baraita

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.

One Baraita teaches: Pregnant or nursing women must fast during the first three days, but not during the last seven days; another Baraita teaches that they must fast during the last but not during the first, while a third Baraita teaches, they need not fast either during the first or the last! Said R. Sheshet, take it that the intermediary fast days are meant, which will harmonize all three Baraitot.

One Baraita teaches: Pregnant or nursing women must fast during the first three days, but not during the last seven days; another Baraita teaches that they must fast during the last but not during the first, while a third Baraita teaches, they need not fast either during the first or the last! Said R. Sheshet, take it that the intermediary fast days are meant, which will harmonize all three Baraitot.

One Baraita teaches: Pregnant or nursing women must fast during the first three days, but not during the last seven days; another Baraita teaches that they must fast during the last but not during the first, while a third Baraita teaches, they need not fast either during the first or the last! Said R. Sheshet, take it that the intermediary fast days are meant, which will harmonize all three Baraitot.

In what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

In what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

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

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

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

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.

The question was raised: What does this Mishnah teach? Does it mean to say that on Thursdays we leave the doors slightly open all day, or that we may keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath? Come and hear: A Baraita states: on Mondays toward evening we leave the doors slightly open, but on Thursdays we keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath; if the shop has two doors, one only should be opened and the other closed; if the owner had a stand before the door, he may open and close the latter as he pleases.

Gemara: What is the order of procedure on the fast days? The ark is carried out, etc. Does this order of procedure apply also to the first six fasts? This would contradict a Baraita which reads: On the first three and the second three fast days the people go to the synagogue and pray in the same way as they do during the whole year, but on the seven last fast days the ark is carried into the open place of the town and ashes are strewn on it (on the head of the Nasi, and on the head of the Ab Bet Din, and everyone else takes ashes and puts on his head; R. Nathan said, it was wood-ashes that were used)! Said R. Papa: Our Mishnah also has reference to the last seven fasts only.

On the head of the Nasi and the head of the Ab Bet Din. And then "everyone present takes some of it and puts upon his own head"? Does not a Baraita state: Rabbi said: For distinction the most important person comes first, but for degradation the least important comes first; for distinction the most important person comes first, because it is said (Levit., 10. 6): "And Moses spake unto Aaron and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar his son." For degradation the least important comes first because the serpent was degraded first, then Eve, and then Adam?! Answer. In our case, too, it is a sign of distinction for them, for we thus demonstrate to them that they are the men to pray for mercy for all of us.

He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, namely, the eighteen that are read every day, to which he adds six more. You say six, are they not seven, as we read in the Mishnah: "The seventh he closes thus"? Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Do you know what "seventh" means? It means the seventh of the longer benedictions, as it is stated in a Baraita: The reader must prolong the benediction: "Redeemer of Israel" and, in closing it, he is to say: "He who answered Abraham our ancestor on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel"; the congregation responds: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Blow, ye priests, blow! He who answered our fathers on the Red Sea, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who rememberest things forgotten!" The congregation answers: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same order was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in one case he would say "blow!" and in the other "sound the alarm!" However, the rule (of responding Amen) applies only to services in the country, but in the Sanctuary it was not so, because it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary. Whence do we know that they did not respond Amen in the Sanctuary? It is said (Nehem., 9. 5): "Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting; and let them say: 'Blessed be Thy glorious Name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise.'" One might think that after all the benedictions there was one doxology, Scripture therefore says: "exalted above all blessing," which means to say: Give praise after each blessing (benediction). What then was said in the Sanctuary? The reader said: "Blessed is the Lord, Our God, the God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel," to which the congregation responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Blow, ye priests, blow!" whereupon the reader again said: "He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou who rememberest things forgotten," to which they responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same procedure was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in connection with the one he would say "blow!" and with the other, "sound the alarm!" until he had finished them all. This procedure was introduced also by R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and by R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin, but when the matter came before the other Sages they said, this was customary only before the Eastern Gates and on the Temple Mount.

