therefore, by Thy great Name, that I shall not move from this place until Thou shalt have compassion upon Thy children." Whereupon the rain commenced to drop down gently. Said the disciples to him: "May it be that we may see thee and not die; for we think that the rain is merely dropping in order to release thee from thy vow." And he replied: "It was not for this I prayed, but for rain sufficient to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves." The rain then fell in torrents, each drop being as large as the mouth of a barrel, and the sages opined that each drop contained no less than a lug of water. The disciples again said to him: "Rabbi, may we see thee and not die! We believe that the rain is falling in order to destroy the world." He again said: "Not for such rains have I prayed; but for mild, felicitous, and liberal showers." The rain then descended in the usual manner, until the Israelites of Jerusalem were obliged to seek refuge from the city to the Temple mount on account of the rain. They then came to him and said: "Rabbi, even as thou didst pray that the rain might descend, thus pray now that it may cease." And he replied: "I have a tradition that it is not permitted to pray for a cessation of too much good. Still, bring me a praise-offering." It was accordingly brought to him, and putting both hands upon it, he said: "Creator of the universe! Thy people which Thou hast brought out of Egypt cannot be sustained either with too much evil or too

much good. When Thou becamest angry with them, they could no longer bear it; and now that Thou hast showered too much good (rain) upon them, they cannot bear it either. Let it be Thy will that the rains may cease and the world become happy." Thereupon a wind came up, dispersed the clouds, the sun commenced to shine, and the people went out into the fields and brought back mushrooms.

Simeon ben Sheta'h then sent him word, saying: If thou wert not Honi, I would order that thou be anathematized; for were these years as those when Elijah said that no rain should fall and when he had the key to the rain, thou wouldst have merely desecrated the Holy Name; but what shall I do with thee, since thou art petulant towards God, and yet He forgiveth and indulgeth thee like a petted child who is petulant towards its father, and says: "Father, bathe me in hot water, bathe me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, apricots, and pomegranates," and is nevertheless forgiven and indulged? To thee maybe applied the passage [Prov. xxiii. 25]: "Let thy father and thy mother rejoice, and let her that hath born thee be glad."

The rabbis taught: What was the word which the Sanhedrin sitting in the chamber of marble sent to Honi Hama'gel after the occurrence? They cited the passage [Job, xxii. 28]: "And if thou decree a thing, it will be fulfilled unto thee; and upon thy ways the light will shine," and said: "Thou hast decreed below, and the Holy One, blessed be He, ratified it above, and the generation which was in darkness thou hast enlightened with thy prayer.

R. Johanan said: All the days of this righteous man (Honi), he troubled himself concerning the meaning of the passage [Psalms, cxxvi. 1]: "When the Lord bringeth back again the captivity of Zion, then shall we be like dreamers." Honi would constantly say: "How can a man sleep or be like a dreamer for seventy years?" Once he was travelling on the road, and he noticed a man planting a carob-tree. He asked him how many years it would take before the tree would bear fruit, and the man answered: "Seventy years." Honi then asked: "Art thou, then, sure that thou wilt live seventy years?" And the man replied: "I found carob-trees in existence when I came into the world, consequently my ancestors must have planted them. Why should I not also plant them for my children?" About that time Honi became hungry, and sat down to eat near the newly

planted tree. After the meal he fell asleep, and a bay 1 formed about him so that he could not be noticed, and thus he slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he observed a man gathering the fruit from the carob-tree; and he asked the man: "Didst thou plant this tree?" The man replied: "Nay; I am the grandson of the man that planted it." Honi then realized that he must have slept for seventy years, and when he looked around for his ass, he noticed that there were many smaller asses. He then went to his home, and inquired whether the son of Honi Hama'gel was still alive. He was told that the son was no longer living, but that a son of the son was alive. He then said: "I am Honi Hama'gel"; but they would not believe him. He went to the house of learning and heard them say: "To-day the Halakhoth are as clear as in the days of Honi Hama'gel, who would immediately render a clear decision when any questions whatever were put to him by the rabbis." He went in and said to them: "I am that Honi"; but they would not believe him, nor would they accord him due respect. This caused him to become downcast and despondent, and he prayed to God that he might die, and so he died. Said Rabha: "This illustrates the saying: 'Give me the glory due me, or give me death.'"

Abba Helkyah was a grandson of Honi Hama'gel. When the country was in need of rain the rabbis would send to him, and he would pray for rain, which thereupon commenced to fall. One day the country was in need of rain, and the rabbis sent a committee of two younger rabbis to him, with the request that he pray for rain. They came to his house, but did not find him. They went to his field, and found him weeding it. They greeted him, but he made no reply. On his way back to his home, he placed some wood and the hoe on one shoulder and a garment on the other shoulder. The entire way he did not wear shoes, but whenever he came to water which he had to ford he would put them on. When he came to a thorny path, he would raise his garments. When he came to the city, his wife met him dressed in fine apparel. When he reached his house, his wife entered first, then he, and finally the two young rabbis entered. He sat down to his meal, but extended no invitation to the rabbis to join him. When dealing out bread to his children, he gave the elder one loaf and the younger two. Afterwards he

said to his wife in a low voice: "I know that these rabbis came on account of rain. Come, let us go up into the attic and pray for rain, and should the Lord have mercy on His children and cause it to rain, it will not appear as if it came about through us." They went up into the attic, and he stood in one corner, while she stood in another. The rain-cloud appeared in the direction where the wife was standing.

When he went down again, he said to the rabbis: "What hath brought the rabbis here?" And they replied: "The rabbis have sent us to Master that he may pray for rain." And he answered: "Blessed be the Lord, that ye no longer need Abba Helkyah's favor." Said they to him: "We well know that this rain is come only on account of Master, still we should like to know the reason for several actions on his part which appear to us surprising. Why, when we greeted the Master, did he not turn his face towards us?" He replied: "I hired myself out for the day and my time was not my own, hence I did not wish to waste any." "Why did the Master carry the wood on one shoulder and the garment on the other?" "Because the garment was borrowed by me to wear, but not to use as a pad for wood." "Why did the Master go barefooted all the way, and put on his shoes when coming to water?" "Because the entire way I could see what I was stepping on, but in water I could not." "Why did the Master raise his dress when walking in a thorny path?" "Because if my flesh should receive a scratch, it will heal; but if the garment should become torn it cannot be mended." "Why, when the Master came to the city, did his wife come forth to meet him, dressed in her best apparel?" "In order that I may not look at any other woman." "Why did she enter first, then the Master, and then we?" "Because I know nothing about you." "Why, when the Master sat down to eat, did he not invite us to partake also?" "Because there was not sufficient bread for all, and I did not wish to invite you merely to receive your thanks in vain." "Why did the Master give the elder child one loaf and the younger two?" "Because the elder was at home all day and probably helped himself previously, but the younger was at school all day and more hungry." Why did the rain-cloud appear first in thy wife's corner?" "Because my wife is always at home, and when a poor man begs for a meal she always gives it to him readily, while I can but give him a Zuz and he must first go and purchase food for it. Thus her charity is more effective than mine."

Hanan the Hidden was a son of the daughter of Honi Hama'gel. When the country was in need of rain, the rabbis would send the school-children to him, who would surround him, take hold of his garments, and cry: "Father, father, give us rain!" And he would say to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Creator of the universe! Cause rain to descend, for the sake of those who cannot distinguish between a father capable of giving rain and one who is not." Why was he called Hanan the Hidden? Because whenever he would do some good, he would hide himself so as not to be observed.

Said R. Z'reiqa to R. Saphra: "Come and see the difference between the pious of Babylon and the righteous of Palestine. The pious of Babylon--e.g., R. Huna and R. Hisda--when the country was in need of rain, would say: "Let us combine and pray to God, perhaps we shall find favor in His eyes, and He will give us rain"; and the righteous of Palestine--e.g., R. Jonah the father of R. Mani--when the country was needing rain, would go to his house, ask for a sack, and say: "I will go to the market and buy a Zuz' worth of grain." When going out he would seek a deep place, as it is written [Psalms, cxxx. 1]: "Out of the depths have I called to thee, O Lord," and he would station himself in a hidden place, cover himself with the sack, and offer up a prayer for rain to the Lord, and forthwith rain would descend. When returning home, he would be asked: "Didst thou buy the grain for a Zuz?" And he would reply: "I noticed that it commenced to rain, and hence thought it unnecessary to go to the market for it, as it can be had now anywhere."

