baraita

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water,” etc. It was stated: Full of water, she is impure for a birth; full of blood, she is impure as menstruating; full of flesh, she is impure as menstruating. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water, or blood, or flakes, she does not have to consider this as a child”? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah if [the contents are] clear; the baraita if [the contents are] turbid. Rebbi Simon in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: Even if all was clear, since only humans have an amnion! That is what is written: “When I gave clouds as his garment and fog as his diapers.” “His garment” is the amnion, “and fog his diapers” that is the placenta.

They then solved it from a Baraita ; for it is taught in a Baraita : The sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars. Conclude from this that the [complete] setting of the sun is intended ; and what means "It is clean" ? The day is clean.

They then solved it from a Baraita ; for it is taught in a Baraita : The sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars. Conclude from this that the [complete] setting of the sun is intended ; and what means "It is clean" ? The day is clean.

Come and hear : From the latter clause [of the quoted Baraita] "The general rule in this matter is that it depends upon the conclusion of the benediction" — what does "the general rule in this matter" intend to include? Is it not to include what we have mentioned?

It is here at any rate taught that [the mourner, although he is not in the same room as the body,] is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! Rab Pappa replied : [The Baraita] is to be interpreted as referring to one who turns his face from the body and eats. Rab Ashe said : Since the duty of burying rests upon him, it is to be regarded as though the body was lying before him; as it is said, "And Abraham rose up from before his dead" (Gen. xxiii. 3) and it is said "That I may bury my dead from before me" (ibid. v. 4), i.e. so long as the duty of burial rested upon him, it was as though the body was actually before him.

Who watches the body, although it is not his dead, is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! "Who watches the body, although it is not his dead" [so stated the Baraita ; therefore it is to be inferred] if it is his dead, although he does not watch the body, [he is exempt].

It was stated above [in the Baraita] : "Who watches the body, although it is not his dead, is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah." Should there be two [watchers], they take it in turn to watch and read. Ben Azzai says : Should they be bringing the body in a boat, they place it in one corner and they both pray in another corner !

But we are speaking of instances mentioned in our Mishnah ; and this is a Baraita !

But for how long [must one be able to contain himself before venturing to say the Tefillah]? Rab Sheshet said : [Sufficient time to enable one to walk] a Parsah. There are some who make [this statement of Rab Zebid] a part of the Baraita [quoted above ; thus :] Of what does this speak? Of a case where a man is unable to contain himself; but if he is able to contain himself, his Tefillah is valid. But for how long [must one be able to contain himself before venturing to say the Tefillah]? Rab Zebid said : [Sufficient time to enable one to walk] a Parsah.

Raba said in the name of Rab Sheshet : The Halakah is not in accord with the above Baraita because it emanates from Bet Shammai; for if it emanated from Bet Hillel, since one is allowed to enter a regular privy [holding the Tefillin], how much more so a chance one!

It is quoted in objection: "What I have permitted thee in one place I have forbidden thee in another, [and this is an argument a fortiori which cannot be refuted"] — does this not refer to the Tefillin? It is quite right if thou sayest that the above Baraita emanates from Bet Hillel; for then I have permitted thee elsewhere [to enter] a regular privy [with Tefillin], but here I forbid thee [to enter] a chance privy ! On the other hand, if thou sayest that it emanates from Bet Shammai, they do not permit it in either case !

But against thine own argument, I quote the first clause [of the Baraita brought in objection, viz. :] "With urine, so long as the ground is wet enough to moisten it is prohibited" ; hence if the trace of it be recognisable, it is permitted! No such deduction can be drawn. It is possible to say that [the question under consideration]

whereas the statement [of the Baraita] refers to one who reminds himself [of the omission] after having said the benediction "Who hearkenest unto prayer."

The Rabbis act according to our Miahnah ; Rab Ashe acted according to the Baraita.

Others refer this [statement of Rab Safra] to the following Baraita: One who says the Tefillah must direct his heart to each benediction ; but if unable to do so to each one, he must at least direct his heart to one. To which?

With what are we here dealing? When he rekneaded the crumbs into a compact mass. In that case, I shall quote the latter part of the Baraita: That is, only if he eats them the time it takes to eat half [a roll]. But if he rekneaded them, it should have stated "he eats it" not "he eats them"!

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : [This Baraita refers to the case where] for instance men say, "Let us go and eat our meal in a certain place."

turned the torn part of his garment to the rear and made a fresh tear, exclaiming, "Rab has died and we have not learnt [the regulations of] the Grace after meals!" In the meanwhile an Elder came and pointed out the disagreement between our Mishnah and the Baraita, and taught them : When men say, "Let us go and eat our meal in a certain place," it is the same as if they had reclined.