Some give the foregoing passage in the following version: As is stated in a Baraita, he recites before them twenty-four benedictions, namely, the eighteen daily benedictions, to which he adds six more. Where are the latter inserted? Between "Redeemer" and "Healer." The benediction of redemption is prolonged and Amen is responded after each benediction. This was the custom in the country, but in the Sanctuary they used to say: "Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who redeemest Israel," whereupon the congregation responded: "Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye," because it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary. And whence do we know that it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary? For it is said (Neh., 9. 5): "Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting; and let them say: 'Blessed be Thy glorious Name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise.'" One might think that there was one general doxology pronounced after all the benedictions, Scripture therefore says, "exalted above all blessing and praise", which means to say: Give praise after each blessing (benediction). Thus before closing the first he says: Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who redeemest Israel, to which the congregation responds: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye!" The sexton of the synagogue then says: "Blow, ye priests, blow!", whereupon the reader repeats: "He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah", etc. They then blow, sound the alarm and blow again. The second he closes by saying: "Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou who rememberest things forgotten," to which the congregation responds: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye," whereupon the sexton of the synagogue says: "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The reader then repeats: "He who answered our fathers on the Red Sea", etc. This order is observed in all benedictions, namely that in connection with one he would say first "blow!" and with the other "sound the alarm," until he had finished them all. R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin introduced the same order, but when the matter came before the other Sages they said, this was customary only before the Eastern Gates and on the Temple mount.

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

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

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

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

What was Nicanor Day? It is taught in a Baraita: Nicanor was one of the Greek generals. Every day he used to wave his hand in the direction of Judah and Jerusalem saying, when will that nation fall into my hands that I might crush it! When the Hasmonean Kings prevailed and defeated the Greeks, they broke through his legions, cut off his thumbs and big toes, hung them at the gates of Jerusalem and said: Upon the mouth that spoke so haughtily and the hands that waved against Judah and Jerusalem such vengeance is executed.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

If rains came down which benefited the plants but not the trees, etc. It is quite possible that a rain may be good for plants but not for trees; when, for example, it comes down gently; it may be good for trees but not for plants, when it comes down vehemently; it may be good for both, but not for cisterns, ditches and caves, when it comes down in both forms, but not in abundance. But when do you find that, as is stated in a Baraita, there is rain for cisterns, ditches and caves, and not for plants or trees? This happens when the rain comes down in a cloudburst.

Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for rain for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for the cisterns, ditches, and caves it is sounded also during the Sabbatical year; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, for the trees also we sound during the Sabbatical year, because they furnish a livelihood to the poor. Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for cisterns, ditches, and caves, it is sounded even during the Sabbatical year; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, also for what grows of itself we sound during the Sabbatical year, because it furnishes a livelihood to the poor.

Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for rain for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for the cisterns, ditches, and caves it is sounded also during the Sabbatical year; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, for the trees also we sound during the Sabbatical year, because they furnish a livelihood to the poor. Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for cisterns, ditches, and caves, it is sounded even during the Sabbatical year; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, also for what grows of itself we sound during the Sabbatical year, because it furnishes a livelihood to the poor.

It is taught in a Baraita: Said R. Eleazar b. Peraṭa: Ever since the Temple was destroyed rain is diminishing in the world; there are years with abundant rain and years with but little rain; there are years in which the rain comes in its proper season and years in which it comes out of season. A year with seasonable rains may be compared to the treatment of a slave by his master who gives him his weekly fare on the first day of the week; the result then is that the dough is properly baked and palatable. A year with unseasonable rains may be compared to the treatment of a slave by his master who gives him his weekly fare on the eve of the Sabbath; the result is that the dough is not well baked and not palatable. In a year with abundant rain the situation is like that of a slave to whom his master gives his provision for the whole year at once; the waste in the mill in grinding a kor is the same as in grinding a ḳab; likewise the waste in the trough in kneading the dough of a kor is the same as in kneading the dough of a ḳab. In a year with but little rain the situation is like that of a slave to whom his master gives his provision little by little. The waste in grinding a ḳab is the same as in grinding a kor, and the waste in kneading a ḳab is the same as in kneading a kor.