Again it happened that R. Mani the son of Jonah was sorely troubled by the members of the house of the Nassi (prince); so he went and threw himself on his father's grave, exclaiming: "Father, father, the men of the house of the Nassi are troubling me." One day the retainers of the Nassi were riding by the burial ground where Jonah was interred, and their horses Could not proceed until they vowed not to trouble R. Mani any more.

R. Mani would frequently come to the house of R. Itz'hak ben Aliashib, and he once told R. Itz'hak that the members of his father-in-law's family were giving him much trouble. Said R. Itz'hak: "May they become poor!" and they really did become poor. R. Mani then came again, and complained that now his relatives were poor they were compelling him to support them. Said R. Itz'hak: "May they then become rich again!" and accordingly they became rich.

At another time R. Mani complained to R. Itz'hak that his wife was too ill-favored. Said R. Itz'hak: "What is her name?" And R. Mani replied: "Hannah." Said R. Itz'hak: "May Hannah become handsome!" and accordingly she became handsome. Subsequently R. Mani came again, and complained that now his wife had become handsome she made life a burden to him by her vanity, and R. Itz'hak said: "May I Hannah again become ugly!" and Hannah again became ugly.

Some time later, two disciples of R. Itz'hak ben Aliashib begged him to pray to the Lord for them, that they might become wiser and more capable for study. Said he to them: "I used to do that at one time and would succeed; but I have stopped that practice and shall not do it again."

Elazar the man of Birtha would be shunned by the men who were sent out to collect money for charitable purposes, because he would give away everything he had. One day he went out into the market to buy the articles necessary for the proper celebration of his daughter's marriage. The collectors of alms perceived him, and hid themselves. He, however, pursued and overtook them, and said: "I adjure you, tell me for what purpose ye are sent out now and what ye need." And they answered: "We are collecting money for two orphans who are about to be married." Said he: "I vow they have precedence over my daughter." And he gave them everything he had, with the exception of one Zuz, for which he bought some wheat and deposited it in his storehouse. The mother (Elazar's wife) said to the daughter: "What did your father bring?" And the daughter replied: "All that he brought he deposited in the storehouse." She then went to the storehouse, but could not open the door, as the wheat was piled up so high and the storehouse was so full that the wheat forced its way through the cracks in the walls. Thereupon she betook herself to the house of learning, where Elazar her husband was studying, and calling him out, said: "Come and see what thy friend did for thee." Arriving at the storehouse, Elazar said "I vow that all this wheat is devoted to the poor, and thou hast but a share in it equal to the other poor."

R. Jehudah Hanassi (the Second) once ordered a fast-day and prayed for rain, but without success. Said he: "What a difference there is between Samuel the prophet and Jehudah the son of Gamaliel! Woe is to the generation that has retrograded to such an extent and woe to the Nassi (prince) who hath witnessed

it." He became very despondent, and forthwith rain began to fall.

A fast-day was ordered from the house of the Nassi, and no previous notice thereof was given to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: "What shall we do? We did not take it upon ourselves to fast to-day or yesterday? Replied Resh Lakish: "We are dependent upon the Nassi; hence it is not necessary for us to take it upon ourselves a day in advance."

Again it happened that the house of the Nassi ordered a fast. day; but no rain descended. So Oshiya, the youngest of the colleagues, taught: It is written [Numb. xv. 24]: "Then shall it be, if through inadvertence of the congregation it was committed by ignorance," which is a simile to a bride in the house of her father--if she have beautiful eyes, there is no need of examining her body, but if her eyes be bad her entire body should be examined (i.e., if the prince of the congregation be a righteous man, the congregation need not be tried, but if he be wicked the congregation itself must be examined). So the servants of the Nassi came to Oshiya, threw a cloth over his neck, and tortured him. Said the townsfolk to the servants: "Let him be, for though he often offends us with his sayings, still, as we see that he means well and does so for our good, we let him have his own way."

Rabbi once ordered a fast-day, but no rain descended. So Ilpha, others say R. Ilphi, went up to the reading-desk to pray. As soon as he came to the sentence, "He causeth the wind to blow," a wind sprang up; and when he said, "He causeth the rain to descend," rain began to fall. So Rabbi asked Ilpha: "What are thy merits?" And he answered: "I live in a very small town, where it is almost impossible to obtain any wine for the Kiddush and the Habdalah on the Sabbath; but I go to great trouble to procure it and distribute among my townsmen, and when reciting the Kiddush prayer I also include my townsmen in the prayer."

Rabh came to a certain place and ordered a fast-day, but no rain descended. The minister of the congregation went up to the reading-desk and commenced to pray. Arriving at the sentence, "He causeth the wind to blow," a wind sprang up; and as soon as he said, "He causeth the rain to descend," rain began to fall. Said Rabh to him: "What are thy merits?" And he answered: "I teach little children, and treat the children of the

poor like the children of the rich. Those that cannot afford to pay, I teach without remuneration; and being also a fisherman, I persuade those who do not wish to come and learn, to do so by giving them fish to take home with them."

R. Na'hman ordered a communal fast. He prayed for rain, which, however, did not come. And he said to the people: "Take ye Na'hman and throw him from the roof to the ground." He became downcast, and rain commenced to fall. Rabba ordered a fast, he prayed, and no rain came. And they said to him: "But when R. Jehudah orders a fast, then rain comes." He replied: "What can I do? In point of learning we are better than they; for in the years of R. Jehudah all their studies were confined to the Section of Damages, while we study now all the six sections. And when R. Jehudah came to the Section of Taharath (Purification), Tract Uqtsin, and the Halakha, 'When a woman put herbs in a pot,' or, according to others, to the Halakha, 'If olives were soaked with their leaves, they are clean,' 1 R. Jehudah used to say: 'I find it as deep as would befit the times of Rabh and Samuel.' But we have thirteen colleges which are studying the Tract Uqtsin, and nevertheless when R. Jehudah would put off one shoe, the rain would come; and we are crying the whole day, and there is nobody to look at us. And if one might say, R. Jehudah was better than we by his deeds, then if there is any one here that knows we have not acted rightly, let him say so; but the true reason is, what can the leaders of the generation do, when the generation itself is not good?"

R. Jehudah saw once two men throwing bread at each other, and he said: "I see from this that there is plenty in the world." He cast an evil eye, and a famine began. Said the rabbis to R. Kahna the son of R. Nahuniah: "We have heard that the Master frequents the house of R. Jehudah: cause him to go into the market (he should become aware that a famine reigns)." He did so, and took him out into the market. He saw a crowd of men. He asked: "What is the matter?" He was answered: "There is a measure of dates for sale, and each is eager to obtain it." Said he: "I perceive from this that there is famine in the world." He said to his servant: "Take off my shoes." He had taken off but one of his shoes, when it began to rain.

R. Mari the son of the daughter of Samuel said: "At that time, when R. Jehudah had his shoes taken off, I stood on the

bank of the River Papa. I saw angels clad like sailors, who took sand, filled the ships therewith, and it was turned to fine flour, and the whole world came to buy it. I said to the persons of my household: 'Do not buy of it, for it is only through a miracle, and I wish to derive no benefit from miracles.' I waited till the morrow, when ships laden with wheat actually arrived from Parzina."

It happened once that Rabha came to the city of Hagrunia, and he ordered a fast, but no rain came. Said he to the people: "Fast over night." On the morrow morning he said to them: "If any one saw something in a dream, he should come to tell what he saw in the dream." R. Elazar of the same city related that he had been told in a dream the following words: "Good peace to the good master who received his knowledge from a good master, and who with his goodness is doing good to his people." Said Rabha: "I infer from this that it is a favorable time." He prayed again, and rain came.