According to one version of Rab's statement, viz. : "This teaching applies only to bread for which reclining is necessary, but for wine reclining is not necessary," the first part [of this Baraita] is in disagreement!

And according to the other version of Rab's statement, viz. : "This teaching applies only to bread where it is beneficial to recline, but with wine it is not beneficial to recline," the latter part [of the Baraita] is in disagreement !

R. Zera said in the name of R. Abbahu (another version: it was taught in a Baraita) : Ten things are said with reference to the cup used for the Grace after meals : It requires washing and rinsing, undiluted [wine] and must be full, crowning and covering ; he takes it with both hands and places it in the right hand, raises it a handbreadth from the floor and gazes at it. Some also say : He sends it as a present to his household,

R. Abbahu said (another version : it was taught in a Baraita) : He who eats while walking should say Grace standing ; but he who eats standing should sit to say Grace ; and when he reclines at the meal, he should sit up to say Grace. The Halakah in every case is : He sits and says Grace.

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : I know neither Zilai nor Ziwai nor Zohamai ; but I know the following teaching : Rab Judah said in the name of Rab (another version : it is taught in a Baraita) : "Sanctify yourselves" (Lev. xi. 44) — i.e. the washing before the meal ; "and be ye holy" (ibid.) — i.e. the washing after the meal ; "for holy" (ibid.) — i.e. the oil ; "I am the Lord your God" — i.e. the Grace.

Rab Judah said : Three require guarding, viz. : an invalid, a bridegroom and a bride. In a Baraita it is taught : An invalid, woman in confinement, bridegroom and bride. Some say : Also a mourner; and others add: Also disciples of the wise at night.

Rab Joseph said : Who dreams of a goat, the year will be blessed for him; of goats, years will be blessed for him ; as it is said, "And there will be goat's milk enough for thy food" (Prov. xxvii. 27). Who dreams of the myrtle, his business undertakings will prosper ; and if he has no business undertakings, an inheritance will fall to his lot from some other place. 'Ulla said (another version : It was taught in a Baraita) : This only applies when he sees [the myrtle] on its stem. Who dreams of a citron, will be honoured before his Maker; as it is said, "The fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Lev. xxiii. 40). Who dreams of a palm-branch has but one heart for his Father in Heaven.

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to one suffering thus from his mother's womb, the other to one suffering thus after birth. This is also proved from the fact that he teaches that [the man afflicted with leprous eruption] is like the person with an amputated limb. Deduce from this [that the leper referred to in the Baraita is one who became diseased after birth].

R. Alexander said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : Thunder was only created to break the pride of the heart ; as it is said, "God hath so made it that men should fear before Him" (Eccles. iii. 14). Also said R. Alexander in the nanie of R.Joshua b. Levi : Who sees the rainbow should prostrate himself upon his face; as it is said, "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud...and when I saw it, I fell upon my face" (Ezek. i. 28). In the West they curse one who acts thus, because it has the appearance as though he worships the rainbow ; but he should certainly pronounce a benediction. What is the benediction ? "Blessed. ..Who remembrest the Covenant." It has been taught in a Baraita : R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Baroka says: [The benediction is, "Blessed...] Who art faithful with Thy Covenant and fulfillest Thy word." Rab Pappa said: Let us therefore say both : "Blessed ... Who remembrest the Covenant, art faithful with Thy Covenant and fulfillest Thy word."

For rain and good tidings he says, "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good." But is the benediction for rain "Who art good and dispensest good"? For lo, R. Abbahu has said (another version : It was taught in a Baraita) : From what time do we say the benediction over rain ? From the time the bridegroom goes forth to meet his bride ;

But let the conflict of opinion [in the Baraita between R. Meir and R. Judah] be in the case where the man bought an article and then purchased another and no benediction is necessary, to show the extreme view taken by R. Judah! It is preferable to take the extreme view on the side of leniency.

Another explanation of "And He made [lit. built]" — Rab Hisda said (another version : It was taught in a Baraita) : This means that the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned Eve like a store-building ; as the store is narrow above and broad below so as to receive the fruits, similarly is a woman narrow above and broad below so as to receive the child.

