ashi

Ravina said to R. Ashi: How do we know that “branches of palm-trees” refers to the lulav? ... Perhaps it means [branches of] the hardened palm? It must be [a branch the leaves of which can be] bound up, and this one cannot.

What constitutes "avot"? Rav Judah said: When three leaves grow out of one spot. R. Kahana said: Even two and then one. R. Aha the son of Raba tried to find one [whose leaves grew] two and then one, since that was what R. Kahana said. Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: "My father used to call that a wayward hadas."

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

R. Ashi said: The dispute concerns only the original produce itself, but with regard to secondary produce, both agree that [it can be redeemed] either by way of sale or by way of exchange. And the reason that the term ‘purchased’ was repeated is that since in the first clause the term ‘purchased’ was used it was used in the latter clause also.

Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him, ‘Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela.' And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

Mar bar Amemar said to R. Ashi: My father used to recite his prayers [while holding the lulav]. They objected: One should not hold his tefillin in his hand or a Torah scroll in his bosom and pray, nor should he urinate [while wearing them], or doze or sleep.

Mar Zutra said: I noticed that R. Papi recited the blessing whenever he put on his tefillin. The sages of the school of R. Ashi recited the blessing whenever they touched their tefillin.

Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two. From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.

Our rabbis taught: He who makes a Sukkah for his own use recites the blessing, “Blessed are You. . . who has kept us in life” etc. When he enters it to dwell in it, he says, “Blessed are You . . . who has sanctified us” etc. If it was already made and standing: if he can make some renovation in it he blesses; and if not, when he enters it to dwell in it he recites both blessing. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana recited all of them over the cup of Kiddush.

R. Ashi said: In this case it is written, “According to the ordinance” while in the case of the seventh day it is written, “according to their ordinance”

GEMARA. If he has no vessels to remove, what should he do? If he has no vessels! What then did he use when he was in [his Sukkah]? Rather say: If he had no place to put his vessels what shall he do? R. Hiyya b. Ashi said, He removes four handbreadths [of the roof], And R. Joshua b. Levi said, he should kindle a lamp in it.

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

R. 'Ashi said: A scholar who is not hard like iron is not a real scholar, as it is said: "And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces." Said R. 'Abba to R. 'Ashi, you derive it from that verse, we derive it from the following (Deut. 8.9): "A land whose stones are iron"; do not read 'ābānēha (its stones), but bōnēha (its builders, i.e., the scholars). Said Rabina: It is nevertheless one's duty to train oneself to be gentle, as it is said (Eccl., 11.10): "Remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh."

R. 'Ashi said: A scholar who is not hard like iron is not a real scholar, as it is said: "And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces." Said R. 'Abba to R. 'Ashi, you derive it from that verse, we derive it from the following (Deut. 8.9): "A land whose stones are iron"; do not read 'ābānēha (its stones), but bōnēha (its builders, i.e., the scholars). Said Rabina: It is nevertheless one's duty to train oneself to be gentle, as it is said (Eccl., 11.10): "Remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh."

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

R. Shimi b. 'Ashi, studying under R. Papa, used to argue against him very much. One day R. Shimi noticed R. Papa falling on his face and saying: May the Lord save me from being put to shame through Shimi! R. Shimi then resolved to keep silence, and raised no more questions.

(On the nights preceding the fasts) they may eat and drink, etc. The Rabbis have taught: Until what time in the night (preceding a fast) may one eat and drink? Until the morning dawn; this is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar b. Simeon says, until one hears the crowing of the cock. Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not finished his meal, but if one has finished his meal, he should not start eating again. 'Abbayi objects hereto from the following Baraita: If one has eaten and gotten up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers to one who has not yet put away the table. Some give to the foregoing passage the following wording: Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not yet slept, but if he has slept, he should not start eating again. In objection hereto 'Abbayi quoted: If he slept and then got up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers only to one who merely dozed. What is meant by dozing? Said R. 'Ashi:

'Abbayi and Raba used to wear shoes without soles. Maremar and Mar Zuṭra used to transfer the right shoe to the left foot and the left shoe to the right foot. The scholars of the school of R. 'Ashi, however, wore their shoes in the usual way, agreeing with Samuel, who said, there are no public fasts in Babylonia except the Ninth of Ab.