It happened once that a man had committed a crime for which he had to receive stripes in a court where Rabha was the chief judge. Rabha had the penalty inflicted on him. He could not endure it, and died. When the government of Sabbor the king heard of this, they wanted to cause trouble to Rabha. Said Iphra Harmyz, the king Sabbor's mother, to her son: "I advise you to have nothing to do with the Jews, for all that they request of their God, He grants to them." Said he: "What, for example?" Said she: "Whenever they pray to God for rain, it rains." Said he to them: "That is only because they pray in the season when it has to rain. Now, when it is Tamuz [July], when it ought not to rain, let them pray for rain, and you shall see that it will not come." So she sent for Rabha, and said to him: "Fix your mind on it, and pray to God to send rain." He prayed, and no rain came. Said he: "Before the Lord of the universe [Ps. xliv. 2] God, with our ears have we heard, our fathers have told us . . . in times of old, but we with our eyes do not see it." Then it rained so much that all the canals of Me'huza overflowed and the water spread in the streets into the River Tigris. His father appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Is there any other man who gives so many pains to Heaven? Go and change the place of your couch." On the morrow he found marks of a knife with which his bed had been slashed.

R. Papa also ordered a fast: no rain came. Meanwhile he

felt too weak from fasting. He took a spoonful of daitha [a kind of dish], and went on praying. Still, however, no rain came. R. Na'hman, his fellow-lodger in the inn, 1 said to him: "If the Master would partake of another spoon of daitha, then rain would surely come" (ironically). He felt shame, he became downcast, and rain came. (See Yomah, p. 76: "R. Hanina b. Dosa," etc.)

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "Every day a heavenly Voice goes forth and says: 'The whole world is nourished merely by the merits of Hanina my son, and for Hanina alone one Kabh of carobs is sufficient from one Sabbath-eve to the other.'"

The wife of Hanina would make a fire in her oven on the eve of every Sabbath in order not to be ashamed before her neighbors. She had, however, one bad neighbor who said: "I know that Hanina and his wife have nothing to cook for the Sabbath, why does she make fire in her oven? I shall go and see." She went and knocked at the threshold, and Hanina's wife became ashamed and went into another room. In the meantime a miracle happened, and the oven became filled with bread. The neighbor, noticing the bread in the oven, called to Hanina's wife: "Bring the bread-shovel, or the bread will be burned!" And she replied: "I just went in for that purpose." We have learned in a Boraitha: Hanina's wife really did go into the next room for a shovel, because she was accustomed to have miracles happen to her.

One day the wife of R. Hanina said to him: "How long shall we yet be troubled with the want of our daily bread?" And he replied: "What can I do?" Said she: "Pray to God that He should give thee something." He accordingly went and prayed. A hand came forth and gave him a leg of a golden table. Subsequently his wife saw in a dream that all the righteous in heaven ate on golden tables having three legs, while her table only had two. Said she to Hanina: "Wouldst thou then like it, that all should eat at a table having three legs, while we should eat at one only having two? Pray to God that the golden leg may be taken back." He prayed, and the leg was taken back. We have learned in a Boraitha that this latter miracle was even greater than the former; for we have a tradition, that it is usual for heaven to bestow but not to take back.

One eve of Sabbath Hanina noticed his daughter in a despondent mood. Upon asking her what the trouble was, she replied: "I got the two vessels containing oil and vinegar mixed, and poured the latter into the Sabbath lamp and lit it." Said he: "My daughter! why should that trouble thee? He who hath ordained that oil should burn can also ordain that vinegar should burn." We have learned in a Boraitha that the vinegar in that lamp burned all night and all day, till some of it was used for the Habdalah prayer.

R. Hanina ben Dosa had a few goats, and he was told that his goats caused damage to others. Said he: "If my goats do damage, may wolves devour them; but if they do not, may they each bring a bear impaled upon their horns." That same evening, each goat really brought in a bear mounted on its horns.

How did Hanina happen to have goats? Was he not a poor man? Said R. Pinchas: "It once happened that a man left a few chickens at the house of Hanina, and the latter said to his wife: 'Do not use the eggs, for the chickens do not belong to us.'" Accordingly the eggs were left untouched, and in the course of time quite a number of chickens were produced, so that they became too troublesome, and Hanina sold them and with the proceeds purchased goats. Subsequently the man who left the chickens returned to claim them. He was asked for a description of his property, which he gave correctly, whereupon Hanina turned over the goats to him, and these are the goats that brought bears upon their horns. 1

The same Hanina had a neighbor who was building a house, and the beams were too short. So she came to him, and said: "I have built my house, but my beams do not reach far enough." And he asked her her name. And she answered: "Aikho." He then said: "Aikho, may thy beams become longer." We have learned in a Boraitha that they really became so long that they protruded an ell on each side, while others say that pieces were conjoined with the beams so that they attained the required length. We have learned in another Boraitha: "Plimo said: 'I saw that house and noticed that the beams protruded an ell on each side. And I was told that the house was the one for which Hanina prayed to have the beams become longer.'"

R. Hama bar Hanina ordered a fast-day, but no rain descended,

and he was told: "Why, R. Jehoshua ben Levi would order a fast-day, and rain would commence to fall!" Said he: "That was the son of Levi, and not I!" And they said: "We meant to say, that we should again congregate, and perhaps, if we prove contrite of heart, the rain will descend." They did so, and still no rain descended. Said he to them: "Think ye that ye deserve rain to descend for you?" And they answered: "Yea." Said he to the sky: "Cover thy countenance." No results, however, were produced, and he exclaimed: "How impudent are the skies!" Whereupon they became covered, and rain commenced to fall.

Levi ordered a fast-day, but no rain descended. Said he: "Creator of the universe! Thou didst ascend to the heavens, and didst sit down, but hast no compassion upon thy children." Whereupon rain descended, but Levi fell and became lame.

R. Hyya bar Lolaini heard one cloud say to another: "Come, let us go and deposit our waters in the lands of Ammon and Moab." Said R. Hyya: "Creator of the universe! when thou gavest Thy Law to Israel, Thou hadst gone to other nations, offering it to them, and they would not accept it; and now Thou wouldst allow the clouds to pour forth their waters on their lands!" and turning to the clouds, he exclaimed: "Pour forth your waters on this spot," and they did so.

The same R. Hyya preached: "It is written [Psalms, xcii. 13]: 'The righteous shall spring up like the palm-tree; like a cedar in Lebanon shall he grow high.' Why are both the palm-tree and the cedar mentioned? If the palm-tree only were mentioned, I would say that as a branch of the palm-tree which is broken off does not grow out again, so it will be with the righteous--if he dies, he will leave no one in his stead; therefore a cedar is also mentioned, for with a cedar it is not so. And if a cedar only were mentioned, I might say that as the cedar does not bear fruit, so will it also be with the righteous (which may God forbid). Hence the palm-tree is also mentioned."

The rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Eliezer ordered thirteen fast-days, but no rain descended. When the congregation dispersed after the thirteenth fast-day, he asked them if they had already ordered their graves, and they commenced to weep aloud, whereupon rain commenced to fall.

Another time it happened that R. Eliezer recited the twenty-four benedictions at prayer, but he was not answered. R. Aqiba followed him at the reading-desk, and said: "Father and

King! we have no other king but Thee. Only for Thy sake have mercy upon us!" And his prayer was answered. The people then began to murmur (and say that R. Aqiba was a greater man than R. Eliezer). A heavenly Voice went forth and said: Not because R. Aqiba is a greater man than R. Eliezer was his prayer answered, but because he always gives in to another, while R. Eliezer never did that."

The rabbis taught: How much rain should fall in order that the congregation may stop fasting? When the rain fills up a furrow made with a plough. So said R. Meir, but the sages say: If the water is a span deep on dry land, two spans on moist earth, and three spans on ploughed soil.

"If while the people are fasting rain should fall before sunrise." The rabbis taught: "If while the people are fasting rain should fall before sunrise they may stop fasting, but if after sunrise they must not. Such is the dictum of R. Meir. But R. Jehudah said: If it fell before noon they may stop fasting, but if after noon they should not. R. Jose, however, said: They may stop if rain fell before the end of the ninth hour (3 P. M.), but not if it fell after that hour. And so we find in the case of Achab, King of Israel, who fasted from the ninth hour on, and further, as it is written [I Kings, xxii. 29]: "Hast thou seen how Achab hath humbled himself before me?" (It is explained, elsewhere that king used to eat their meal at the ninth hour.)