But it is not so ! For lo, Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : A man should always accustom himself [to perform his natural functions] morning and evening so that it will be unnecessary for him to go far [and find a secluded spot]. And further, Raba used to go as far as a Mil by day ; but at night he would say to his attendant, "Prepare for me a place in the street of the town." Similarly used R. Zera to say to his attendant, "See whether there is anybody behind the Seminary, as I wish to relieve myself"! Read not [in the Baraita] "in the same place," but read "in the same manner that he relieves himself by day."

If he nullified them, yes. If he did not nullify them, no! And we learn in a baraita, on this Rabbi Yose says: Straw that he intends not to remove: this is like earth without thought to intention, and it is nullified. Earth that he intends to remove: this is like straw without thought to intention, and it is not nullified.

Rav could answer that here we are dealing with a case where he pulled them [from the trunk] so that their ‘making’ is not apparent. In any case, [the baraita] "he inserted them and then cut their ends" is a difficulty against Rav? It is a difficulty.

It was also taught in a baraita: Reeds and forked reeds may be used as skhakh. As to reeds, this is obvious? — Say: Forked reeds may be used as a Sukkah-covering.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’

He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.

One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.

One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.

One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.

How long is casual sleep? Rami b. Ezekiel taught: The time it takes to walk one hundred cubits. It has also been taught in a baraita: He who sleeps in tefillin and [on waking] observes a seminal emission, should [remove the tefillin by taking] hold of the strap

It was taught in a baraita: It was taught in a baraita:

It was taught in a baraita: It was taught in a baraita:

Our rabbis taught [in a Baraita], [Regarding] a Sukkah that is stolen, or someone who covers his Sukkah [with Schach] from public property, Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid, and the Chachamim validate it.

But if it is according to R. Judah, it requires proper binding be required? This Tanna [of the baraita] agrees with R. Judah on one point and disagrees with him on the other.

Another baraita taught: "willows of the brook," I only know that willows of the brook are valid. From where do we know that those grown on rain-watered soil and mountain willows [are also valid]? Scripture says, "willows of the brook," from any place.

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

Now is not this a refutation of R. Aha b. Hanina? It is indeed a refutation. But did not R. Aha b. Hanina quote both a verse and a baraita [in support of his view]?

It is found in the following Baraita (Sifre, Deut. § 41): "To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut., 11.13). Now "service" is prayer. You say it is prayer, may it not be (sacrificial) service? No, Scripture says: "with all your heart"; what service is that of the heart? You must say that it is prayer; while immediately following, Scripture says: "Then I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain."

Some say that R. Abahu had a tradition for this statement; others maintain that he had a Baraita as his authority. What Baraita? The Baraita reads as follows: At what time should one begin to mention the Power of rain? R. Eliezer says: At the time one begins to wave the lulab; R. Joshua says: At the time when it is discarded. Said R. Eliezer: Inasmuch as the Four Species are used only in order to obtain the favor of God that He may give rain, one must argue that just as these four species cannot exist without water, so the world cannot exist without rain. R. Joshua replied: Is not rain during the feast of Tabernacles but the sign of divine displeasure? Said R. Eliezer, I did not say that one should pray for rain, but that one should make mention of it. For just as one mentions the resurrection of the dead throughout the year, although it is to take place at a particular time only, so one may mention also the rain during the whole year, although it is to fall only at a given time, and hence if one actually desires to mention it throughout the year, he may do so.

Some say that R. Abahu had a tradition for this statement; others maintain that he had a Baraita as his authority. What Baraita? The Baraita reads as follows: At what time should one begin to mention the Power of rain? R. Eliezer says: At the time one begins to wave the lulab; R. Joshua says: At the time when it is discarded. Said R. Eliezer: Inasmuch as the Four Species are used only in order to obtain the favor of God that He may give rain, one must argue that just as these four species cannot exist without water, so the world cannot exist without rain. R. Joshua replied: Is not rain during the feast of Tabernacles but the sign of divine displeasure? Said R. Eliezer, I did not say that one should pray for rain, but that one should make mention of it. For just as one mentions the resurrection of the dead throughout the year, although it is to take place at a particular time only, so one may mention also the rain during the whole year, although it is to fall only at a given time, and hence if one actually desires to mention it throughout the year, he may do so.

Some say that R. Abahu had a tradition for this statement; others maintain that he had a Baraita as his authority. What Baraita? The Baraita reads as follows: At what time should one begin to mention the Power of rain? R. Eliezer says: At the time one begins to wave the lulab; R. Joshua says: At the time when it is discarded. Said R. Eliezer: Inasmuch as the Four Species are used only in order to obtain the favor of God that He may give rain, one must argue that just as these four species cannot exist without water, so the world cannot exist without rain. R. Joshua replied: Is not rain during the feast of Tabernacles but the sign of divine displeasure? Said R. Eliezer, I did not say that one should pray for rain, but that one should make mention of it. For just as one mentions the resurrection of the dead throughout the year, although it is to take place at a particular time only, so one may mention also the rain during the whole year, although it is to fall only at a given time, and hence if one actually desires to mention it throughout the year, he may do so.