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

Is not the foregoing Baraita contradictory? First it says: If the beasts appear in the towns it is a visitation, making no distinction between day and night, later again it says that it is a visitation only when they appear by day and not when they appear by night. It is no contradiction, and the meaning is this: If the beasts appear in the town by day, it is a visitation, if by night, it is not. "If the beast saw two people and ran after them it is a visitation." This would imply that if the beast remained standing in its place it is not a visitation, and yet in the following clause it is taught that "if the beast fled it is not a visitation," which implies that if it remained standing in its place, it is a visitation! This too is no contradiction, because in the one case the reference is to a beast standing in a field that is near reedland, in the other, to one standing in a field that is not near reedland. "If it tore two persons and devoured only one of them, it is a visitation." But just above it was said that even if it only ran after them it is a visitation! Answer. This sentence refers to a beast standing in the very midst of the reeds. "If it climbed upon the roof and took a child out of a cradle, it is a visitation." Is this not a matter of course? Said R. Papa, the statement is needed in order to include the case of a beast taking a child out of a cradle standing in a hunter's cave.

It happened that certain elders, as they travelled from Jerusalem to their home cities, etc. The question was raised: Does the Mishnah mean a quantity of grain sufficient to fill an oven, or a quantity of grain sufficient to fill an oven with bread? Come and hear: A Baraita teaches, "A quantity sufficient to close the opening of an oven" (which can refer only to loaves of bread). The question still remains whether this means as many loaves as would cover the opening (on top) of the oven or a row of loaves reaching up to the opening of the oven? This remains undecided.

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, in the Exile we do sound the alarm at once (for excessive rain). The same is taught in a Baraita: When there was excessive rain, the people belonging to the division (of that week) would send word to their delegates in Jerusalem: "Look ye out for your brethren in the Exile, that their houses should not become their graves!"

R. Eleazar was asked, how long must a rainfall last without our being allowed to pray for its cessation? "Until," he replied, "a man can sit on the Ḳeren 'Ofel and have his foot dabble in the water." Did not another Baraita teach "hand" (instead of feet)? Said 'Abbayi, by saying "foot" the situation is so conceived that the man could also wash his hands while sitting there. Said Rabbah b. Bar Ḥanah: I saw that place, and [while I was standing on it], an Arab riding on a camel and holding a spear in his hand passed beneath me, and he looked to me as small as a flax worm.

because she was ashamed (to have it known that she had nothing to bake for the Sabbath). She had, however, a certain neighbor who said: "I surely know that she has nothing (to bake), let me go and see what causes that smoke." She went in and found the stove full of bread and a kneading-trough full of dough. She therefore exclaimed: "Hear! Hear! Bring a shovel, for your bread is getting charred!" It is taught in a Baraita that R. Ḥanina's wife actually went for a shovel, because she was used to miracles (and therefore did not assume that the woman was mocking her).

Once the wife of R. Ḥanina said to her husband: "Pray that some of the good which is stored up for the righteous in the world to come may be given to you here." He prayed and a leg of a golden table was swung into his house, but subsequently he saw in a dream that all other people would dine on a table with three legs, while he would dine on a table with two legs. She then said to him: "Pray that they should take it (the golden leg) back." He did so and it was taken back. It was taught in a Baraita that the latter miracle was greater than the former, for there is a tradition that things prayed for may be granted, but (when granted) are never taken back.

Does a cedar produce young shoots? Do we not read in a Baraita: He who buys a tree from his neighbor in order to fell it, must cut it a hand-breadth above the ground; if the tree is a virgin-sycamore, he must cut it three hand-breadths above the ground; and if it is a truncated sycamore, he must cut it two hand-breadths above ground; if he buys reeds and vine, he must cut them above the knot; in case of palm-trees and cedars he may dig deep in the ground and uproot them, because they do not produce young shoots! Answer. In the passage above (of R. Ḥiyya) reference is had to different kinds of cedars, which is in keeping with a statement of Rabbah b. R. Huna; for Rabbah b. R. Huna said that it was taught in the School of Rab: There are ten kinds of cedars, as it is said (Is., 41. 19): "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane-tree and the larch together."