R. Jehudah Nesseah (the Second) ordered a fast-day, and rain commenced to fall after sunrise. He thereupon desired to stop fasting, but R. Ami said to him: "We have learned that if rain falls before noon or after noon there is a difference of opinion, but after sunrise all agree that fasting may be stopped."

Samuel the Little ordered a fast-day, and rain descended before sunrise. The people wanted to infer therefrom that it was in praise of the congregation; for as soon as a fast was ordered, rain commenced to fall. Said Samuel to them: "This can be compared to a case of where a slave begs for something of his master, and the master says Give it to him! I do not care even to hear his voice."

Again it happened that the same Samuel ordered a fast-day, and rain fell after sunset. Then said the people: "Surely this is in praise of the congregation that after fasting and praying rain came." Said he to them again: "Nay, this is not to be considered; for it can be compared to a slave begging of his master, who says: 'Let him pray and trouble himself for some time before

[paragraph continues] I will give it to him.'" What, then, does Samuel consider as praise for the congregation? If when the sentence is read, "He causeth the wind to blow," a wind springs up, and when the sentence, "He causeth the rain to descend," is read, rain commences to fall.

"In the evening they returned and sang the great Hallel." Why should they return in the evening and say the Hallel? Let them say it beforehand? Abayi and Rabha both say: "Hallel is not sung except with a satisfied soul and a well-filled stomach." This is not so! For did it not happen that R. Papa ordered a fast-day in the synagogue of Abi Gober, and rain descended before noon, when they sang the Hallel, and then ate and drank? With the inhabitants of Me'huza it is different, for they are generally drunkards.

Footnotes

48:1 The ovens were movable, and were used to roast the paschal lamb on the Passover. When not in use they were kept outside of the house.

49:1 This was the name of a high stone in Jerusalem, where the finders of lost articles would deposit what they had found, and then proclaim that they had found something. The owners would then come, and upon sufficient identification of the lost article it would be restored to them.

51:1 In Tract Chullin, 65 a, it says Go-bai zeh Arbah = Gobai, and means locust.

51:2 Chagab is also a locust, and presumably a grasshopper. See Numbers, xiii. 33; Isaiah, xl. 22, etc.

52:1 Hastening is called in Hebrew "K'dimah," and Nakdimon is derived from K'dimah, according to the annotations of Joel Sirkosh.

53:1 In Tract Derech Eretz, as well as in the commentaries of Rashi and Tosphath, this man is said to have been Elijah the Prophet, who assumed that disguise in order to humble R. Elazar.

55:1 Concerning the sickness of Shaibatha there is a lengthy discussion among the commentators of the Talmud. Some say that it was a muscular disease peculiar to children between the age of two months and seven years. Others say that it was a disease produced by evil spirits, etc. No definite term for the word can be found. The Aruch devotes two whole pages to the different opinions regarding this disease.

56:1 Here follow the questions put to and answered by Ilpha, which are, however, not essential in this tract, and which will appear in Tract Kethuboth.

56:2 According to Zach. Frankel, in his work about the generations of the Tanaim and Amoraim, and also according to Dr. I. M. Wise, Dr. H. Strack, and Mielziner, Nahum was a resident of Gimzo, a town in southwestern Judea.

57:1 This is a literal and not a figurative translation of that verse.

66:1 The Hebrew term is "Meshunitha." Rashi explains it to mean a rock, while the dictionaries define it as given in our text.

71:1 This will be explained in its place in Tract Uqtsin.

73:1 According to the Aruch the text should read, "Bar-Ushpirti," i.e., the son of Ushpirti, who was the mother of R. Papa, and he said to him thus: "You, son of Ushpirti," etc.

74:1 According to Hananel and other commentaries the whole paragraph was inserted here from other sources than the Gemara. In the Ain Jacob this is not to be found.

Chapter III

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE POSTURE OF THE READER OF THE MEGILLA, AND HIS CLOTHES, BEFORE PRAYER.

MISHNA: The Megilla may be read either sitting or standing, by one person only, or by two persons at the same time. They alike fulfil their duty. In places where it is usual to say a blessing (after reading it) it is obligatory to say it, but not when it is not customary. Three men are called to read in the Holy Scrolls on Mondays and Thursdays; and in the afternoon of the Sabbath neither more nor less than that number may be called, nor shall any section from the Prophets then be read. He who commences the reading of the Holy Scrolls shall pronounce the first benediction before reading it, and he who concludes the reading shall pronounce the last benediction after reading it.

On the first of the month, on the intermediate days of the festivals, four men are to be called. This number may neither be added to nor diminished, nor shall any section of the Prophets then be read (the first of these men shall say the first blessing before reading, and the last who concludes the reading shall say the last blessing after reading). This is the rule: On all days, when an additional offering is prescribed, which are nevertheless not festivals, four men are to be called; five on festivals; six on the Day of Atonement; and seven on the Sabbath. This number may not be diminished, but it may be increased, and a section of the Prophets must be read on those days. The first and the last readers shall pronounce the benedictions before and after reading.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: It is not so with the reading of the Torah, which can be read only when the congregation sits. Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Abahu: It is written [Deut. v. 28]: "But as for thee, stand thou here by me." From this we infer, he should stand, and the congregation should sit. He says again: How do we know that the Master should not teach the disciple when he sits on the bed, and the disciple on the floor? Because it is written: "Stand by (with) me" (as I stand so you should stand).

The rabbis taught: From the time of Moses till Rabban Gamaliel the Law was studied standing; when R. Gamaliel died, sicknesses came into existence, and they began to study sitting. And this is what we have learned in a Mishna elsewhere, that since R. Gamaliel had died the honoring of the Law had ceased.

One verse says [Deut. ix. 9]: "I sat on the mount"; and another [ibid. x. 10]: "I stood on the mount." Said Rabh: He stood when he studied, and he sat when he repeated. R. Johanan, however, said: By "sitting" is meant abiding, as is written [Deut. i. 46]: "And ye sat in Kadesh," which means "dwelt." Rabha says: The easy things he learned standing, and the difficult things he sat down to understand.

"By one person, or by two," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: The law is not so with the Holy Scrolls (which only one can read, not two).

The rabbis taught: The scrolls of the Pentateuch one should read and the other should interpret; but not one shall read and two interpret; but the Prophets: One should read and two may interpret it, but two should not read and two interpret. In case of Hallel and the Megilla, however, even ten may read and ten interpret. Why so? Because Hallel and the Megilla are dear to the people, and even if ten read they will give their attention.

"In places where it is usual to say a blessing," etc. Says Abayi: The Mishna refers only to the benediction after it; but before, it is obligatory. As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: For all religious duties, one should pronounce a benediction before they are done.

What blessing should be pronounced before the reading of the Megilla? R. Shesheth of Qartazia said in the presence of R. Ashi: Three blessings: Blessed be He, etc., who has commanded us to read the Megilla; Blessed be He, etc., who has performed miracles for our ancestors; and the benediction of the time. What blessing is said after the reading of the Megilla? "Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast taken up our quarrels, who hast judged our judgments, who hast taken revenge for us, who hast retaliated for us on our adversaries, and who recompensest according to their deservings all our enemies. Blessed be Thou, O Lord, who punishest all the adversaries of Israel." Rabha said: "Blessed be Thou, God of salvation." Said R. papa: Therefore, we should say both: "Blessed be Thou, O Lord, who punishest our adversaries, God of our salvation!"

"Three men are called to read," etc. To what do the three

correspond? To the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. So said R. Ashi. Rabha said: To priests, Levites, and Israelites. And R. Simi taught: One must not read less than ten verses in the house of prayer; and if one of them consists of the words, "And God spoke to Moses," it is reckoned among the ten. To what do these ten correspond? R. Joshua b. Levi says: To the ten unemployed men in the synagogue. And R. Joseph said: To the ten commandments given to Moses on Sinai. R. Johanan says: To the ten sayings of the Lord, by which He created the world.

Rabha said: The first of the three men who goes to read in the Torah, if he has read four verses, he may be praised; if not the first, but the second did it, he may be praised; if the third did this, he may be praised (and if all three read four verses each, all may be praised). It happened once R. Papa came to the synagogue of Abiguber; and he read four verses to the first, and R. Papa praised him.