What is R. Judah's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: In prescribing the order of sacrifices for the second day, scripture says (Num., 29.18): "and their drink-offerings" (ונסכיהם), in the order for the sixth day (ib., 29.31), the expression is: "and its drink-offerings" (ונסכיה), while in the order for the seventh day (ib., 29.33) we read: "After their ordinance" (כמשפטם), thus obtaining the letters mem, yod, mem, which put together read mayim (מים = water). Here we have a biblical allusion to the institution of water libation.

What is R. 'Aḳiba's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: In the order of sacrifices of the sixth day the expression used is: "and its drink-offerings" (plural). Scripture, therefore, has reference to two libations, the one being the libation of water and the other that of wine. May not both be of wine? On that point R. 'Aḳiba agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, who says that in the quoted verse water is alluded to..

A Baraita teaches: R. Nathan says: The verse (Num., 28.7): "In the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of strong drink unto the Lord," speaks of two libations, one of water and one of wine.

It was said above: R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua. Which R. Joshua is here meant? Is it R. Joshua (b. Hananiah) who is named above in our Mishnah? If so, you will meet with the difficulty that he said: (we begin to mention the rain) "on the last day of the festival;" or is it the R. Joshua who is named above in the Baraita? He said: (we begin to mention rain) "at the time the lulab is discarded." Moreover, when we read in our Mishnah: R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark on the concluding day of the festival, the last should mention the rain, but the first one should not, the question again arises which Ben Bathyra is there referred to? Is it R. Judah b. Bathyra? He said (in the Baraita): "We begin to mention the rain on the second day of the festival!" Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Both designations, "R. Joshua" and "Ben Bathyra," refer to R. Joshua b. Bathyra, for he was sometimes quoted by the name of his father and sometimes by his own name. What was the reason therefor?—In the first form he was quoted before he had been ordained and in the latter after his ordination.

It was said above: R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua. Which R. Joshua is here meant? Is it R. Joshua (b. Hananiah) who is named above in our Mishnah? If so, you will meet with the difficulty that he said: (we begin to mention the rain) "on the last day of the festival;" or is it the R. Joshua who is named above in the Baraita? He said: (we begin to mention rain) "at the time the lulab is discarded." Moreover, when we read in our Mishnah: R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark on the concluding day of the festival, the last should mention the rain, but the first one should not, the question again arises which Ben Bathyra is there referred to? Is it R. Judah b. Bathyra? He said (in the Baraita): "We begin to mention the rain on the second day of the festival!" Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Both designations, "R. Joshua" and "Ben Bathyra," refer to R. Joshua b. Bathyra, for he was sometimes quoted by the name of his father and sometimes by his own name. What was the reason therefor?—In the first form he was quoted before he had been ordained and in the latter after his ordination.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the dew and the winds in the prayer, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? Said R. Ḥanina, because dew and winds are never withheld. Whence do we know that dew is never withheld? It is written (I Kings, 17.1): "And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said unto Ahab: 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.'" Further on it is written (ib. 18.1): "Go show thyself unto Ahab, and I will send rain upon the land," but dew is not mentioned. Now, what is the reason for this omission? Certainly the reason is

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

We read in a Baraita: Clouds and winds rank second to rain (in fructifying value). To which clouds and winds does this refer? Said 'Ulla, or R. Judah: To those appearing after the rain. Are we to assume that such winds are beneficial? Is it not written (Deut. 28.24): "The Lord will make the rain of thy land powder and dust"—which, according to 'Ulla, or according to some, R. Judah, is to be brought about by winds following after the rain? This is no contradiction, for in the first place the reference is to winds that come gently, in the second to such as come with vehemence (thus stirring up the dust).