We read in a Baraita: R. Simeon ben Eleazar said, Not a hand-breadth of rain comes from above, but that the deep below comes up to meet it with two hand-breadths. But did we not read three hand-breadths (instead of two)? There is no contradiction, for one passage refers to tilled ground and the other to fallow ground.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel: The priests, Levites, and Israelites were all indispensable for the offering up of the sacrifices. In a Baraita it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Priests, Levites, Israelites and musical instruments were indispensable for the sacrifice. What is the underlying principle of this difference of opinion? The one authority (Samuel) holds that the essential feature of the Temple music was singing, while the other authority holds that it was the playing of an instrument.

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

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

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

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

This procedure was adhered to only during the morning and Musaf prayers, but in the afternoon prayer everybody recited (the whole text) for himself by heart, etc. The question was asked: How is this passage to be understood? Does it mean to say that in the morning and Musaf prayers the portion is read from the book (Scroll) and in the afternoon by heart, as one reads the Shema', or that in the morning prayer it is read from the Scroll and in the Musaf and afternoon prayers by heart, as one reads the Shema'? Come and hear the reply: It is taught in a Baraita: During the morning and Musaf prayers the people assemble in the synagogue and read from the Torah in the same way as they do during the entire year, but during the afternoon prayer one individual recites the whole portion by heart. Said R. Jose: Is an individual ever allowed to recite the Torah for the congregation by heart? You must therefore say that all the congregants read it individually (for themselves) by heart, as one reads the Shema'.

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

Five calamities befell our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz, etc. Whence is it known that on that day the tables of the Law were broken (by Moses)? It is stated in a Baraita: On the sixth of the month (of Siwan) the Ten Commandments were given to Israel; R. Jose said on the seventh thereof. He who says that it was on the sixth is of the opinion that the giving of the Commandments took place on the sixth, and the ascendance (of Moses to Mount Sinai) on the seventh; while he who says that it was on the seventh is of the opinion that both events took place on the seventh. Now, Scripture says (Exod., 24. 18): "And Moses was on the mount forty days and forty nights." Further it is written (ibid., 32. 19): "And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands and broke them beneath the mount."

A breach was made in the walls of the city. Was that on the seventeenth of Tammuz? Is it not written (Jerem., 52. 6-7): "In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city," and further on it is said (ibid., 52. 7): "Then a breach was made in the city"? Said Raba, this is no difficulty, for one statement refers to the time of the First Temple, and the other to the time of the Second, as is stated in a Baraita: On the ninth day of the month a breach was made in the city during the time of the First Temple, but during the time of the Second Temple the breach was made on the seventeenth thereof.

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

(On the ninth of Ab) the first Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is written (II Kings, 25. 8): "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 25. 9): "And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Further it is written (Jerem., 52. 12): "In the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 52. 13): "And he burned the house of the Lord," etc. Now, a Baraita, commenting upon these verses, reads: "On the seventh" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the tenth"; "on the tenth" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the seventh"; how is this to be understood? On the seventh of the month the heathen entered the Temple, eating and drinking therein and breaking down its walls throughout the following eighth and ninth days until the (ninth) day declined, as it is said (ibid., 6. 4): "Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out." Towards the evening of that day they set it afire and toward sunset of the tenth of the month it had burned down. Therefore R. Johanan b. Zakkai said, had I lived in that generation, I would have fixed the tenth (as the day of mourning), for the greater part of the Temple was burnt on the tenth. Why did the Sages of that time select the ninth? Because they held that the beginning of the punishment is the main event.

