abaye

Abaye said to him: If so, if a man made his sukkah in Ashteroth Karnayim would it also not be a valid sukkah?

Abaye said to him: If so, if he made walls of iron and placed the [proper] skhakh over them, would it also not be a valid Sukkah.

[A sukkah] was ten tefah tall, and palm leaves descend fall within ten. Abaye thought to say: If the sun is greater than the shade, then it is valid.

If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one built in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and [the pillar] was large enough for a valid sukkah,[in this case] Abaye intended to draw the partitions upward,

Abaye said to him: If so, how will you explain that which is written, "The first face was the face of the cherub and the second face the face of a man," (Ezekiel 10:14) seeing that the face of a cherub is the same as that of a man? [One has] a large face and the other a small face

Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of ‘since’? Was it not in fact taught: ‘[The rules relating to] a wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to a wall for Shabbat, as long as there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds.

Rav Yemar b. Shelemiah said in the name of Abaye: What is the reason of R. Yoshayah? As it is written: "And you shall cover the ark with the veil" (Exodus 40:3). Now since the ‘veil’ was a partition and the Torah called it a ‘covering’ it is evident that a partition [for the sukkah] must be as [close] as the covering.

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

Rav Judah ruled: One may use fern or wormwood as skhakh. Abaye ruled: One may use fern as skhakh, but not wormwood. What is the reason?

R. Hanan b. Rava said: Izma and hegeh (two types of prickly shrubs) may be used as skhakh. Abaye said: Izma may be used, but not hegeh. What is the reason? Since their leaves fall off, one might leave the Sukkah and depart.

Abaye said: Whatever had different names prior to the giving of the Torah, and yet the Torah made specific mention of the general name [the intention is to exclude such of the species which] have special names. But these did not have different names before the giving of the Torah at all.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.

Abaye said to him: But also according to the master, while we can admit that their measures are unequal in a large sukkah, but in a small sukkah are they not equal?

Abaye ruled: An air space of three handbreadths in a large sukkah which is diminished with either sticks or spits is a [valid] diminution; in a small Sukkah, with sticks it is a [valid] diminution, with spits an invalid one.

This is like that which Abaye said; the tzahanta of Bab Nahara are permitted. What is the reason? and an unclean fish, since it has no spinal cord, cannot exist therein, [it could be retorted that] we see that they do exist [in rivers with rapid currents].

It was stated: If one placed skhakh over an exedra which has pillars, it is valid If it has no pillars: Abaye declares it valid and Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid [since]

It was stated: If one placed skhakh over an exedra which has pillars, it is valid If it has no pillars: Abaye declares it valid and Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid [since]

Rava said to Abaye: according to you who say that the edge of the roof [is regarded as though it] descends and fills in [the space, is a sukkah valid] even if the middle wall is missing? .He answered him, In that case I agree with you [that the Sukkah is invalid] since it would be like an alley-way that is open on two opposite sides.

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated: If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space; While Samuel said that it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?

They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav. Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].

Rava explained according to Abaye that this is a case where one made the beams level.

In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all. If it has pillars: Abaye declares it valid, while Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.

In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all. If it has pillars: Abaye declares it valid, while Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.

Abaye found R. Joseph sleeping on a bridal bed in a Sukkah He said to him ‘According to whom [do you act]? According to R. Eliezer? Do you then forsake the Rabbis and act according to R. Eliezer?’

He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’

Abaye said to him, If so, [instead of] R. Eliezer says, whether it is small or large, it ought to read, Whether it is large or small?

But a door has many fistfuls and yet R. Judah teaches, ‘They did not bring doors but oxen’? Abaye replied, [It means that] they did not need to bring doors.

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

What is the reason of R. Meir? Abaye said: Lest it die. R. Zera said: Lest it escape. Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass. Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up. According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned; According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.

But did Abaye say that R. Meir is concerned because of the possibility of death while R. Judah is not concerned? But haven't we learned: If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, she may eat of terumah on the presumption that he is still alive

Abaye answered that there is no difficulty, ... since the former [statement] is according to R. Meir who is not concerned with the possibility of death, while the latter is according to R. Judah who is concerned the possibility of death

But let them do the huppah in the Sukkah? Abaye says: [They cannot] because of seclusion. And Rava said, Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom. What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference between them is a case where people are going in and out of there. According to the one who said "because of seclusion", the restriction does not apply; according to the one who said because of discomfort to the groom, it does.