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.

Said R. 'Ashi: The same view can be deduced from the text of our Mishnah, for it reads: "In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these (seven) fast days the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which shows that with respect to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike. If, however, you should say that here, too, the Mishnah mentions one difference and omits another, what will you do with the words of the Mishnah: "In what respect"? Answer: Do you think that the phrase "in what respect" is to be taken strictly? Did not the Mishnah omit mentioning the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Mishnah mentions it in the next chapter. Now that you have arrived at this point, you may just as well say that failing to mention the increase in the number of benedictions to twenty-four is no omission either, because the Mishnah speaks of it in the next chapter.

What has been decided about the matter? Said R. Samuel b. Sasarṭai in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi, who said it in the name of Rab: The benediction should be inserted between "Redeemer" and "Healer" (of Israel), but R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Jannai b. Ishmael, it should be included in the benediction: "Who hearest prayer," and this is the accepted law.

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

will apply here. There the first of Nisan was mentioned to extend the prohibition to the day preceding. Here the festival is included in order to extend the prohibition to the day following. With whose view does this tally? With that of R. Jose, who said that the prohibition includes "both the preceding and the following day?" If so, why base the inclusion of the twenty-ninth of Adar on the fact that it is the day preceding the first of Nisan, on which day the Daily Offering was established, when the prohibition might have been derived from the fact that it follows upon the twenty-eighth of Adar (which was likewise proclaimed a holiday) as we read: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good news reached the Jews that they were no longer to be restrained from the study of the Torah? [It had namely happened that the wicked government issued a decree against Israel, that they should not study the Torah nor circumcize their children, and that they should profane the Sabbath, whereupon Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues took counsel with a prominent lady with whom all the noblemen of Rome associated, who advised them to make an appeal during the night; they made the appeal during the night, saying: "O Heavens! Are we not your brethren, are we not the sons of one father and one mother? Wherein do we differ from all other nations and tongues, that you issue such cruel decrees against us?", whereupon the decrees were annulled and the day was declared a holiday.] Said 'Abbayi in reply to the above: The twenty-eighth of Adar would be of no avail for the last day if it were a full month. R. 'Ashi said, the same thing would be true if Adar was deficient, for on a day following immediately upon a holiday only fasting is forbidden, while mourning is allowed, whereas the twenty-ninth of Adar, being placed between two holidays, has been made as important as if it were itself a holiday.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

R. Jose b. 'Abin used to attend the lectures of R. Jose of Yodḳart, later he left him and went over to R. 'Ashi.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

On the first of Ṭebet there were no Ma'amad services, etc. Said Mar Ḳashshisha, son of R. Ḥisda, to R. 'Ashi:

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

R. Ashi noted a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah,

R. Ashi had heard that some transmit the statement in the name of R. Judah and some transmit it in the name of R. Yose son of R. Judah, and to avoid making R. Judah contradict himself he said that the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Yose son of Judah was [reporting] accurately.

R. Ashi said: [It means that] the festival sacrifice may be postponed for the whole period of the festival sacrifice, and even on Shavuot which is only one day, it may be postponed [for seven days], as we have learned: [Beth Hillel] agree that if Shavuot falls on Shabbat, the day for killing [the sacrifice] is after Shabbat.

Rava said: If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? It is written, “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22). R. Ashi was sitting before R. Kahana. It grew late, and still the Rabbis did not arrive. He said to him: Why have the Rabbis not yet come? Perhaps they are busy with the Purim feast. He said to him: Could they not have had it last night? He replied Is the master not familiar with the statement, “If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not fulfill his obligation”? He said to him; Did Rava really say so? (He replied Yes). He then repeated it after him forty times, until he had safely stored it in his mind.

