additional

MISHNAH: After they stood to pray they place before the Ark an old knowledgeable man who has children but his house is empty so that his mind should be concentrated on prayer. He recites before them 24 benedictions, eighteen of the daily prayers and additional six. These are they, Zikhronot and Shofarot. To the Eternal in my straights. I lifted my eyes to the Mountains. From the depths I called on You, Eternal. Prayer of the poor who is fainting

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar. Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them. If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there: “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally.” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition, it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters. In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented. If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective.

MISHNAH: When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth. They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges them with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim.

MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate. If one was an Israel and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim. If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke, so for the “yoke” said for the cow we have to treat all work as a yoke. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional, so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables, also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable? The verse says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf. Then it also says “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?

The place where it falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits. Rebbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits. Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference.

They added three additional cases: One who was dragged away by a wild animal, one who was swept away by a river, and one buried by a collapse. One puts the restrictions of the living and the dead on her: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.

If he was married to her sister who died. For him who says, he gives money for the allotment at the end, she needs additional money. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she does not need additional money. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she needs additional money. Why? Everybody agrees that preliminary marriage is impossible in an incestuous relationship.

If he was married to her sister who died. For him who says, he gives money for the allotment at the end, she needs additional money. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she does not need additional money. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she needs additional money. Why? Everybody agrees that preliminary marriage is impossible in an incestuous relationship.

If he was married to her sister who died. For him who says, he gives money for the allotment at the end, she needs additional money. For him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she does not need additional money. Even for him who says, the money for allotment was given at the first hour, she needs additional money. Why? Everybody agrees that preliminary marriage is impossible in an incestuous relationship.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Intentionally desecrated Temple property becomes profane without redemption. But did we not state: “In error,” that excludes intention? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The excluded well-being offerings become profane without redemption. But did we not state: “From the sancta,” not all sancta? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Intentionally desecrated Temple property becomes profane without redemption. But did we not state: “In error,” that excludes intention? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The excluded well-being offerings become profane without redemption. But did we not state: “From the sancta,” not all sancta? That you say for the additional fifth and the sacrifice, but profaned it is.

“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one hands over, etc., even at a place where one pays additional money for exertion, and one is not worried because of interest.”

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults. But if the underaged found something additional and protested? Rebbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rebbi [Yose] bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

MISHNAH: Whether matters of himself, or matters of others, or material matters, or immaterial matters. How is this? An oath that I shall give to X, or that I shall not give, that I gave, or that I did not give, that I shall sleep, or that I shall not sleep, that I slept, or that I did not sleep, that I shall throw a pebble into the sea, or that I shall not throw, that I threw, or that I did not throw. Rebbi Ismael said, he is liable only for the future, for it is said to cause evil or cause good. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if it is so then this refers only to matters of causing evil or good; from where matters which do not refer to causing evil or good? He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the additional text of the verse is for this, the additional text of the verse is for the other.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

Rav Huna said, if after he swore he brought witnesses that it was standing at the feeding trough, the oath already had robbed it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Huna: “ ‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, it was lost. ‘I am putting an oath on you,’ and he said Amen. But witnesses testify that he ate it. He has to pay the value. If he confessed on his own, he pays the value, an additional fifth, and a reparation offering”. The Mishnah if he ate it and only later swore to him. What Rav Huna said, it he swore to him and only later ate it.

[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three. This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina] said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three. This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina] said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

As far the Tefillah of the evening, it has no fixed time. The additional Tefillah [may be said] at any time in the day. R. Judah says : Until the seventh hour.

And why is it declared : The additional Tefillah [may be said] at any time in the day? Because the additional offering could be brought at any time during the day. R. Judah says : Until the seventh hour, because the additional offering could be brought until the seventh hour.

And why is it declared : The additional Tefillah [may be said] at any time in the day? Because the additional offering could be brought at any time during the day. R. Judah says : Until the seventh hour, because the additional offering could be brought until the seventh hour.

And why is it declared : The additional Tefillah [may be said] at any time in the day? Because the additional offering could be brought at any time during the day. R. Judah says : Until the seventh hour, because the additional offering could be brought until the seventh hour.

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

What, then, does it signify? Until but not including. Let me, then, quote the sequel of the teaching: The additional Tefillah [may he said] at any time in the day. R. Judah says: Until the seventh hour. But there is a teaching: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one the additional and the other of the afternoon, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional ; because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says: He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because [the time of the former] lapses, but the other does not.

What, then, does it signify? Until but not including. Let me, then, quote the sequel of the teaching: The additional Tefillah [may he said] at any time in the day. R. Judah says: Until the seventh hour. But there is a teaching: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one the additional and the other of the afternoon, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional ; because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says: He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because [the time of the former] lapses, but the other does not.