Watchmen of gardens and orchards are exempt both by day and by night. But let them make a Sukkah there and dwell in it? Abaye said, "You shall dwell" as you normally dwell

Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah. How much is considered casual eating? R. Joseph said, [The volume of] two or three eggs. Abaye said to him: But sometimes this suffices for [a whole meal for] a man, and then it would be a set meal? ... Rather Abaye said: as much as a student and then goes into the learning session.

Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah. How much is considered casual eating? R. Joseph said, [The volume of] two or three eggs. Abaye said to him: But sometimes this suffices for [a whole meal for] a man, and then it would be a set meal? ... Rather Abaye said: as much as a student and then goes into the learning session.

Abaye said to him But what about that which has been taught, "A man may sleep casually while wearing his , but not set regular, let us be concerned lest he fall fast asleep? R. Joseph b. R. Ila'i said: his refers to a person who entrusts his sleep to others.

Abaye said, The sleep of the Master is as that of Rav, and that of Rav as that of Rabbi and that of Rabbi as of David, and that of David as of a horse, and that of a horse is sixty breaths.

Abaye slept [by day] as long as it takes to go up from Pumbeditha to Be Kube. R. Joseph applied to him the verse, "How long will you sleep, O sluggard, when will you arise out of your sleep" (Proverbs 6:9).

Shall we say that R. Yose is of the opinion that a man who has seminal emission may not wear his tefillin? Abaye answered: We are dealing here with the case of young men in the company of their wives, lest they grow accustomed to the practice.

But if it was the bulk of an egg, he must [eat it in] the Sukkah. Should we say that this is a refutation of R. Joseph and Abaye? Perhaps [it means that] less than the bulk of an egg does not necessitate washing of the hands and the benediction, but if it was the bulk of an egg, it necessitates washing of the hands and the benediction.

A “Great Thing,” is the workings of the Chariot. A “Small thing,” is the legal discourses of Abaye and Rava. All of this in order to fulfill what is said, “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.” (Prov. 8:21) And since this was true of the lowest of them, how much more so was the greatest? It is said when Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel was studying Torah, any bird that flew overhead was immediately burned.

the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah? Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one's permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.

Abaye was sitting before R. Joseph in a Sukkah. The wind blew and it brought down twigs [into the food]. R. Joseph said to them: Clear my vessels out of here. Abaye said to him, ‘But have we not taught, "once the porridge is spoiled." He answered him: For me, since I am delicate, this is like the porridge becoming spoiled for me.

Abaye was sitting before R. Joseph in a Sukkah. The wind blew and it brought down twigs [into the food]. R. Joseph said to them: Clear my vessels out of here. Abaye said to him, ‘But have we not taught, "once the porridge is spoiled." He answered him: For me, since I am delicate, this is like the porridge becoming spoiled for me.

But perhaps it means the spiky part of the palms? Abaye answered, It is written, “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

"The thorny palms of the Iron Mountain are valid." Abaye said: They taught this only when the top of one [leaf] reaches the junction of the next, but if the top of the one does not reach the junction of the next, it is invalid.

It was also taught: The thorny palms of the Iron Mountain are invalid. But have we not learned that they are valid? Rather deduce from this like the teaching of Abaye. Deduce from this.

There are those who cast one [source] against the other: We have learnt: he thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid. But has it not been taught that they are invalid? Abaye answered, There is no difficulty: The one refers to where the top of the one leaf reaches the junction of the next; the other to where the top of the one does not reach the junction of the other.

But perhaps it is the oleander? Abaye said, "Its ways are the ways of pleasantness" and [with the oleander] this is not the case. Raba said [the same] from the following verse, "Therefore love truth and peace."

Abaye said: It is possible

with the Egyptian hadas which has seven [leaves] in each nest, and [therefore] when four fall off, there are still three left Abaye said: [From this] we can deduce that the Egyptian myrtle is valid for the hoshanna.