And He causeth to come down for you, etc. (Joel 2.23): Said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac: The former rain does not fall in Nisan, but in Marḥeshwan! For a Baraita reads (Sifrē, Deut., §42): The former rain falls in Marḥeshwan and the latter rain in Nisan! "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "this verse (Joel, 2.23) has proven true (only) in the days of Joel the son of Petuel, for it is written (Joel, 1.4): 'That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten,' etc. Now there is a tradition that in that year Adar had passed without rainfall, and the first rain did not appear until the first of Nisan. The Prophet then said to the Israelites: Go out and sow! But they replied: Should one who has a Ḳab of wheat or two Ḳabs of barley, eat it and live, or sow it and die? The prophet said: Nevertheless go out and sow! They then went out and sowed. Thereupon a miracle happened, that all the grain which was hidden (by mice) in the walls and in crevices (by ants) and in the holes of ants, appeared before their eyes. Again they went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth (of Nisan); on the fifth there was the second rainfall and on the sixteenth they offered the 'Omer. Thus, produce that used to ripen in six months ripened in eleven days, and the 'Omer which was usually offered from the crop that grew six months was now offered from one that grew in eleven days! With reference to that generation the Psalmist says (Ps., 126.5-6): 'They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Though he goeth on his way weeping, bearing forth the seed; he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.'"

What does "he goeth on his way weeping" indicate? Said R. Judah, it indicates that the ox on his way sowing was crying hungrily, but on his way back he was already eating the young green from the furrows. What does "he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him" indicate? Said R. Ḥisda or, as some say, it was taught in a Baraita, it indicates that in that year the stalk was one span long and the ear two spans.

is equal to two, and that is idolatry, for it is written (ibid., 2.10-11): 'For pass over to the isles of the Kittites, and see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, etc. Hath a nation changed its gods, which yet are no gods? But My people hath changed its glory for that which doth not profit.'" Concerning this it is taught in a Baraita: The Kittites worship water and the Kedarites worship fire, and although they know that water quenches fire, they never changed their gods, "but My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit."

Why is the latter rain called malḳōsh? Said R. Ḥanilai b. 'Idi in the name of Samuel, because it crushes the stubbornness of the Israelites. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael reads, because it fills the grain in its stalks. Another Baraita reads, because it falls upon both the ears and the stalks.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Whose opinion is represented in the following Baraita (Tos., ibid.): R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if rain falls seven days without interruption, I consider it either as the combined first and second or as the combined second and third rainfalls? It is the opinion of R. Jose.

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

We read in a Baraita ('Erubin, 45b): R. Eliezer said, the whole universe drinks from the ocean, as it is said (Gen., 2.6): "There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Said R. Joshua to R. Eliezer, is not the water of the ocean salty?! Said R. Eliezer, it gets sweetened in the clouds. R. Joshua said, the whole universe drinks from the waters above (the firmament), as it is said (Deut., 11.11): "A land that drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down." How then can one explain the verse: "There went up a mist from the earth"? This verse teaches that the clouds rise and soar upward, where they open their mouths like a leathern bottle and receive the rain water, as it is said (Job, 36.27): "They distil rain from His vapour." They (the clouds) are perforated like a sieve and distil water to the ground, as it is said (II Samuel, 22.12): "Gathering of waters, thick clouds of the skies." Between each drop of rain there is no more space than the breadth of a hair, which is to impress upon us the truth that the day of rain is as miraculous a phenomenon as the day on which heaven and earth were created, for it is said (Job, 5.9): "Who doeth great things and unsearchable, marvellous things without number," and further on (ib., 5.10): "Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields," and elsewhere (Is., 40.28): "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out."

Whose view is represented in the following Baraita (Bereshit Rabba, 4, 3): The upper waters are suspended (in the air) by a divine ordinance, and the rain is the fruit thereof, as it is said (Ps., 104.13): "The earth is full of the fruit of Thy work"? Whose view? Answer—that of R. Joshua! [R. Eliezer, however, refers this verse to the handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He.]

A Baraita reads: Ḥananiah said, in the diaspora we must wait until the sixtieth day after the autumnal equinox. R. Huna b. Ḥiyya said in the name of Samuel, the law follows Ḥananiah. This cannot be so! For when Samuel was asked when we must begin to say: "And give dew and rain," he replied: From the time when the employees of Ṭabūt the Fowler begin to carry in the twigs! Answer: Both of these time-limits may be the same.

Who is meant by "individuals"? Said R. Huna, Scholars. R. Huna further said, the individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday. What does he teach us? Do we not read: Public fasts should not be decreed to begin on Thursday in order not to cause a sudden rise in market prices, but the first three fast-days should be in the order of Monday, Thursday, and Monday? Answer. You might think that this refers only to congregational fasts but not to the fasts of individuals, therefore he teaches us (that it applies also to fasts of individuals). The same is taught in a Baraita: Individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday, but must refrain from fasting if these days coincide with the New moon

Another Baraita reads: Not every one who wishes to act as a distinguished individual is entitled to do so; students, however, are entitled thereto: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if it is a case where acting as a distinguished individual would bring him distinction, he may not do so, if it would bring him suffering, he is well entitled to it.