R. Ashi said You may even say that it is the view of the Rabbis: in the case of the one [the breaker of Sabbath], the essential [punishment for] an intentional transgression is inflicted by the human court, but in the case of the other, the essential punishment for his intentional transgression is karet.

R. Ashi said: That statement [in the baraita] was made in reference to other books [of the Scripture], And it follows the view of R. Judah, as it has been taught: Tefillin and mezuzahs are to be written only in Assyrian, but our Rabbis allowed them to be written in Greek also.

Ravina said to R. Ashi: How so? Perhaps all agree that the first holiness sanctified it for its time and for all time, and one Master reported what he had heard and the other what he had heard. And if you ask, In that case, why were curtains needed according to R. Eliezer, we can answer that they were merely for privacy.

R. Ashi replied: In all cases, vayehi sometimes has this signification and sometimes not, but “vayehi in the days of” always indicates trouble.

Matanah made his introduction from this verse: “For what great nation is there that has God so near to them” (Deuteronomy 4:7). R. Ashi made it from here: “Or has God attempted to [take one nation from the midst of another nation] (Deuteronomy 4:34).

If he napped he has still fulfilled his obligation What is considered napping? R. Ashi said: Sleeping, but not really sleeping. Awake, but not really awake. If they call him, he would answer. But he would not know how to offer a reasonable response, but when they remind him, he remembers.

What blessing is said before the reading of the Megillah? Shesheth from Katrazya happened [once to read] in the presence of R. Ashi, and he blessed M”N”H.

Shesheth from Katrazya happened [once to read] in the presence of R. Ashi, and he blessed M”N”H. Blessed are You, O Lord our God, king of the universe, [the God] who fought our fight and judged our judgment and avenged our vengeance and punished our adversaries for us and paid back retribution on all the enemies of our lives. Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel. Rava Says: [The concluding words are], “The God who saves.” R. Papa said: Therefore we should say both: “Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel, the God who saves.”

R. Ashi said: But we have not taught this way: This is the general rule: wherever there is a musaf but not a festival four read: What does this come to include? Does it not include a public fast and the ninth of Av?

But according to R. Ashi, who is the author of the Mishnah? It is neither the First Tanna nor R. Yose, as it has been taught: If it [the ninth of Av] falls on Monday or Thursday, three read and one [of them] says a haftarah. If on Tuesday or Wednesday, one reads and [the same] one says the haftarah. R. Yose, however, says that in all cases three read and one [of them] says the haftarah.

Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It is permitted to an Israelite to say to a non-Jew, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tof.” Ashi said: It is permissible to disgrace a person with the term gimel shin who has terrible reports about him. It is permissible to praise a person who has good reports about him and if one does praise him, “blessings shall rest upon his head.”

Ashi said: As for this synagogue in Matha Meha although people come to it from all parts, since they come at my discretion, I can if I like sell it.

Ravina had the ground (the tel) of a synagogue. He came in front of R. Ashi and said to him: Can seeds be planted there. He replied: Go and buy it from the seven “good men” of the town in the assembly of the townspeople, and you may then sow it.

“He should wait [the time it takes to go four cubits]”. I grant you that one who has urinated should wait till he can go four cubits [before praying], on account of drippings [on his clothes]. But why should one who has just prayed wait long enough to go four cubits? Ashi replied Because for the time it takes to go four cubits his mouth is still full of his prayer and his lips are still muttering it.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look askance [terazedun], mountains of peaks (gavnunim)” (Psalms 68:18). A bat kol (heavenly voice) went forth and said to them: Why do ye desire litigation [tirzu din] with Sinai? You are all full of blemishes as compared with Sinai. It is written here “gavnunim,” and it is written elsewhere “or humpbacked [gibben] or a dwarf” (Leviticus 21:20). Ashi observed: You can learn from this that if a man is arrogant, this is a blemish in him.