R. Ashi said: This is a case where he plucked them for food, and R. Eliezer son of R. Shimon holds the same opinion as his father who said that a work which is done without intention is permitted. But do not both Abaye and Raba say that

Abaye said to him: Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation: "He placed it beside many waters," and what was it? A tzaftzefah? If so, what does "he set it" mean? R. Abbahu said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before me as something placed beside many waters that is, a willow, but they have made themselves as a tzaftzefah of the mountains

Our rabbis taught: What is an aravah and what is a tzaftzefah? A willow its stem is red, its leaf is elongated and its edge is smooth; the tzaftzefah its stem is white, its leaf is round and its edge is like a sickle But has it not been taught: If it is like a sickle it is valid, if like a saw it is invalid? Abaye said: That was taught only with regard to the rounded aravah.

Abaye said: deduce from here that a rounded aravah is valid for the hoshanna But is this not obvious? What might you have said? Since it has an accompanying name it would not be valid, therefore he informs us [that it is not so].

Abaye said: I also add [that what was formerly called] bei kasei [is now called] huvlila, and huvlila is now called bei kasei.

The Master has said: An Ethiopian etrog is invalid. But has it not been taught: If it is Ethiopian it is valid, if it is like an Ethiopian, it is invalid? Abaye answered, In our Mishnah also we learned of one that is like an Ethiopian. Raba answered, There is no difficulty. The former refers to us, the latter to them.

Abaye said to him: But perhaps it is not so. R. Akiva may have stated his view only here, since the etrog must be "goodly," while [an unripe etrog] is not, but there he may agree with the sages

Where the custom obtains to repeat. It was taught: Rabbi used to repeat [certain] words in it; R. Elazar b. Perata used to add [certain] words in it. What does it mean to add? Abaye explained: He added the doubling beginning with "I will give thanks" to the end of the Psalm.

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act]. Abaye said:

They taught [that he is not liable] only when he had not yet fulfilled his obligation, but if he had fulfilled his obligation, he is liable. But once he lifts it up, he has fulfilled his obligation! Abaye answered: This is a case] where he held it upside down.

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

But are those who see Him through a bright speculum so few? Did not Abaye in fact state: The world never has less than thirty-six righteous people who see the Shekhinah every day, for it is said, “Happy are they that wait lo [for Him]” (Isaiah 30:18) and the numerical value of lo is thirty-six? There is no difficulty: The latter number refers to those who may enter [the Divine Presence] with permission, the former to those who may enter without permission.

It was stated: Abaye said he law is in agreement with Rabbi. But Rava said: The law is in agreement with the sages. R. Mari the son of Shmuel’s daughter, I noticed that Rava himself did not act in accordance with his own ruling but rising early, he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing, and when he had to go a second time he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing again. We too act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi and recite the blessing all seven days.

R. Papa said to Abaye: To R. Yohanan what is the difference between the Sukkah and the etrog?

And as for us who have two days [of the Festival] what are we to do? Abaye said: On the eighth day which may be the seventh it is forbidden; on the ninth day which may be the eighth, it is permitted. Meremar said: Even on the eighth day, which may be the seventh, it is permitted.

In Sura they acted in accordance with the ruling of Meremar. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi acted in accordance with the ruling of Abaye. And the law is in agreement with Abaye.

In Sura they acted in accordance with the ruling of Meremar. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi acted in accordance with the ruling of Abaye. And the law is in agreement with Abaye.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple? Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod.

Abaye stated: Alexander of Macedonia slew them all. Why were they so punished? Because they transgressed this verse: “You shall not return and come back on this way” (Deuteronomy 17:16) and they did return.

“And will drive him into a land barren and desolate” to a place where there are no men for him to attack; “With his face toward the eastern sea (hadkomoni)”: that he set his eyes against the First Temple and destroyed it and slew the scholars who were in it; “And his back part toward the western sea”: that he set his eyes against the Second Temple and destroyed it and slew the scholars who were in it. “And the stench of it shall go up and the foul smell rise”: that he leaves the other nations in peace and attacks only Israel. “Because he has done great things”: Abaye explained: Against scholars more than against anyone else;

as was the case when Abaye heard a certain man saying to a woman, “Let’s get up early and go on our way.” Abaye said: I will follow them in order to keep them away from transgression” and he followed them for three parasangs across the meadows. When they parted company he heard them say, “Our company is pleasant, the way is long.”

as was the case when Abaye heard a certain man saying to a woman, “Let’s get up early and go on our way.” Abaye said: I will follow them in order to keep them away from transgression” and he followed them for three parasangs across the meadows. When they parted company he heard them say, “Our company is pleasant, the way is long.”