We read in a Baraita: Joseph instructed his brethren, do not march in wide (hasty) steps, and bring the sun into town. "Do not march in wide (hasty) steps," because it was said a wide step takes away one five-hundredth of one's eye-sight, and "bring the sun into town," because it was said by R. Judah in the name of Rab, one should always enter (town) in day-time and leave it in day-time, for it is said (Gen., 44. 3): "As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away."

Our Rabbis have taught: If an individual separates from the community when the latter is in distress, the two ministering angels that accompany every man, place their hands upon his head and say, such and such a man who separated himself from the community shall not live to see the comfort of the community. Another Baraita reads: When the community is in distress one should not say, I will go home, eat and drink, and peace will be upon my soul. And if he does so, Scripture says of him (Is., 22.13): "And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine—'let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.'" Now, what are the words that follow this verse? "And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears, surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die." This is the way of the average people, but what is the way of the wicked? "Come ye (say they), I will fetch wine and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant" (Is., 56.12). But what are the words that follow? "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart" (ibid., 57. 1). One should therefore afflict himself with the community, for thus we find that Moses afflicted himself out of sympathy with the community, as it is said (Ex., 17. 12): "But Moses's hands were heavy and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon." Now, did not Moses have a cushion or a pillow to sit upon? But Moses said to himself, as Israel is in trouble I will also share it with them. If a person should say, however, Who is going to testify against me? Yea, the stones of a man's house and the beams of a man's roof testify against him, as it is said (Hab., 2.11): "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it." R. Shila said, the two ministering angels that accompany a man testify against him, for it is said (Ps., 91. 11): "For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." R. Ḥidḳa says, one's soul testifies against him, for it is said (Micah, 7. 5): "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom." The other sages said, one's own limbs testify against him, for it is said (Is., 43. 12): "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God."

Said Samuel: He that fasts (for self-affliction) is called a sinner, wherein Samuel agrees with this Baraita: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Berebi said: Why is it said (Numbers, 6. 11): "And make atonement of him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead"? Against what soul did he sin? It can only mean that he denied himself the enjoyment of wine. Now, if a person who denies himself only the enjoyment of wine is called a sinner, all the more so one who denies himself all the enjoyments of life.

R. Ḥiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi disagree with regard to this matter. One reads yēsar (he bound himself by a vow), the other reads yĕ'ĕsar (is forbidden). If we read yēsar we must understand it in the way we explained it above, but if we read yĕ'ĕsar, we must understand it in accordance with the following Baraita: "'People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer.' This means that if an individual has taken upon himself to fast on Mondays and Thursdays of the whole year, and it happens that those days conflict with some of the holidays recorded in the Scroll of Fasts, the following rule is to be observed. If his vow preceded our proclamation of the holidays, our proclamation must be disregarded on account of his vow, but if our proclamation preceded his vow, his vow must be disregarded on account of our proclamation."

(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:

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

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

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

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

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

Come and hear: "R. 'Abba the Priest said in the name of R. Jose the Priest, it happened that when the sons of R. Jose b. R. Ḥanina died, he bathed in cold water during all the seven days of mourning!" Answer: There the deaths followed closely one after the other, for we read in a Baraita: If several deaths follow closely upon one another, the mourner may, if his hair becomes too thick, make it thinner with a clipper and he may wash his garments in water. Said R. Ḥisda: He may cut the hair with a clipper, but not with scissors; he may wash his garments in water, but not with natron or aloe. R. Ḥisda further said, this Baraita proves that a mourner is not allowed to wash his garments.

Come and hear: "R. 'Abba the Priest said in the name of R. Jose the Priest, it happened that when the sons of R. Jose b. R. Ḥanina died, he bathed in cold water during all the seven days of mourning!" Answer: There the deaths followed closely one after the other, for we read in a Baraita: If several deaths follow closely upon one another, the mourner may, if his hair becomes too thick, make it thinner with a clipper and he may wash his garments in water. Said R. Ḥisda: He may cut the hair with a clipper, but not with scissors; he may wash his garments in water, but not with natron or aloe. R. Ḥisda further said, this Baraita proves that a mourner is not allowed to wash his garments.

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

Did not the Baraita omit to mention the procession with the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Baraita meant to point out only things done privately, not such as are done in public.