"Neither more nor less." We have learned in a Boraitha: "The beginner shall pronounce the benediction before the reading, and the last reader after." But in this time, when we have the custom that everyone says the benediction both before and after, the reason why the rabbis have ordained so is that those who enter and go away in the middle of the reading should not fail to hear either the blessing before or after.

"On the first of the month." Ula bar Rabh asked Rabha: The portion about the beginning of the month [Num. xxviii. 11], how should it be read? Shall we begin to read with the first verse of the chapter which speaks about the daily offering--eight verses--how shall we do? If two each read three verses, only two will be left for the third, and two should not be read? If they read each four, then for the third will be left seven verses, because about Sabbath there are two, and about the first of the month five? If the third should begin with the ninth verse (about Sabbath), and read the two about Sabbath and one about the first of the month, we have learned in a Boraitha: One must not begin a portion (containing less) than three verses? (and about Sabbath there are two). If the third begin with Sabbath, and read three about the first month, then two verses will be left. Rabha answered: This I did not hear, but I heard something similar. We have learned in the Mishna, in Tract Taanith: "The first day one reads in Genesis from i. 6: 'Let there be an expanse,'" And a Boraitha added to this: From "In the beginning"

should be read by two, and from "Let there be an expanse" should be read by one. And it was discussed: It is right that from "Let there be an expanse" should be read by one, because there are three verses; but up to that there are only five verses, and how can two men read it? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that each must read no less that three verses? And in answer to it, it was taught: Rabh said: The second should begin from the third verse, which has been already read; and Samuel says: They shall divide the third verse into two parts.

[Why does Rabh say he shall read a second time, and not begin in the middle? Because Rabh holds the verse which Moses did not leave in the middle we may not split; but Samuel says we may. And according to Samuel may we stop in the middle of the verse? Did not Hanania Kara say: I had great trouble when I was by R. Hanina the Great, who did not permit me to stop in the middle of a verse, except for the schoolchildren, because I had to teach them? Why did R. Hanina permit? Because schoolchildren could not otherwise be taught; and so Samuel allowed, because it was necessary. But why does not Samuel say as Rabh? Because if one enter in the middle, and hear the second reading the third verse, he may think the first has read only two.]

An objection was raised: We have learned in Taanith: "A portion containing six verses may be read by two men, but if it contain five, only one man must read; but if the first has only read three, the second must read the remaining two, and one of the next portion. But, according to others, he must read three verses of the next, because he must not begin to read a portion, unless he read three verses." Now, if it were as Rabh and Samuel say, why does not the Boraitha teach he shall repeat a verse, or stop in the middle? There the case is different; because it is practicable, but not here.

Said R. Tan'hum in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The Halakha prevails according to the saying of the Boraitha in the name of the others. And he says again: As one must not begin a portion, to read less than three verses, so one must not stop unless three verses are yet left.

Rabba the son of Rabha sent to ask R. Joseph how the Halakha prevails. And he sent him the answer: The Halakha prevails, that it shall be repeated by the second reader.

"This is the rule: When an additional offering." The schoolmen propounded a question: On a fast of the congregation how

many persons should be called to read? Should we say that be. cause on the first of the month and intermediate days there is an additional offering, four should read; but on this occasion, when there is no additional offering, only three should read? Or that, because there is an additional prayer, four should be called to read?, Come and hear: It happened that Rabh came to Babylon on a congregational fast-day. He arose and read in the Torah, and said a benediction when he began, but not when he finished. The whole congregation fell upon their faces, and he did not. Now let us see: Rabh (who was no priest) could read only what an Israelite reads (i.e., was the third). Why, then, did he not pronounce the benediction after he had finished? We must assume because he thought a fourth would yet read, so there would be four? Nay; Rabh was the beginner, and substituted a priest, because he was the best man; and we find in Gittin, that R. Huna did so too. It is right of R. Huna, because, as it is said there, R. Ammi and R. Ashi, although they were priests themselves and the most honored men of Palestine, nevertheless bowed before R. Huna; but Rabh, how could he substitute a priest? Was there not Samuel, who was a priest, and always had preference before Rabh? Nay; Samuel also bowed to Rabh; but Rabh gave preference to him only to honor him, and it seems to us that this is correct, that Rabh read first; because if not so, why did he pronounce the benediction before? But perhaps it was after it was ordained that the benediction should be pronounced both before and after? Then he would have pronounced the benediction after it also? It is different. Where Rabh was, the people were permitted to enter the house of prayer, but not to leave, till Rabh finished lecturing. Hence there was no fear for those who might leave. (The question is therefore not decided, because after the first may be either two or three.) Come and hear. This is the rule: On the day when no labor is done, as on a congregational fast and the 9th of Abh, three must read; and on those days when to do labor is not prohibited, as on the first of the month and intermediate days of a festival, four read. This decides the question.

Said R. Ashi: Have we not learned in our Mishna: This is the rule: On the day which has an additional sacrifice, but is not a festival, four men read? Now, when it is said, "this is the rule," may we not assume that it is meant to include a congregational fast and the 9th of Abh? Nay, a sign only was given that it should not be thought festivals and intermediate

days are equal in the reading of the Torah: they gave us a rule that even on a day having a preference over another day, one man more must be called to read. Therefore, on the first of the month, intermediate days, which have an additional sacrifice, four read; on a festival, when no labor may be done, five must read; on the Day of Atonement, which has a punishment of Kareth, six read; on Sabbath, which has a capital punishment, seven read.

It is said above: Rabh did not fall on his face. Why? Because he was the most honored man; and this is similar to the teaching of R. Elazar: He said, an honored man must not fall on his face, unless he is sure he will be answered as Joshua b. Nun, of whom it is written [Josh. vii. 10]: "And the Lord said to Joshua: Get thee up; wherefore liest thou upon thy face?" Said R. Hyya bar Abbin: I saw that Abayi and Rabha used not to fall on their faces, but only reclined their heads on their hands.

"Six on the Day of Atonement." According to whom is our Mishna? Not according to R. Ishmael, and not according to R. Aqiba of the following Boraitha: "On the festival five, on the Day of Atonement six, and on the Sabbath seven--not more and not less. So is the decree of R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba says: On a festival five, on the Day of Atonement seven, on Sabbath six--not less, but it may be more." If the Mishna was in accordance with R. Ishmael, it would not allow, as he, more; and if in accordance with R. Aqiba, the latter says, on Sabbath six? Said Rabha: The Mishna is in accordance with the disciples of R. Ishmael, who teach: On festivals five, on the Day of Atonement six, on Sabbath seven--not less, but more is permitted. So said R. Ishmael. This is in self-contradiction of R. Ishmael? There are two Tanaim: One says R. Ishmael had said so, and the second he had said otherwise. To what do the three, five, and seven correspond? R. Itz'hak b. Nahmani and R. Simeon b. Pazzi, according to others R. Samuel b. Nahmani--one said that it corresponds to the blessings of the priests (where there are three words in the first verse, five in the second, seven in the third), and the other said that they correspond to the three door-keepers [II Kings, xxv. 18] and the five men who could come unto the king's presence [ibid. 19] and the seven who could see Ahasuerus [Esther, i. 14]. And the same taught R. Joseph. Said Abayi to him: Why has the Master not explained it to us before? He answered: I did not know you needed an explanation

of it, and you asked me not; did you ever ask me anything to which I answered not?

Said Jacob, one of the Minim, 1 to R. Jehudah: The six men who read on the Day of Atonement, to whom do they correspond?, He said: To the six men who stood on the right and the left of Ezra, as is written [Nehem. viii. 4]: "The names of the six who stood on the right, and of the six that stood on the left."