Abaye said: If that had been I could not have restrained myself. He went and leaned in deep anguish against a doorpost, when a certain old man came up to him and taught him: The greater the man, the greater his Evil Inclination.

Levi used to juggle in the presence of Rabbi with eight knives, Shmuel before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine, and Abaye before Rabbah with eight eggs or, as some say, with four eggs.

But how is this learning made? Abaye said: The verse says, “And on your New Moons,” whereby all the months are compared with one another. R. Ashi answered: It is written, “Your month” and it is written “On the beginnings of.” What month is it that has two beginnings? It is, you must say, Rosh Hashanah, and the Torah nevertheless says, “your month” — it is to be regarded as one.

And we who keep two days [of the Festival], how do we proceed? Abaye ruled: The [paragraph for the] second day is to be omitted. Raba ruled,

But why the extra two? R. Yitzchak said: As a reward for the closing of the doors. But [why should not the outgoing watch] say to the other, "Take less for less"? Abaye said: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full grown one [in the field].

It goes well according to the one who stated that this watch was late in arriving, since for this reason the whole course might be penalized; but according to the one who stated that it was because of Miriam the daughter of Bilgah who apostatized, do we penalize [even a] father on account of his daughter? Abaye said: Indeed, as people say, “The talk of a child in the market-place, is either that of his father or of his mother.” May we then penalize the whole watch on account of her father or mother?

Abaye said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor; it is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor; as it is said, “Say you of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”.

Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”

Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”

He sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cup full of long-stalked pepper. Abaye said: Now the Master [Rabbah] will say, I sent him sweet and he sends me bitter.

Abaye said: When I went out of the Master’s [Rabbah’s] house, I was already full, but when I reached the other place they set before me sixty dishes of sixty different preparations, and I had sixty pieces from them. The last preparation was called pot-roast, and [I liked it so much that] I wanted to lick the dish after it.

Abaye said: This is what people say, The poor man is hungry and does not know it. Or the other saying, There is always room for sweet things.

Abaye b. Abin and R. Hananiah b. Abin used to exchange their meals with one another.

R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use this “from his issue” to include a zav who has had two observations, and the other “from his issue” to exclude a zav who has had two observations?

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then when it says, “All the days during which the plague is in him he shall be unclean” (Leviticus 13:46), are we to say that one whose scale disease is due to his state of body is required to be sent out of the camp, but one whose scale disease is not due to his state of body is not to be sent out of the camp?

Abaye replied: The verse says: “And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of scale disease is healed in the metzora” (Leviticus 14:3); one whose scale disease is dependent upon healing, and excludes one whose scale disease is not dependent on healing but on days [of isolation].

Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!

Rabbah said: [She said], “Pride goes before the fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Abaye and Rava both of whom said: [She said], “With their poison I will prepare their feast” (Jeremiah 51:39). Rabbah b. Abbuha found Elijah and said to him: Which of these reasons prompted Esther to act as she did? He replied: [All] the reasons given by all the Tannaim and all the Amoraim.

Abaye asked R. Joseph: [When it says] “long enough to finish the whole of it” does it mean from where he is to the end, or from the beginning to the end? He answered: It means from the beginning to the end, for otherwise there would be no fixed standard.

Abaye allowed the members of the household of Bar Habu to write tefillin and mezuzot without a copy. Whose authority did he follow? The following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Jeremiah says in the name of our Teacher: Tefillin and mezuzot may be written out without a copy, and do not require to be written upon ruled lines.

Abaye raised an objection: If a resident of a walled city went to a town, in any case he reads according to the custom of his own place. “A resident of a walled city” would you really think? His rule depends on whether he means to return. Rather, this is “a villager.”