(On the ninth of Ab) the second Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said, fortunate events are assigned to a lucky day, but calamities are assigned to an unlucky day. It was reported that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was on the ninth of Ab which happened to be on a Sunday, while the year was one following immediately upon a sabbatical year; further it was in the week in which the division of priests from the house of Jehojarib was on duty; the Levites were standing on their platform. [What song did they intone? They sang the verse (Ps., 94. 23): "And He hath brought upon them their own iniquity, and will cut them off in their own evil;" but before they were able to add the words: "The Lord our God will cut them off," the heathen came in and subdued them.] All this happened also in the second Temple.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

R. Benjamin b. Jephet also said in the name of R. Eleazar that the prohibition of washing refers only to washing for immediate wear, but washing for the purpose of putting aside is allowed. An objection was again raised from the following Baraita: It is not allowed to wash before the ninth of Ab (within the same week) even when the intention is to put the clothes aside for use after the ninth of Ab; our (Babylonian) fine laundry work is under the same rule as their (Palestinian) plain washing; linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding laundering! This, indeed, is a refutation.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

There is one Baraita that agrees with the first statement, while another Baraita agrees with the second statement. The Baraita that agrees with the second statement reads: He who takes a meal on the eve of the ninth of Ab, may, if he expects to take another meal at a later hour, eat meat and drink wine, but if he does not expect to eat again, he is not allowed to do so. The Baraita that agrees with the first statement reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, he should change his usual mode of living. Said R. Judah: How is this change to be made? If he was used to eat of two courses, he should eat of only one; if he was used to dine in the company of ten people, he should now dine with five; and if he was used to drink wine out of ten successive glasses, he should now drink the same quantity in five glasses; the foregoing prohibitions apply only to meals taken in the afternoon, but not to the forenoon.

There is one Baraita that agrees with the first statement, while another Baraita agrees with the second statement. The Baraita that agrees with the second statement reads: He who takes a meal on the eve of the ninth of Ab, may, if he expects to take another meal at a later hour, eat meat and drink wine, but if he does not expect to eat again, he is not allowed to do so. The Baraita that agrees with the first statement reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, he should change his usual mode of living. Said R. Judah: How is this change to be made? If he was used to eat of two courses, he should eat of only one; if he was used to dine in the company of ten people, he should now dine with five; and if he was used to drink wine out of ten successive glasses, he should now drink the same quantity in five glasses; the foregoing prohibitions apply only to meals taken in the afternoon, but not to the forenoon.

There is one Baraita that agrees with the first statement, while another Baraita agrees with the second statement. The Baraita that agrees with the second statement reads: He who takes a meal on the eve of the ninth of Ab, may, if he expects to take another meal at a later hour, eat meat and drink wine, but if he does not expect to eat again, he is not allowed to do so. The Baraita that agrees with the first statement reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, he should change his usual mode of living. Said R. Judah: How is this change to be made? If he was used to eat of two courses, he should eat of only one; if he was used to dine in the company of ten people, he should now dine with five; and if he was used to drink wine out of ten successive glasses, he should now drink the same quantity in five glasses; the foregoing prohibitions apply only to meals taken in the afternoon, but not to the forenoon.

There is one Baraita that agrees with the first statement, while another Baraita agrees with the second statement. The Baraita that agrees with the second statement reads: He who takes a meal on the eve of the ninth of Ab, may, if he expects to take another meal at a later hour, eat meat and drink wine, but if he does not expect to eat again, he is not allowed to do so. The Baraita that agrees with the first statement reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, he should change his usual mode of living. Said R. Judah: How is this change to be made? If he was used to eat of two courses, he should eat of only one; if he was used to dine in the company of ten people, he should now dine with five; and if he was used to drink wine out of ten successive glasses, he should now drink the same quantity in five glasses; the foregoing prohibitions apply only to meals taken in the afternoon, but not to the forenoon.

Another Baraita reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, nor eat meat or drink wine; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the other Sages said, he should make a change, while in the case of meat and wine he should reduce the quantity. How is he to reduce it? If he was used to eat a pound of meat, he should now eat only half a pound; if he was used to drink a log of wine, he should drink half a log; and if he was not used to meat or wine, he should not partake of them at all. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, if he was used to eat radishes or salted food after the meals, he may do so.

One should not eat meat or drink wine. It was taught in a Baraita: But one may eat salted (pickled) meat and drink wine from his vat. How long does pickled meat retain its original (natural) taste (so that it is prohibited on the eve of the ninth of Ab)? Said R. Ḥinena b. Kahana in the name of Samuel, as long as it is within the time set for the eating of the meat of a peace offering (i. e., 60 hours). How long is wine to be considered as coming fresh from the vat? As long as it is fermenting. It was taught in a Baraita: New wine that is still fermenting does not come under the law forbidding to drink liquids left uncovered. How long does the fermentation last? Three days.