The rabbis taught: All are entitled to be counted read among the seven on Sabbath, even a minor and a woman. The sages, however, said: A woman should not read in the Torah for the honor of the congregation. The schoolmen propounded a question: May the last reader from the Prophets be counted among the seven? R. Huna and R. Jeremiah bar Abba differ: One says yes; the other says no. The first gives the reason that, although he reads from the Prophets, he reads from the Pentateuch also, and why should he not be counted? while the second holds with Ula, who said that the reader from the Prophets reads from the Pentateuch only in honor of the Torah, not because it is his task; and therefore it is not counted. An objection was raised: We have learned that he who reads portions from the Prophets should read not less than twenty-one verses, to correspond to the verses from the Torah read by the seven men (each of whom read three). Now, if the same person reads also from the Pentateuch, he should read but twenty-four verses from the Prophets, as he himself read three in the Torah? As be reads only in honor of the Law, it should not be counted. Rabha opposed: Do not we read Jeremiah, vii., from verse 21 to chapter viii., where twenty-one verses are not found? There it is different, because the subject is concluded there. And where the subject is not finished, must we read twenty-one verses? Did not Samuel bar Abba say: I stood many times before R. Johanan, and when we had done reading ten verses, he told us to stop, though it was in the midst of the subject? Where there is an interpreter, the law is different. As R. Tahlipha b. Samuel taught: When must be read twenty-one verses? Where there is no interpreter, otherwise he may cease earlier.

MISHNA: When men come into the synagogue after the prayer has been finished, they may not repeat the prayer if they

are less than ten in number, nor may any of them act as minister before the reading-desk, nor may priests raise their hands (to say the priest's blessing), nor may they read in the Law, nor read a section from the Prophets. When there are less than ten men present at a burial, the customary standings and sittings with the corpse, may not take place, nor may the blessing for mourners be said, nor the forms used in condolence with mourners, nor the seven blessings said on the celebration of a marriage, nor may the persons who join to say grace after meals mention the Divine name. And on an occasion of redeeming land that has been consecrated it is necessary that at least nine Israelites and a Cohen (priest) shall be present, and the same also at the valuation of a man (if he had said: I consecrate the value of my person to the sanctuary).

GEMARA: Where is this deduced from? Said R. Hyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: Because it is written [Lev. xxii. 32]: "I may be sanctified among the children of Israel." All things sanctified must not be less than ten. 1

"Standings and sittings." Because it was the custom for a mourner to say: "Rise, honored men, rise!" and "Sit down, honored men, sit down!" which may not be said to less than ten.

"Blessing for mourners," etc. What is the blessing for mourners? The benediction they said in the streets after the burial. Then R. Itz'hak said in the name of R. Johanan that the benediction of mourners was pronounced by not less than ten men, and the mourners themselves are not counted. The benediction of bridegrooms, however, is also said by ten, including, however, the bridegrooms.

"Mention the Divine name." Why so? Because he must say: "Let us bless our God," and this is not suitable when there are less than ten. 2 (The Owner of Rewards shall recompense you for the kindness of accompanying the deceased. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who givest rewards), and the same was said to the condolers.

MISHNA: Not less than three verses of the Holy Scrolls may be read in the synagogue by each person (called to read). One verse only of the Law may at one time be read to the interpreter.

[paragraph continues] From the Prophets, however, may be read three also; but if each verse should form a separate section, each must be read separately. Passages may be skipped in the reading of the Prophets, but not in that of the Holy Scrolls. What time may be suffered to elapse to skip from one passage to another? while the interpreter does not conclude his interpretation.

GEMARA: "A separate section," etc. For instance, Isaiah, lii. 3, 4, and 5, treat of different subjects.

"Passages may be skipped." There is a contradiction: We have learned in a Mishna in Yoma the following: He reads Lev. xvi. 7, "After the death," etc., and then in xxiii. 27, "But on the tenth." From this we see that he skips in the Pentateuch also? Said Abayi: It presents no difficulty. In the Pentateuch one may not skip when it is one subject; but if there are two different subjects one may. But we have learned in a Boraitha that even when the subject is the same one may skip in the Pentateuch, and in the Prophets only when the subjects are different? In both cases it is meant, while the interpreter does not conclude his interpretation.

In another Boraitha we have learned: One must not skip from one Prophet to the other. In the reading of the twelve Minor Prophets, however, one may do so; but not from the termination of one to the beginning of the other.

MISHNA: Whoever reads in the house of prayer the section from the Prophets may also repeat the prayer (Shema) and act as minister before the reading-desk; and if he is a priest, may say the blessing of the priests. If a minor, his father or teacher shall act for him.

A minor may read in the Law (in the synagogue) and act as an interpreter, but may not publicly recite the Shema, nor act as minister at the reading-desk, nor (if a priest) say by himself the blessing of priests. A man in rags may repeat the Shema and act as interpreter, but he may not read in the Holy Scrolls, nor act as minister before the reading-desk, nor (if a priest) say the blessing of priests. A blind man may repeat the prayer and act as interpreter; but R. Jehudah says: One who never beheld the light (i.e., was born blind) may not repeat Shema.

GEMARA: Why so? Said R. Papa: This is a reward of honor (because to read portions from the Prophets is not such an honor as to act as minister). Rabba bar Simi, however.. said: To prevent quarrels (one should not say: I will read the Prophets and thou read the Shema).

"A man in rags." Ula bar Rabh asked Abayi: May a minor in rags read in the Torah? He answered: Why did you not ask about a naked man? Because we are certain that he must not, for the honor of the congregation, the same is the case here.

We have learned in a Boraitha: The sages said to R. Jehudah: Many persons lectured about the Merkabha (Divine Chariot) [Ezekiel, i.], although they had never seen it. Answered R. Jehudah: That deals with things in the inner consciousness, and if one meditates about them one may be fit to lecture. But if a man blesses for light it is for the benefit received, and a blind man has no benefit by it. The rabbis, however, hold that a blind man does derive benefit from light, as R. Jose of the following Boraitha said: My whole life I was sorry about the following verse [Deut. xxviii. 29]: "And thou shalt grope about at noonday, as the blind gropeth about in the darkness." I always asked, what matters it to the blind whether it be light or darkness, he gropes at any rate? till it happened once I walked in a dark night, and I met a blind man who walked with a torch. I asked him: My son, thou art blind. Why walkest thou with fire? He replied: So long as the torch is in my hands, people see me, and would not let me fall into a pit or tread on thorns.

MISHNA: A priest whose hands are deformed must not raise them (to bless the people). R. Jehudah also Prohibits it to a priest whose hands are stained with wood or with madder roots, because the people stare at him.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: By the blemishes are meant those on his hands, face, or feet. R. Joshua b. Levi said: If there are eruptions on his hands, he must not raise them. We have learned the same in the following Boraitha: If he has eruptions on the hands, or they are crooked, he must not raise them. Said R. Ashi: The priests from the villages 'Hiphni and Bishni all stutter, and must not bless either. The same we have learned in the following Boraitha: One must not make men act as ministers who are from Beth Sheon or Beth Hippa; also the men of Tibonin, because they pronounce an a as an h, and an h as an a. R. Johanan said: A priest of one eye must not raise his hands. But was there not a one-eyed priest in the neighborhood of R. Johanan who did bless, and he said to him nothing? That man was known in his town, and nobody stared at him because of his peculiarity; as is stated in a Boraitha: If one such is known in his town, he may.

"R. Jehudah also prohibits." We have learned in a Boraitha:

If the majority of a town worked at the same kind of work, and their hands were stained also, he may.

MISHNA: One who should say: "I will not minister at the reading-desk in colored clothes," may not be permitted to do so even in white ones [because we are afraid perhaps he becomes heretical, as only the Minim are particular about this]. If he refuses to minister with sandals on his feet, he may not be permitted to minister even barefooted. A man who makes the Tephilin round endangers himself, and has not properly observed the commandment. 1 A person who places them low down on his forehead, or on the palm of his hand, acts like the Sadducees. If he covers them with gold, or places them on his unkli, 2 he acts like a dissenter who does not care for our tradition.