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

things only from which the Chagigah may come. These are excluded, for the Chagigah does not come from them. R. Ashi said, This comes out of the expression "and thou shalt rejoice." These are excluded, for there is no joy in them. And R. Ashi said, Pray, for what purpose does the expression "in thy feast" occur? It is to serve the same purpose as it served with R. Daniel bar Kattinah. For R. Daniel bar Kattinah said that Rab said, How is it that men do not take them wives on a middle holiday? Because it is said, "and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast," and not in thy wife.

things only from which the Chagigah may come. These are excluded, for the Chagigah does not come from them. R. Ashi said, This comes out of the expression "and thou shalt rejoice." These are excluded, for there is no joy in them. And R. Ashi said, Pray, for what purpose does the expression "in thy feast" occur? It is to serve the same purpose as it served with R. Daniel bar Kattinah. For R. Daniel bar Kattinah said that Rab said, How is it that men do not take them wives on a middle holiday? Because it is said, "and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast," and not in thy wife.

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

R. Ashi said, Even if thou sayest, Sides are allowed, yet that avails nothing, for everything which is along the course of the back, as the sides are, is as the back.

R. Shimi bar Ashi deals with the matter thus. Up to this point our Rabbis disagree with R. Meir only as to the eating of the tithe, but as regards the touching of the tithe and the eating of common food they do not disagree. But suppose that both the one and the other refer to eating, and still there is no difficulty. The one has to do with eating bread, the other with eating fruits. For R. Nachman said, Every one who washes his hands for fruit is over scrupulous and affected.

Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi perhaps, they took their argument up [to the heavenly court], or maybe he appeased him.

Rav Ashi says, If it came out that they said that they saw that the victim was viable [prior to being killed, they would say that] maybe in the place that the sword entered there was a hole.

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

But Kedesh is a city of refuge?! But it is written, "The fortified towns: Tzidim, Tzar and Hamat, Rakat and Khineret... and Kedesh, and Edrai and Ein Hatzor? (Joshua 19:35-37)" [which means that Kedesh is a fortified town]. And it is taught [in a baraita]: "Those cities [of refuge]—make them neither small villages nor large cities but medium-sized towns"?! [Which means that Kedesh cannot be a fortified town and still qualify as a city of refuge]. Rav Yoseif said: "There were two Kedesh's." Rav Ashi said: "Like Seleucia and the acropolis of Seleucia." [Kedesh had a separate, administrative section known as Kedesh as well as a distinct town called Kedesh, like the case we know of in Seleucia].

(Pneumonic: Ashi lilmod, Ravina lelameid). Rav Ashi said:

(Pneumonic: Ashi lilmod, Ravina lelameid). Rav Ashi said:

Rav Ashi says, What does [Rebbi Yehuda] mean "after the branches"? Even after the branches.

And according Rebbi Akiva, if so then by liabilites of kares also, [we also should] say that a a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for kares [cannot also be liable to malkus]. Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi that this is what Avimi from Hagronia had said in the name of Rava, liabilities of kares do not need a scriptual warning [to obligate one with kares, thus freeing the warning to teach malkus], for the Pesach offering and circumcision are punished [with kares for not performing them] even though they have no scriptural warning.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

Rava says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one rounds his own head, and therefore it can accord with everyone. Rav Ashi says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one assisted the barber, and therefore it can accord with everyone.

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye was stringent even on the tiniest puncture. Rav Ashi says, anyplace where there is a wound, the wound shows.

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.

Rav Acha brei dRava challenged Rav Ashi, but then let him also incur malkus because of (Deuteronomy 7,26) "Do not bring an abomination into your house". Rather what case are we dealing with here? Where he cooked with sanctified wood, which has its azhara [scriptural warning] from here: (Deuteronomy 12,3) "And their asheria trees you should burn in fire", (Deuteronomy 12,4) "but you should not do so to HaShem your God."

Rav Ashi asked, But let's also consider one who plow with wood from an Asheia tree, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 13,8) ""And no abominable thing should cleave to your hand. etc."

Rav Ashi says, You can even say that the tanna is the Rabbis, only that this one's main punishment is through man and this one's main punishment is through heaven.