One should not eat meat or drink wine. It was taught in a Baraita: But one may eat salted (pickled) meat and drink wine from his vat. How long does pickled meat retain its original (natural) taste (so that it is prohibited on the eve of the ninth of Ab)? Said R. Ḥinena b. Kahana in the name of Samuel, as long as it is within the time set for the eating of the meat of a peace offering (i. e., 60 hours). How long is wine to be considered as coming fresh from the vat? As long as it is fermenting. It was taught in a Baraita: New wine that is still fermenting does not come under the law forbidding to drink liquids left uncovered. How long does the fermentation last? Three days.

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

Both Rabbah and R. Joseph said, it is the day on which they ceased cutting wood (trees) for the altar, for we read in a Baraita: R. Eliezer the Great said, from the fifteenth of Ab and onward the power of the sun weakens and therefore they cut no more wood for the altar. Said R. Menashiya: And this day was called, "the day of Breaking the Axe." From that time on any one who increases his study of the Torah (because of the lengthened evenings), will lengthen his life, and he who does not increase his study, will be taken away. What does "taken away" mean? R. Joseph taught: His mother will bury him.

The daughters of Jerusalem used to go out ... and dance in the vineyards. It was taught in a Baraita that all single men used to betake themselves to those places (to select wives).

and therefore attributed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

In any case, in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

Joseph said: Because the poor are anxiously awaiting the reading of the Megillah. It has also been taught in a baraita: Although they said that villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day.

Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the baraita] refers to the Megillah, the other to the other books [of the Scripture]. What is the reason in the case of the Megillah? — Because it is written in regard to it, “According to their writing and according to their language” (Esther 1:20). What case of Aramaic being written in Hebrew is possible here?

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

In a baraita it was taught: “I have not rejected them” — in the days of the Chaldeans, when I raised up for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; “Neither did I abhor them” — in the days of the Greeks, when I raised up for them Shimon the Righteous and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattathias the High Priest; “To destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman, when I raised up for them Mordecai and Esther; “To break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians, when I raised up for them the members of the house of Rabbi and the Sages of the various generations. “For I am the Lord their God” — in the time to come, when no nation or people will be able to rule over them.

It has also been taught in a baraita: There was yet another year left to Babylon, and Darius arose and completed it.

In a baraita it was stated If nothing is known about the character of a man or of his ancestors, and the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a praiseworthy action, as for instance, “The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah” (Zephaniah 1:1) we may know that he was a righteous man son of a righteous man; and wherever the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a reprehensible action, as for instance, “And it came to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael the son [of Netanel] son of Elishama came” (Jeremiah 41:1) we may know that he was a wicked man son of a wicked man.

Rather, he spent fourteen years in the house of Ever, as it has been taught in a baraita: Jacob was fourteen years hidden in the House of Ever. Ever died, two years after Jacob our father had gone to Aram Naharaim. He then went forth from where he was and came to Aram Naharaim. When he stood by the well he was seventy-seven years old.

And how do we know that he was not punished [for these fourteen years]? As it has been taught in a baraita: We find that Joseph was away from his father twenty-two years just as Jacob our father was away from his father. But Jacob’s absence was thirty-six years? It must be then that the fourteen years which he was in the House of Ever are not counted.

The Amidah prayer: From where do we know this? — As it has been taught: Shimon Hapakuli organized eighteen blessings in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel in a fixed order in Yavneh. R. Yohanan said (others report, it was stated in a baraita): A hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, drew up eighteen blessings in a fixed order.

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

[Rava could respond]: But have you emended the [baraita] in any case. Read, [then] “reads with the rest.”

It has been taught in another baraita: They may not skip from one prophet to another. In the Twelve Minor Prophets they may skip, as long as he does not skip from the end of the book to the beginning.