If one says in his prayers: "The good shall bless Thee," he acts heretically. 3 If he says: "As to birds' nests were Thy mercies extended, so have mercy upon us"; or, "For Thy good be Thy name remembered"; or one who says twice "Modim," he shall be silenced (by authority). Also, whoever explains the text [Lev. xviii. 21]: "And of any of thy seed shalt thou not let pass through to Molech" to mean, "Thou shalt not give thy seed to an Aramite (heathen) woman," (and those who explain figuratively the section in the Law relating to carnal intercourse between relatives [Lev. xviii.] ), shall be silenced, and publicly reprimanded. The occurrence of Reuben with Bilha is to be read without being interpreted; that of Tamar is to be read and interpreted. The first part of the occurrence with the golden calf is to be read and interpreted; but the second part [commencing Ex. xxxiv. 21] is to be read without being interpreted. The blessing of the priests, and the occurrence of David and Amnon, are neither to be read nor interpreted; the description

of the Divine Chariot [Ezek. i.] is not to be read as a portion from the Prophets, but R. Jehudah permits it. R. Eliezer says, neither [Ezek. xvi.]: "Cause Jerusalem to know her abominations," etc.

GEMARA: "The rabbis taught: The Scripture about the creation of the world may be read and interpreted." [Is this not self-evident? Lest one say if it will be read and interpreted, one may ask what was before the creation, or what will be after the world, what is taking place above, and what is occurring below, they come to teach us this is not feared.] What happened to Lot and his two daughters may be read and interpreted. [Is this not self-evident? One might say that we should care for the honor of Abraham: they come to teach it is not so.] What happened to Tamar and Jehudah may be read and interpreted. [Is not this self-evident? Lest one say that we should care for the honor of Jehudah, they come to teach us, on the contrary, it is an honor for Jehudah that he confessed it.] What occurred with the golden calf may be read as far as the first part goes, and interpreted. [Is this not self-evident? We might assume we should care for the honor of Israel. They come to teach us that it is more agreeable to them when it is interpreted, that it causes their forgiveness.] The blessings and the curses pronounced by Moses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy may be read and interpreted. [Is this not self-evident? We might assume, perhaps, when they will hear it, they will become dejected, and say: If so, we will do all we please, as we will be punished so terribly in any event: they come to teach us it is not so.] The warnings and punishments may be read and interpreted. [Is this not self-evident? One might say if the punishments will be read, one might think Israel should do their duties only from fear, they come to teach us this is not apprehended.] The story of Abisolom, Amnan, and Tamar may be read and interpreted. [Is this not self-evident? One might say we should spare the honor of David. They tell us it is not so.] The story of the concubine in Gibea may be read and interpreted. [Is not this self-evident? They come to teach us that we should not do as R. Eliezer of the following Boraitha: It happened to a man who read in Ezekiel, xvi.: "Make known unto Jerusalem her abominations," in the presence of R. Eliezer, that R. Eliezer said to him: "Instead of investigating the unworthiness of Jerusalem, go and rather investigate the faults of your mother." When it was heard, an investigation was

made, and it was found he was not a rightful Israelite.] Following are those which may be read, but not interpreted: What happened to Reuben and Bilha may be read, but not interpreted. It happened once to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, who went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read [Gen. xxxv. 22]: "And it came to pass when Israel dwelt," he said to the interpreter: "Stop, do not interpret except the last verse." And the sages commended him for this. The second part of the story about the golden calf may be read, but not interpreted? What is the second part? From Ex. xxxii. 21-25.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: A man should always be prudent in his replies, for from Aaron's answer to Moses, those that murmured became lawless; for they said: There is something in idolatry, for it is written: "And I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf." The Blessing of Priests is read, but not interpreted, because it is written [Num. vi. 26]: "The Lord lift up his countenance."

"The occurrence of David and Amnan." Did we not learn in a Boraitha that the story of Amnan and Tamar is to be read and interpreted? It presents no difficulty: Where "Amnan ben David" is written, it must not be read; but the other places may.

Footnotes

63:1 Tosphoth proposes it should be read Matzaa, of the city of that name, because, If he would be of the Minim, the Gemara would not mention his name. We, however, have explained in our Philacterien-Ritus that Jacob the Mini is right.

64:1 The Gemara deduces this from an analogy of expression, where a congregation is mentioned, and it is said a congregation is not called an assembly if less than ten.

64:2 It is also shown from what the other laws are deduced, but they will all be found in other and mare proper places in the Talmud.

67:1 In our Philacterien-Ritus, pp. 56, 87, 126, we have corrected this misprint as, "it is dangerous and there is no merit in it." We found this misprint corrected in Tract Tephilin of the seven new tracts by Kirchheim.

67:2 About this Mishna we have remarked in our "History of Amulets, Charms, and Talismans," p. 30, note 33, thus: We have already demonstrated in "Phyl.-R.," p. 56 (and at length on p. 65, under the heading ‏אונקלי‎) that the Mishna in Megilla, "If one cover them with gold," etc., "he acts like a dissenter," refers to the Jewish Christians.

67:3 The expression here is not plain. It seems to us that the Mishna meant to say he acts like the Persians, who believe in two Gods--one of good, the other of evil--as the latter part of the Mishna, "who says twice Modin," means: Who praises the God of good for his kindness, and the God of evil that he has not done evil.

Chapter III

*

A*. An infant a day old must be regarded by his parents as if he would be a bridegroom; A1 and not merely a day old, but even if the head and the greater part of the body came out alive. The expression of "a day" is used by the sages because it is more usual. *

B*. An infant dying at birth is interred attended by one woman and two men, and is carried in the hand. Abba Saul, however, said: By two women and one man. The sages objected

to him that one woman is allowed to be with two men in a separate place, but not vice versa. No line of consolers is formed, no mourners' benediction is said, until it is thirty days old. From the age of thirty days till a twelvemonth it may be attended by men and women, and is carried in a case under the arm. From the age of one to three years it is attended by the same, with the addition that it may be carried in a case on the shoulder. R. Jehudah, however, said: If the father desires, a coffin may be brought to the cemetery to bury it in, even if it is not three years old. *

C*. At the age of three it is carried in a hearse. R. Aqiba, however, said: If it is three years old, but looks like two, it is not carried in a hearse; but a hearse may be used for those who look like three even if they are less. Simeon the son of the brother of Azariah said: Anyone borne in a hearse, his praises may be proclaimed. R. Meir in the name of Elazar b. Azariah said: If when he was alive he used to play on the street and was known to the people, then they are obliged to attend, but not otherwise. R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of the same: Even if he was known only to his neighbors. *

D*. Regarding lamentations, R. Meir in the name of R. Ishmael said: The poor are lamented from the age of three, and the rich from the age of five; R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of the same: The poor from the age of five, and the rich from the age of six. R. Aqiba said: The poor from the age of six, and the rich from the age of seven. D1 The poor are lamented the same as the rich, the rich as the children of the sages, and they as the princes. D2 *

E*. A child that was able to act for himself may be lamented for his own virtues; if he has none, for those of his parents; if his parents have no virtues, for those of his other relatives. A bride may be lamented either for the virtues of her father or father-in-law, as honors should be exaggerated and not diminished. No honor is to be invented, but may be added to the original. *

F. In Jerusalem they used to say: "Prepare good things, they shall be used before* thy hearse." In Judah, however, they

used to say: "They shall be used behind thy hearse." Because in Jerusalem the lamenters used to walk in front of the hearse, and proclaimed only the virtues which he possessed; and the people who were behind the hearse, even such as he did not. And in Judah the lamenters were behind the hearse, and they spoke only of the virtues which he possessed; and the people who were behind them did not repeat anything. F1 From the age of three to thirty, one is lamented as if he were a bridegroom; F2 from thirty to forty he is lamented as a brother; F3 from forty to fifty as a father. F4 *

G*. R. Simeon b. Elazar said: From the age of thirty to forty, if he has children, or if most others of his age have grandchildren, he is lamented as a father; otherwise, as a brother. G1 *

H*. One dying under the age of fifty, it may yet be considered as if he were under the punishment of Kareth (short life). When, however, he reaches the age of fifty-two, this was the death of Samuel the Prophet; at the age of sixty, this is the death mentioned in the Scriptures, as it is written [Job, v. 26]: "Thou wilt go in a ripe age unto the grave." At seventy it is considered old age, as it is written [Psalms, xc. 10]: "The days of our years in this life are seventy years." At eighty it is considered uncommon vigor, as it is written [ibid.]: "And if by uncommon vigor they be eighty." "Above that age it is a life of affliction, and so said Barzillai the Gileadite to David," [II Samuel, xix. 36].

