ami

The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children of Ami.

It was also said: Rabbi Ami said, "A dry [Lulav] is invalid because it is not beautiful, [and] a stolen [Lulav] is invalid because it is for him (the user) a commandment fulfilled through a transgression."

R. Ami said: The aravah must have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and one does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav. Since the Master said: It must be taken separately only is it not obvious that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav?

R. 'Ami said: Rain is withheld only as a punishment for violence, as it is said (Job, 36.32): "He covereth His hands with the lightning." Now, "hands" stands for violence, as it is said (Jon., 3.8): "And from the violence, that is in their hands," and "lightning" signifies rain, as it is said (Job, 37.11): "He spreadeth abroad the cloud of His lightning." What is the remedy? The people should pray fervently, as it is said (Job, 36.32): "And giveth it a charge that it strike the mark." Now pegi'ah means prayer, as it is said (Jer., 7.16): "Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to Me."

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

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? When thou seest a generation over whom the heavens are rust-colored like copper and do not let down dew or rain, it is because there are no whisperers in that generation. What is their remedy? They should turn to one who understands to whisper and he shall whisper. But if he who understands to whisper is unwilling to do it—what benefit will there accrue to him? Again, if he does whisper and obtains his desire, but then becomes presumptuous, he brings wrath upon the world, as it is said (Job, 36.33): "The cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up."

R. 'Ami further said: One's prayer is not accepted unless he puts his heart in his hands, as it is said (Lam., 3.41): "Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens." After R. 'Ami had left, R. Samuel b. Nahamani placed an Amora by his side and discoursed as follows: "But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue. For their heart was not steadfast with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant." And yet "He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity" (Ps., 78.36-38). Do not R. 'Ami and R. Samuel contradict one another? No, one refers to individual, the other to communal, prayers.

R. 'Ami further said: One's prayer is not accepted unless he puts his heart in his hands, as it is said (Lam., 3.41): "Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens." After R. 'Ami had left, R. Samuel b. Nahamani placed an Amora by his side and discoursed as follows: "But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue. For their heart was not steadfast with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant." And yet "He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity" (Ps., 78.36-38). Do not R. 'Ami and R. Samuel contradict one another? No, one refers to individual, the other to communal, prayers.

R. 'Ami further said: One's prayer is not accepted unless he puts his heart in his hands, as it is said (Lam., 3.41): "Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens." After R. 'Ami had left, R. Samuel b. Nahamani placed an Amora by his side and discoursed as follows: "But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue. For their heart was not steadfast with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant." And yet "He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity" (Ps., 78.36-38). Do not R. 'Ami and R. Samuel contradict one another? No, one refers to individual, the other to communal, prayers.

R. 'Ami also said: Rain comes down only for the sake of men of faith, as it is said (Ps., 85.12): "Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness hath looked down from heaven." R. Ḥanina said: Come and learn the greatness of men of faith from the story about the weasel and the well. If this is the reward of one who trusts in a weasel and a well, how much more so when one trusts in God, the Holy One, blessed be He!

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

When they stand up for prayer, they place before the ark an old and experienced man, etc. The Rabbis have taught: When they stand up for prayer, even if there is among them an elder and a scholar, they send to the ark only one who is experienced; R. Judah said, they send up one who toils without success, who has his labor invested in the field, and whose house is empty; an elderly person whose youth was spent decently, who is modest and agreeable to the people, who knows how to chant and has a sweet voice; one who is well versed in the Scriptures, the Mishnah, the Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot and in all the prayers. The Rabbis (after this description) fixed their eyes upon R. Isaac of the school of R. 'Ami.

R. Judah Nesiah (Patriarch) ordered a fast, and rain came after sunrise. He then thought to finish the fast, but R. 'Ami said to him, in our Mishnah we read about "forenoon" and "afternoon."

R. Ami, when he came upon this passage, wept, "Let him put his mouth in the dust: perhaps there may be hope" (Lam. iii. 29). He said, All this to be done, and the result a mere "perhaps."

R. Ami, when he came upon this passage, wept, "Seek righteousness, seek meekness; perhaps ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger" (Zeph. ii. 3). He said, All this and—"perhaps."

R. Ami said, You may impart the secret things of the Law only to one in whom are five requisites, as follows, viz., "The captain of fifty, and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer" (Is. iii. 3). And R. Ami said, You must not impart the words of the Law to a Cuthite, for it is said, "He hath not dealt so with any nation (גוי), and as for his judgments, they have not known them" (Ps. cxlvii. 20).

R. Ami said, You may impart the secret things of the Law only to one in whom are five requisites, as follows, viz., "The captain of fifty, and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer" (Is. iii. 3). And R. Ami said, You must not impart the words of the Law to a Cuthite, for it is said, "He hath not dealt so with any nation (גוי), and as for his judgments, they have not known them" (Ps. cxlvii. 20).

Samuel came upon R. Jehudah, who was swinging upon the bolt of a door, and weeping. He said to him, Oh, clever one, why weepest thou? He said to him, Is it a small thing that is written concerning our Rabbis, "Where is he that counted, where is he that weighed, where is he that counted the towers?" (Is. xxxiii. 18) "Where is he that counted?" for they counted all the letters that are in the Books of the Law. "Where is he that weighed?" for they weighed the light and the heavy things which are in the Law. "Where is he that counted the towers?" for they taught three hundred doctrines concerning the tower which flies in the air. And R. Ami said, Three hundred questions were treated by Doeg and Ahithophel concerning the tower which flies in the air. And there is a canonical Mishnah. Three kings and four private persons have no position in the world to come (Sanhedrin, 90a, ii. 22), and we—what will there be for us? He said to him, Oh, clever one, there was uncleanness in their hearts.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

that does not [even] have the value of a perutah. As Rabbi Ami said Rabbi Yohanan said: One who strikes and makes a wound that is not worth a perutah is lashed. And we do not make an analogy from striking to cursing.

And Rebbi Elezar also said, a city that has no elders does not provide protection because we need "elders of the city", and they are lacking. It was said, a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It provides protection. And one says, It does not provide protection. According to the opinion that it doesn't provide protection, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it does provide protection, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can bring an eglah arufah [a decapitated cow]. And one says, It can not bring an eglah arufah. According to the opinion that it can not bring an eglah arufah, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can bring an eglah arufah, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

If his judgment was finalized and subsequently the [high] priest was found to be the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who received chalitzah, the matter is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafkah. One says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood died, and one says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood got disqualified [retroactively].