What, then, does it signify? Until but not including. Let me, then, quote the sequel of the teaching: The additional Tefillah [may he said] at any time in the day. R. Judah says: Until the seventh hour. But there is a teaching: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one the additional and the other of the afternoon, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional ; because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says: He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because [the time of the former] lapses, but the other does not.

What, then, does it signify? Until but not including. Let me, then, quote the sequel of the teaching: The additional Tefillah [may he said] at any time in the day. R. Judah says: Until the seventh hour. But there is a teaching: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one the additional and the other of the afternoon, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional ; because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says: He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because [the time of the former] lapses, but the other does not.

That is quite right if thou maintainest that "until" means including, and thus the two Tefillot are found together; but if thou maintainest that "until" means excluding, how is it these two Tefillot are found together? For when the time of the afternoon Tefillah has arrived, the time of the additional Tefillah has passed!

The additional Tefillah [may he said] at any time in the day. [R. Judah says: Until the seventh hour.] R. Johanan said : If one reads it after the seventh hour, he is called a transgressor.

Our Rabbis have taught: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one of the afternoon and the other the additional, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional, because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says : He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because the former is a duty that lapses, but the other is not. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is — one first says the afternoon Tefillah and then the additional.

Our Rabbis have taught: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one of the afternoon and the other the additional, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional, because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says : He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because the former is a duty that lapses, but the other is not. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is — one first says the afternoon Tefillah and then the additional.

Our Rabbis have taught: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one of the afternoon and the other the additional, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional, because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says : He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because the former is a duty that lapses, but the other is not. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is — one first says the afternoon Tefillah and then the additional.

Our Rabbis have taught: If there be before a man two Tefillot, one of the afternoon and the other the additional, he should say that of the afternoon and afterwards the additional, because the former is constant, the latter not constant. R. Judah says : He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon, because the former is a duty that lapses, but the other is not. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is — one first says the afternoon Tefillah and then the additional.

When R. Zera was weary of study, he used to go and sit at the entrance of the school of R. Nathan b. Tobi saying, "When the Rabbis pass by, I will stand up before them and receive the reward" He once went out ; and when R. Nathan b. Tobi came he asked him, "Who is stating the Halakah in the House of Study?" He replied, "Thus spake R. Johanan : The Halakah is not according to R. Judah who said , 'He should first recite the additional Tefillah and afterwards that of the afternoon'."

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Whoever prays the additional Tefillah after the seventh hour, as taught by R. Judah, of him the Scriptures state, "Those who are smitten [nuge] because of the advocated appointed seasons will I gather, who are of thee" (Zeph. iii. 18). How is it known that nuge is a term of "breaking" ? As Rab Joseph translated : "A breach has come upon the enemies of the house of Israel because they delayed the times of the festivals in Jerusalem."

Rab Iwya was ill and did not attend Rab Joseph's discourse. The next day when he arrived, Abbai wished to set Rab Joseph's mind at rest ; so he said to him, "For what reason did not the master attend the discourse?" He replied, "My heart was faint and I could not." He asked him, "Why didst thou not eat something and come?" He answered, "Does not the master agree with the opinion of Rab Huna who said : It is forbidden a man to eat anything before praying the additional Tefillah?" He replied, "Then the master should have said the additional Tefillah by himself and eaten something and attended." He said to him, "Does not the master agree with the opinion of R. Johanan who declared : A man is forbidden to anticipate the congregational Tefillah by praying alone?" He replied, "But has it not been reported in this connection : R. Abba said : This teaching applies only when he is with the Congregation?"

Rab Iwya was ill and did not attend Rab Joseph's discourse. The next day when he arrived, Abbai wished to set Rab Joseph's mind at rest ; so he said to him, "For what reason did not the master attend the discourse?" He replied, "My heart was faint and I could not." He asked him, "Why didst thou not eat something and come?" He answered, "Does not the master agree with the opinion of Rab Huna who said : It is forbidden a man to eat anything before praying the additional Tefillah?" He replied, "Then the master should have said the additional Tefillah by himself and eaten something and attended." He said to him, "Does not the master agree with the opinion of R. Johanan who declared : A man is forbidden to anticipate the congregational Tefillah by praying alone?" He replied, "But has it not been reported in this connection : R. Abba said : This teaching applies only when he is with the Congregation?"

MISHNAH R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says : The additional Tefillah is only to be said with the local Congregation. The Sages say: Whether with or without the local Congregation. R. Judah says in his name: In any place where there is a local Congregation, the individual is exempt from the additional Tefillah.