Death after only one day of sickness is a death of wrath; at two days, it is a death of terror; at three days, a death of pest; at four and five days, a hastened death; at six days, it is the death mentioned in the Torah; at seven, it is a death of favor; H1 more than that, it is a death of suffering.

The rabbis taught: H2 One who dies suddenly, he is said to have died an abrupt death; if the death was preceded by one day's sickness, it is a hastened death. R. Hananiah, however, said: The latter case is termed a plague-death, as it is written [Ezek. xxiv. 16]: "Son of man, behold, I will take away from thee the desire of thy eyes by a sudden death (plague)"; and it is stated again [ibid. 18]: "And when I had spoken unto the people in the morning, my wife died at evening." If it was preceded by a two days' sickness, it is a hurried death; if by a three days', it is a reproach; if by a four days', a rebuke; but if preceded by a five days' sickness, it is an ordinary death. [Said R. Hanin: From what biblical passage is this adduced? From (Deut. xxxi. 14): "Hehn korvu yomechu lomuth" (Behold, thy days approach that thou must die). "Hehn" means "one" in Greek; "korvu" (in the plural) is two; "yomechu" (in the plural) is also two; altogether five.] Death at the age of fifty is Kareth (cut off); at fifty-two, the age at which Samuel of Ramah died; at sixty, a death by Heaven. H3 [Said Mar Zutra: Whence is this adduced? From (Job, v. 26): "Thou wilt go in a ripe age, ‏בכלח‎ unto the grave," the numerical value of the letters of ‏בכלח‎ H4 being sixty.] Seventy is called an old age; eighty, an age of uncommon vigor, as it is written [Psalms, xc. 10]: "And if by uncommon vigor they be eighty." Rabba, however, said: "From fifty to sixty it is Kareth; and the reason why this is not stated in the Boraitha is because of the honor of Samuel." When R. Joseph arrived at the age of sixty, he gave an entertainment to the rabbis, for he said: "I have passed the age of Kareth." Said Abayi to him: "It is true that the Master has passed the age of Kareth, but has then the Master already passed the day of Kareth?" And he answered him: "Be content for the present with half." R. Huna died suddenly, which caused the rabbis great worry. A couple

of sages of Hadaeb taught them: "It was stated (regarding a sudden death), only when the deceased has not reached the age of eighty; but if he has, it is, on the contrary, considered a death caused by a kiss." Rabha said: Longevity, fertility, and maintenance do not depend on virtue but rather on fate, as is illustrated by the case of Rabba and R. Hisda, both of whom were upright rabbis and both could bring down rain by their prayers, and still R. Hisda died at the age of ninety-two and Rabba at the age of forty. In the house of R. Hisda there were sixty marriages, while in that of Rabba there were sixty deaths. In the house of R. Hisda there was fine white bread in such an abundance that even the dogs did not care for it, while in that of Rabba there was not sufficient barley bread for human beings. Rabha further said: Three things I prayed Heaven to grant me. Two were granted, the third one not: the wisdom of R. Huna and the riches of R. Hisda were granted me, but the modesty of Rabba bar R. Huna was denied to me. R. Seorim (Amram), the brother of Rabha, was sitting at the bedside of Rabha when the latter was in his last agonies. Said Rabha to him: "Let the Master tell him (the angel of death) not to cause me any pain." And he answered him: "Is, then, the Master himself not a friend of him?" Rabha rejoined: "As my fate was already referred to him, he will not care for me any more." R. Seorim then said to the sick: "I would like that the soul of the Master should appear before me." When it was so, R. Seorim asked: "Had the Master felt any pain?" (at the time of the separation of the soul from the body), and he answered: "It was as if pinched with the lancet." Rabha was sitting at the bedside of R. Na'hman when he was in his last agonies, and the latter said: "Let the Master tell him (the angel of death) not to pain me." And he said to him: "Is not the Master a prominent person?" (to tell him so himself). And he answered him: "Who is esteemed, or worthy, or who can contend (at such a moment)?" He then said to the dying: "Let the Master's soul appear before me." When it was so, he asked him: "Had you pain?" And he answered: "It was as easy as to remove a hair from milk; and yet, if the Holy One, blessed be He, would command me to return to the world I was in I would pray permission not to do it, for the fear (of the angel of death) is too great." R. Elazar was eating Trumah (heave-offering) when the death angel appeared before him, and he said to him: "You see that I am now eating Trumah, is it not sacred?" And the appropriate moment passed

over. To R. Shesheth he presented himself in the market, and he said to him: "Do you wish to take me when I am in the market, as if I were an animal? Come to my house." When he presented himself to R. Ashi in the market, the latter said to him: "Extend my time thirty days, so as to enable me to review my studies, as ye say: 'Happy is the person who comes here possessed of his studies.'" On the thirtieth day he appeared again, and R. Ashi said to him: "Why such punctuality?" And he answered him: "You interfere with Bar Nathan, as no regency must interfere with another, even as much as a hair (i.e., R. Nathan cannot become the head of the college so long as you are alive)." R. Hisda could not be overpowered (by the angel of death), for he kept on studying all the time, and the death angel climbed up and hid himself in a cedar in front of Rabha's house. When the cedar broke down, R. Hisda discontinued his study for a moment and he was overpowered at that moment. R. Hyya was inaccessible (to the angel of death). One day he transformed himself into a mendicant, and knocked on the door and asked for a slice of bread. When R. Hyya handed him what he asked for, the angel said to him: "Does not the Master have mercy with a poor man? Why does the Master have no mercy with me? I am the angel of death." And as proof, he showed him the fire-rod. R. Hyya then delivered up his soul to him. *

I*. Said R. Hanina b. Antigonos: If an old man has eaten forbidden things, or intentionally violated the Sabbath, the punishment of which is Kareth, I1 and he is over the age that short life should be applied to him, what will signify to us that his death was that of Kareth? Therefore we must consider that he who died after only three days of sickness, it is a death of Kareth; at four days, it is a hastened death, etc. Said R. Jehudah: The pious of ancient times have suffered of the sickness of the intestines two or three days before their death, I2 for the purpose of cleaning their bodies of all food and drink, that they should enter clean in the world to come, as it is written [Proverbs, xxvii. 21]: "(As) the fining-pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, so is a man (proved) according to his praise."

Footnotes

6:A1

CHAPTER III.

*

A. See Nidah, 44b*, where it is explained that an infant even a day old must be regarded as a bridegroom, if someone kills it, and the same language is used here.

7:D1 D. Rashi explains this: Because the pain of the poor on the death of their children is much greater than that of the rich, as their children are their only joy, having no others.

7:D2 It means that no distinction must be made from the rank of the parents, but from the corpse itself, as all Israel is alike in pedigree.

8:F1 F. We have translated according to the corrections of Elias Wilna, and as Rashi explains it in Sabbath, 153a, old edition.

8:F2 It means to say, as he was in the best vigor of his life, the lamentations were as great as if it had happened to a bridegroom standing under the canopy.

8:F3 It means that he was an active member of society, and his loss is felt by everybody.

8:F4 Who was active so long that he was considered as a father.

8:G1 G. One of the commentators supposes that at that time there were separate customs for a father, brother, etc. It seems to us, however, that our interpretation is right.

8:H1 H. As six days are enough for one to reconsider all he has done in his life and to make his will, leaving the seventh for the purpose p. 9 of taking his leave from his family. Where, however, six days of sickness are mentioned in the Torah we cannot imagine, nor do we find it in any of the commentators.

9:H2 All paragraphs beginning with, "The rabbis taught," or with italics, are transferred from Moed Katan (see there note, p. 27). The paragraphs not so beginning will be marked in the Commentary Gemara.

9:H3 There are different penalties for crimes: Kareth; death by Heaven; and death by the court, which latter was in four different forms.

9:H4 This Hebrew word aggregates sixty; namely, the first letter (from right to left) counts two, the second twenty, the third thirty, and the last eight.

11:I1 I. Leviticus, vii. 25.

11:I2 According to Elias Wilna's corrections, and according to him, it is to be understood that R. Jehudah opposes R. Hanina b. Antigonos, and maintains that even a pious man may die in two or three days. The text, however, reads twenty days.

JSON: /api/sources/talmud/vol-4-07-chapter-iii.json