avina

(1Kings 8:54) “His hands raised to Heaven.” Rebbi Ayvu said: He was standing as if inanimate. Rebbi Eleazar bar Avina said: He made clear that these palms did not get at all dirty during the building of the Temple.

It is stated: One removes himself from human excrement four cubits and from dog’s excrement four cubits, the latter when it is given on skins. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: One must remove hinself four cubits from a stinking carcass. Rebbi Avina said: Does not the Mishnah say all this : “How much does one have to remove himself from these and excrement? Four cubits.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Shammai: Explain it by steeping water of launderers. Rebbi Mani said to him: About steeping waters of launderers, we have stated: “neither with stinking water nor with steeping water.”

When the New Moon falls on a fast day, how does one mention the New Moon? Rebbi Zeïra said, in “thanksgiving”. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, in “Temple service”. Rebbi Avina said, he says it as the fourth benediction. Rebbi Abba said, how do we find everywhere that he says it as the fourth benediction, here also as the fourth benediction. And so it was acted upon according to Rebbi Abba.

That is if it is his intention to eat bread. But if it is not his intention to eat bread, that does not apply. (Rabban) Gamliel the twin went to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai. He saw them eat an olive and recite the benediction before and afterwards. He said to them: Does one do that? Rebbi Zeïra sent and asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Rebbi Cahana in the name of Rebbi Avina: Everybody agrees that if among them was one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Zeïra said, that must be correct, since we see the rabbis assembling for the proclamation of the New Moon and eat grapes but they do not recite a benediction afterwards. That is because it is his intention to eat bread.

When does one start to make him an appendix? Rebbi Avina said: Rab Ḥuna and Rav Yehudah disagreed, both in the name of Samuel. One said, that he has to understand the nature of a benediction; the other one said that he has to understand to Whom one has to recite the benediction. Rebbi Nassa said, many times did I eat with my father Taḥlipha and my uncle Aninia bar Sisai and they did not recite the ‘invitation’ with me until I grew two pubic hairs.

Samuel bar Shilat asked before Rav, but some say that it was asked before Rav Samuel bar Shilat: Nine ate bread and one ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Eight ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Seven ate bread and two ate vegetable? He said to them: One ‘invites’. Rebbi Avina asked: What is the rule for half and half? Rebbi Zeïra said, as long as I was there, I would have needed that. I regret that I did not ask.

Rav said: If one washed his hands in the morning, one does not bother him in the evening. Rebbi Avina commanded the donkey drivers: If you find water to wash, wash your hands and condition them for the entire day.

Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: If he reserved movables, he did not do anything. Come and look: If he reserved any real estate, he has something to live on; if he reserved gems and pearls, does he have nothing to live on? Rebbi Yose said, this man knows that the gift of a bedridden person transfers property rights even verbally. Why did he write it with an obligation of acquisition, in order to give it the status of a gift by a healthy person.

Rebbi Joḥanan put a cloth on his garment. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? [He did it] so that his garments should not wear out. Rebbi Zeriqan said, they gave Rebbi Avina an egg on a towel containing kilaim, but he did not accept it because of “they should not intend to use them as protection from the sun in summer and from the rains in winter.”

They asked before Rebbi Illaï: May one sew one’s shoes with flax? He said to them, because of Rebbi Zeïra, for Rebbi Zeïra said it is forbidden. Rebbi Illaï will agree that it is forbidden to wear woolen socks over linen socks since he cannot take off the inner ones unless he first takes off the outer ones. The father of Rav Safra asked Rebbi Zeïra: May one put coins in a woolen bag and tie it with a linen thread, or put coins on a linen cloth and tie it with a woolen thread? He said to him, does the rabbi not know Rav Huna? For Rav Huna said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Avina said, it is forbidden. Samuel said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Yasa said, it is permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started, so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

Rebbi Avina said: Would one not understand that, since it is said (Lev. 11:9): “Any [creature in the water] having fins and scales you shall eat” we know that any creature having no fins and scales you shall not eat. To give both positive commandment and prohibition on the impure. Because it is written. If it were not written, it would be a positive commandment. Therefore, any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

HALAKHAH: “Of three brothers,” etc. Rebbi Avina said, that is what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.

HALAKHAH: “Two brothers married to two sisters,” etc. Rebbi Avina said, that is what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.

So is the Mishnah: “The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is forbidden”. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman for whom he performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more?

There, we have stated: “These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision.” Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection. “If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left in the day to correct it. But if there is time left in the day to correct, he corrects without hesitation.

“Nor usufruct.” Rebbi Avina said, that she cannot recover from him the usufruct he took. That means, before the first [husband] returned. But if he took after the return of the first, she can recover.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since “Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so theDay of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel] a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays. There, we have stated: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils. He said to him, what does it say afterwards? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

HALAKHAH: ““The female children you will have by me,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if they became adults, they lost the support. If they married, they lost their dowries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “If they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Hila: They all agree on the following: If a widow sues the heirs, she says I did not receive my ketubah, but the heirs say you received your ketubah. Before she remarried, the burden of proof is on the heirs that she received her ketubah. After she remarried, the burden of proof is on her that she had not received her ketubah. But did we not state: “If an orphan was married off by her mother or her brother and they wrote her [a dowry of] 150 zuz, after she grows up she can extract from them.” The reason, because she was underage. Therefore, a grown up gave up her claim. Explain it that she had received partial payment. Did not Rebbi Avina say in the name of Rebbi Assi: If a firstborn took as a simple [brother], this is prima facie evidence that he gave up his claim. Still, if she had received part payment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this one did not take anything from his primogeniture. There came a case before Rebbi Mana, who wanted to act following Rav Ḥisda. Rebbi Ḥananiah said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “if they became adults without being married or were married without being adults, they lost their support but not their dowries”? He said to him: I quoted a tradition, you quoted a Baraita. Let the tradition be disregarded before the Baraita.

He could appoint a provider, as the following: “X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do.” Let him appoint a provider! A woman has the right to say, it is impossible for me to be provided for by anybody other than my husband. But did we not state: “If somebody provides for his wife through a third party.” There, if she accepted it; here, if she did not accept it. If she did not accept it then he should not appoint even for one day! She continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow. Samuel says, if he vowed for thirty days. But if he vowed forever, he shall divorce immediately and pay the ketubah. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Avina in the name of Rav: Even if he vowed forever, she continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow.

“I did not vow as a nazir,” he is permitted. “I already had been a nazir,” he is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Avina, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am like ‘orlah juice, he did not say anything. The colleagues say, that follows Rebbi Simeon in a disagreement. As we have stated there: “If somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate carcass or torn meat, abominations or crawling things, he is guilty. But Rebbi Simeon declares him free from prosecution.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if it is an inclusive statement. But if it is a detailed statement, everybody agrees that no oath can be applied to prohibitions. And here, we consider an inclusive statement. Rebbi Yudan said, one is about vows, the other about oaths. Vows can be applied to prohibitions but no oaths can be applied to prohibitions.

“Just as substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows, so substitute names for Samson [vows] are like Samson [vows].” What are substitute names for Samson [vows]? Rebbi Avina said, Šimšok, Šimšor, Šimšoṣ.