MISHNAH R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says : The additional Tefillah is only to be said with the local Congregation. The Sages say: Whether with or without the local Congregation. R. Judah says in his name: In any place where there is a local Congregation, the individual is exempt from the additional Tefillah.

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

Rab Huna b. Hinnana said in the name of Rab Hiyya b. Rab : The Halakah is in agreement with R. Judah as stated in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. Rab Hiyya b. Abin said to him : Thou hast said well ; for Samuel has declared : Never have I said the additional Tefillah alone

If a man erred and omitted the reference to the New Moon in the evening Tefillah, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the morning Tefillah; [if he omitted it] in the morning, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the additional Tefillah ; [if he omitted it] in the additional Tefillah, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the afternoon ! "

If a man erred and omitted the reference to the New Moon in the evening Tefillah, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the morning Tefillah; [if he omitted it] in the morning, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the additional Tefillah ; [if he omitted it] in the additional Tefillah, we do not require him to repeat it, because he can say it in the afternoon ! "

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed. This is evident ! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if he paid its value but not the additional fifth ; hence he informs us that [not having paid] the additional fifth does not prevent him [from being included for Zimmun].

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed. This is evident ! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if he paid its value but not the additional fifth ; hence he informs us that [not having paid] the additional fifth does not prevent him [from being included for Zimmun].

There is certainly also a prohibition [about the light kindled by an Israelite from a gentile], but when he says the benediction he does so over the additional part which is permitted. If so, a light kindled by a gentile from a gentile should also be allowed !

R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a loose handbreadth and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hanania stated: When we used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoeavh our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour [was occupied with] the daily morning sacrifice; from there [we proceeded] to prayers; from there [we proceeded] to the additional sacrifice, then the additional prayers, then to the Bet Midrash, then to eating and drinking, then to Minhah, then to the daily evening sacrifice, and after that the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.

It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hanania stated: When we used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoeavh our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour [was occupied with] the daily morning sacrifice; from there [we proceeded] to prayers; from there [we proceeded] to the additional sacrifice, then the additional prayers, then to the Bet Midrash, then to eating and drinking, then to Minhah, then to the daily evening sacrifice, and after that the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.

1) They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight. 2) Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. 3) At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine.

5) On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.

When R. Aha b. Hanina came from the south, he brought a baraita with him: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with trumpets” (Numbers 10:8). For Scripture would not have needed to state explicitly “shall blow” since it is also written, “You shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offering sand over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10). Why then was it stated, “shall blow”? [To teach you that] the sounding of the trumpets is in accordance with the number of the additional offerings. He taught this [baraitha] and he also explained it to mean that the trumpet is to be sounded for every single additional offering.

When R. Aha b. Hanina came from the south, he brought a baraita with him: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with trumpets” (Numbers 10:8). For Scripture would not have needed to state explicitly “shall blow” since it is also written, “You shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offering sand over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10). Why then was it stated, “shall blow”? [To teach you that] the sounding of the trumpets is in accordance with the number of the additional offerings. He taught this [baraitha] and he also explained it to mean that the trumpet is to be sounded for every single additional offering.

Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?

Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?

Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?

Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?

R. Yohanan said: To let people know that the New Moon has been fixed at its proper time. Do we then use this as a distinguishing sign? Do we not in fact use another distinguishing sign, as we have learned: “The fats of the Morning Tamid offering were placed on the lower half of the Ascent [of the altar] on its east side, while those of the additional offerings were placed on the lower half of the Ascent on its west side; while those of the New Moon were placed beneath the rim of the altar below,”

An objection was raised: Rava b. Samuel taught: It might have been that that just as they sound a blast for Shabbat on its own and for Rosh Hodesh on its own, so too they sound a blast for each additional offering (musaf) separately. scripture says, “And on your New Moons” (Numbers 10:10). This is a refutation of R. Aha. It is indeed a refutation.

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

6. If these fast days are over and the community's prayer has not been answered, the court orders three more fasts for the community. On the days preceding these fasts one may eat and drink until sunset only, and on the fast days proper, work, bathing, anointing oneself, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden. The bath-houses must be closed. If these fast days, too, are over and the community has not been answered, the court orders seven additional fasts for the community, making in all thirteen fasts. In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. On the fasts falling on a Monday, the doors of the shops may be slightly opened toward nightfall, while on Thursdays they may be kept open all day for the sake of the approaching Sabbath.

