ama

Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject, he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah, which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers.The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command. “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone.

HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered. As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden. May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden. It was found stated, one asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer, for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation. What about it? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

The king has precedence over the High Priest, as it is written: You shall let my son Solomon ride, etc. The High Priest over the prophet, as it is written: There, Ṣadoq the Priest and Nathan the Prophet shall anoint him as king, etc. He mentioned Ṣadoq before Nathan. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: The prophet folds his hands and feet and sits before the High Priest. What is his reason? Listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends who are sitting before you. I could think that they were common people; the verse says, because they are men of miracle, and “miracle” only means prophecy, as you say, and he gave you a sign or a miracle.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds of blood are impure from a woman,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say that there are four kinds of blood. The red one oxydizes and becomes black. Samuel said, black comes from all of them. From where that there are five kinds of blood impure by the Torah? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “she uncovered the source of her bloods,” “she shall be purified from the source of her bloods,” “blood will be the excretion of her genitals.” But “a woman whose excretion of blood flows” is also there! That only comes to her in the days of her excessive flow to turn her into a zavah. From where that there is impure and pure blood? Rebbi Ḥama ben Joseph in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: It is written: “If something in the law is too difficult for you;” then it is not written “whether blood and blood” but “between blood and blood”, that shows that there is impure and pure blood.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27.17): "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend"? It indicates that just as one piece of iron sharpens the other, so do scholars sharpen one another's minds in the study of the Law.

R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina said: The day of rain is as important as the day on which heaven and earth were created, as it is said (Is., 45.8): "Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, that they may bring forth salvation, and let her cause righteousness to spring up together: I, the Lord, have created it." It does not say "I have created them," but "I have created it."

R. Joshua, son of R. 'Idi, happened to come to R. 'Ashi, where meat of a three-year-old calf was prepared in his honor. They asked him to eat, but he replied, I am keeping a fast. They said to him: Can you not postpone it and make it up another time? Do you not agree with the statement which R. Judah transmitted in the name of Rab, namely, that one may postpone his fast and make it up at another time? "It is a fast on account of a bad dream," he replied, and Raba b. Maḥseya said in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who reported it in the name of Rab: Fasting is good for a bad dream even as fire is for consuming flax. R. Ḥisda said: But the fast must take place on the same day, to which R. Joseph added: Even if that day is the Sabbath.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Why does everyone put ashes on his head? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ as to the reason therefor, the one maintains that it signifies: We regard ourselves before Thee as dust, while according to the other it means: That Thou mayest remember in our favor the ashes of Isaac and have mercy upon us. Does it make any difference what reason we adopt? The difference arises with regard to ordinary dust.

Why do they go to the cemetery? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ as to the reason, the one maintains that it signifies: We are before Thee as dead, while according to the other it is in order that the departed ones should pray for mercy in our behalf. What practical difference is there? The difference arises with regard to non-Jewish cemeteries.

What is the meaning of "Mount Moriah" (II Chron., 3. 1)? R. Levi b. Laḥma and R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina differ, the one saying it means a mount from which instruction (horaah) went forth to Israel, while the other says it means a mount which imposed fear (mora) upon the nations of the world.

R. Ḥanina b. Ḥama ordered a fast, but no rain came. The people asked, "Why is it that when R. Joshua b. Levi orders a fast rain does fall?" R. Ḥanina replied: "I am I (Ḥanina) and he is the son of Levi!" They sent for him (R. Joshua), and R. Ḥanina said to him: "Come let us put our minds in the right spirit of prayer; perchance the community too will become contrite and pray, and rain will come." They all prayed, but there was no rain. R. Ḥanina then said: "Is it your desire that rain shall descend for our sake?" They said "Yes!" R. Ḥanina then called: "Sky! sky! cover thy face (with clouds)!" But the sky did not cover itself. Then he said: "How impudent art thou, O sky!" The sky thereupon covered itself and rain came.

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.