Yohanan said: A blind person in even one of his eyes should not lift up his hands. But was there not one in the neighborhood of R. Yohanan who used to spread forth his hands?... The townspeople had become accustomed to him. It was also taught in a baraita: A blind person even in one of his eyes should not lift up his hands, but if the townspeople are accustomed to him, he is permitted.

Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them to assist with it the poor of their own town. It has also been taught in a baraita:

Grass, who said anything about grass!? The baraita is lacking, and the statement should read thus: They should be swept and the floor beaten down so that grass should not grow in them. Judah said: When is this so? When they are still in use; but when they are destroyed, we let grass grow in them, and it should not be plucked, so as not to cause excessive sorrow.

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: “Through error” (Numbers 35:11) this excludes acting willfully. “Without awareness” (Deuteronomy 19:4) this excludes intentionality.

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: “If he came upon him suddenly” (Numbers 35:22) this excludes a [case when someone turns quickly] around a corner. “Without hatred” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who hates [their victim]. “He pushed him” (Numbers 35:22) [means] when he pushed his body. “Or hurled upon him” (Numbers 35:22) includes downward motion that is for a need of upward motion. “Without lying in wait (tz’diyah)” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who intends [to throw something] to one side (tzad) and it goes to the other side. “And if one does not lie in wait (tzadah)” (Exodus 21:13) excludes the one who intends to throw [something] two cubits and he threw [it] four cubits.

R' Abahu asked R' Yohanan a question: If a person was ascending a ladder and a rung broke under him and it fell and struck someone below and killed him, is this a situation of ascent [where he would be exempt] or descent [where he would be held liable]? He said to him: You've already touched on this [in an earlier baraita]—in a case of descending for the purpose of ascent [here, we mean that the rung is going downward for the purpose of the person ascending].

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, etc. Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And “and found [his neighbor]” (Deuteronomy 19:5) excludes the one who places himself [in danger]. From here [it follows that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], he is exempt [from exile].

Is that to say that “found” [means that the person] was already there from the outset? And pit them against each other [this baraita and the baraita that follows]: “And he found” (Leviticus 25:26) [This verse describes a case in which someone has a third party redeem a field because they do not have funds. If that person is trying to subvert the system and already has the money to redeem, he is not permitted to go through this process of including a third party] excludes [what was already] found, because he may not sell a far [field] and redeem it with [a field that is] close, [nor a field that is] bad and redeem it for a good [quality field].

Is that to say that “found” [means that the person] was already there from the outset? And pit them against each other [this baraita and the baraita that follows]: “And he found” (Leviticus 25:26) [This verse describes a case in which someone has a third party redeem a field because they do not have funds. If that person is trying to subvert the system and already has the money to redeem, he is not permitted to go through this process of including a third party] excludes [what was already] found, because he may not sell a far [field] and redeem it with [a field that is] close, [nor a field that is] bad and redeem it for a good [quality field].

Rava said: here, the verse [in the second baraita] is according to its context, and there, the verse [in the first baraita] is according to its context. There, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as “he obtained it in his hand” (Leviticus 25:26). Just as he obtained it in his hand from now [meaning already in the past] so too, he also found from now [meaning already in the past]. Here, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as the forest. Just as the forest something was there from the outset, so too, also [in the case of] “he found” something was there from the outset.

Rava said: here, the verse [in the second baraita] is according to its context, and there, the verse [in the first baraita] is according to its context. There, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as “he obtained it in his hand” (Leviticus 25:26). Just as he obtained it in his hand from now [meaning already in the past] so too, he also found from now [meaning already in the past]. Here, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as the forest. Just as the forest something was there from the outset, so too, also [in the case of] “he found” something was there from the outset.

"But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

They raised a contradiction [from a baraita]: Therefore, a resident foreigner and a idol worshiper who killed are put to death. This teaches that a resident foreigner is comparable to an idol worshiper! Just as in the case of an idol worshiper, there is no difference if he killed one of his own kind or if he killed one who was not his own kind—he is put to death; so too [in the case] of a resident foreigner, there is no difference if he killed one of his own kind or if he killed one who was not his own kind, he is put to death!