But if he agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, let him also have the rain mentioned on the second day! R. 'Aḳiba holds that the Scriptural allusion to an additional libation is found first in the verse referring to the sixth day.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.10): "If the iron be blunt and one do not whet the edge"? If thou seest a generation over which the heavens are as tough as iron, sending neither dew nor rain, it is due to the people's corrupt deeds, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is the remedy? They should pray much, as it is said (ibid.): "Then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that the additional praying will prove more profitable if the people's deeds are still good. Resh Laḳish explains it thus: When thou seest a scholar

3. These are the additional benedictions: the Zikrōnōt, the Shōfārōt, and Psalms 120, 121, 130, 102. R. Judah said, he does not have to recite the Zikrōnōt and the Shōfārōt, but, instead, he recites the passages: I Kings, 8. 37-41, and Jer., 14. 1-10. To each of these six he adds the appropriate concluding eulogy.

4. On days when Hallel is recited, there is no Ma'amad service in the morning (שחרית); on days when an additional (Musaf) offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Minḥah prayer; on days when a wood-offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Ne'ilah (closing) prayer; this is the opinion of R. 'Aḳiba. Ben 'Azzai said to him: thus R. Joshua taught: On days when an additional offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Ne'ilah prayer, but when a wood-offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Minḥah prayer. R. 'Aḳiba then accepted the version of Ben 'Azzai.

4. On days when Hallel is recited, there is no Ma'amad service in the morning (שחרית); on days when an additional (Musaf) offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Minḥah prayer; on days when a wood-offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Ne'ilah (closing) prayer; this is the opinion of R. 'Aḳiba. Ben 'Azzai said to him: thus R. Joshua taught: On days when an additional offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Ne'ilah prayer, but when a wood-offering is brought, there is no Ma'amad service during the Minḥah prayer. R. 'Aḳiba then accepted the version of Ben 'Azzai.

On the first of Ṭebet there were no Ma'amad services at all, because on that day Hallel was recited and an additional offering as well as a wood-offering were brought.

subdivided them into twenty-four. Signal-cards for the thus formed twenty-four divisions were then mixed together and put in an urn. A member of the division of Jedaiah drew first a card which showed his division, then five additional cards, which likewise showed his division; that made six. The same was done by Harim, Pashhur and Immer, for the prophets that were among them had stipulated that even if the house of Jehojarib which, at the time of the First Temple, headed all the twenty-four divisions (I Chron., 24. 7), should happen to go up to Jerusalem, Jedaiah should not be removed from his place as the first, but should form the head-division, while Jehojarib should take rank as his inferior.

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On days when Hallel was to be recited, there was no Ma'amad, etc. Why should there be such a distinction between the one (the day with a Musaf offering) and the other (the day with a wood offering)? Answer: The Musaf offering is a biblical ordinance and therefore requires no additional protection by the Rabbis (hence it is enough when it is made to supersede the Ma'amad during Minḥah service only), but the wood offering is a rabbinical enactment and therefore must have special protection (hence the wood offering is made to supersede both the Minḥah and the Ne'ilah services of the Ma'amad).

But says “numerous times”? “Their times” is similar to “their time.” Just as “their time” would indicate two [days], so “their times” indicates two [additional days].

There is no difference between a priest anointed with the oil of anointment and one who [only] wears the additional garments except for the bull which is offered for the [unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments.

The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.

What is the reason of R. Meir? As it has been taught; “[If the] anointed [priest shall sin]” (Leviticus 4:3): I only know of the one anointed with the oil of anointment. From where do I know that this applies also to one who [merely] wears the additional garments? Because it says, the “anointed.”

For the blowing of the shofar, as it is written, “It is a day of blasting for you” (Numbers 29:1). For the additional sacrifices, as it is written, “Each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). And for the musaf prayer: Because the rabbis made them like the additional sacrifices.

For the blowing of the shofar, as it is written, “It is a day of blasting for you” (Numbers 29:1). For the additional sacrifices, as it is written, “Each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). And for the musaf prayer: Because the rabbis made them like the additional sacrifices.

And Shmuel held that we may divide. But did not R. Hananiah the Bible teacher say: I was in great pain in the house of R. Hanina the Great, for he would not allow me to make [additional verse] divisions except for the school children, because they are there to be taught?

This is the general rule: whenever there is a musaf etc. They asked: How many read on a public fast day? On Rosh Hodeah and the intermediate days of the festival when there is an additional sacrifice four read, but here where there is no additional sacrifice this is not the case? Or here also there is an additional prayer [and therefore four read]?

This is the general rule: whenever there is a musaf etc. They asked: How many read on a public fast day? On Rosh Hodeah and the intermediate days of the festival when there is an additional sacrifice four read, but here where there is no additional sacrifice this is not the case? Or here also there is an additional prayer [and therefore four read]?

This is the general rule: whenever there is a musaf etc. They asked: How many read on a public fast day? On Rosh Hodeah and the intermediate days of the festival when there is an additional sacrifice four read, but here where there is no additional sacrifice this is not the case? Or here also there is an additional prayer [and therefore four read]?