bet

Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands, etc.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : One wipes his hands with a napkin which he lays upon the table ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the bolster, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the bolster and this in turn may render the hands ritually unclean.

But Bet Hillel say : [He lays it] upon the bolster ; for if thou sayest that [he lays it] upon the table, there is a fear lest the moisture on the napkin may contract defilement on account of the table and in its turn defile the food.

What is the point of difference between them? Bet Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a table [unclean in] the second degree through fear of those who are eating Terumah;

but Bet Hillel hold that it is permitted to use a table unclean in the second degree, because those who eat Terumah are careful.

Why this other reason ? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : Should you ask what difference is there that in the case of food we are concerned [about defilement] but in the case of the hands we have no concern ? Even so [our view] is better because the washing of the hands for non-holy food is not ordained by the Torah ; therefore it is preferable that the hands should be defiled, since that has no basis in the Torah, rather than food should be defiled, for which there is a basis in the Torah.

Why this other reason ? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : Should you ask what difference is there that in the case of food we are concerned [about defilement] but in the case of the hands we have no concern ? Even so [our view] is better because the washing of the hands for non-holy food is not ordained by the Torah ; therefore it is preferable that the hands should be defiled, since that has no basis in the Torah, rather than food should be defiled, for which there is a basis in the Torah.

Bet Shammai say : [After the meal] they clear up, etc.

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : They clear up and then we wash the hands [before Grace] ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, the consequence may be that thou wilt spoil some food. (Bet Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands comes first. What is the reason? On account of the pieces of breads.)

Our Rabbis have taught : Bet Shammai say : They clear up and then we wash the hands [before Grace] ; for if thou sayest that we wash the hands first, the consequence may be that thou wilt spoil some food. (Bet Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands comes first. What is the reason? On account of the pieces of breads.)

But Bet Hillel say : If the attendant is a disciple of the wise, he takes those pieces of bread which are of the size of an olive and leaves the pieces which are less than that size.

What is the point of difference between them ? Bet Hillel hold that it is forbidden to employ as an attendant one who is an 'Am ha'ares, whereas Bet Shammai hold that such may be employed.

What is the point of difference between them ? Bet Hillel hold that it is forbidden to employ as an attendant one who is an 'Am ha'ares, whereas Bet Shammai hold that such may be employed.

R. Isaac b. R. Hannina said in the name of Rab Huna: Throughout our Chapter, the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel except in this point where it is in agreement with Bet Shammai. R. Osha'ya, however, teaches the reverse, that here also the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

R. Isaac b. R. Hannina said in the name of Rab Huna: Throughout our Chapter, the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel except in this point where it is in agreement with Bet Shammai. R. Osha'ya, however, teaches the reverse, that here also the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

R. Isaac b. R. Hannina said in the name of Rab Huna: Throughout our Chapter, the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel except in this point where it is in agreement with Bet Shammai. R. Osha'ya, however, teaches the reverse, that here also the Halakah is in agreement with Bet Hillel.

Bet Shammai say: [The order of benedictions is] light, food, etc.

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Rab Huna b. Judah visited the house of Raba and noticed that he said the benediction over the spices first. He said to him : Note that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ on the question of the light ; for our Mishnah teaches : Bet Shammai say : [The order is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah!

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

And R. Johanan said : People act in agreement with the view of Bet Hillel as interpreted by R. Judah.

Bet Shammai say : The wording is "...Who created [bara'] the light [me'or] of fire" etc.

Raba said : Everybody agrees about bara' that it means "he created." In what do they differ? About the word bore' ; Bet Shammai hold that bore' means "he will create," but Bet Hillel hold that bore' has also the same meaning as bara'.

Raba said : Everybody agrees about bara' that it means "he created." In what do they differ? About the word bore' ; Bet Shammai hold that bore' means "he will create," but Bet Hillel hold that bore' has also the same meaning as bara'.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Rab Joseph quoted in objection : "I form the light and create [bore'] darkness" (Is. xlv. 7); "He formeth the mountains and createth [bore'] the wind" (Amos iv. 13); "He that created [bore'] the heavens and stretched them forth" (Is. xlii. 5)! But, said Rab Joseph, everybody agrees that bara' and bore' mean "he created." Wherein do they differ? About meor and meore ["light" and "lights"] for Bet Shammai hold there is only one light in fire, but Bet Hillel hold there are many. There is a teaching to the same effect : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : There are many lights in fire.

Our Rabbis have taught : If they were sitting in the House of Study [at the conclusion of the Sabbath] and light is brought to them, Bet Shammai declare that each one says the benediction for himself ; but Bet Hillel declare that one says the benediction for all, because it is said, "In the multitude of people is the King's glory" (Prov. xiv. 28).

Our Rabbis have taught : If they were sitting in the House of Study [at the conclusion of the Sabbath] and light is brought to them, Bet Shammai declare that each one says the benediction for himself ; but Bet Hillel declare that one says the benediction for all, because it is said, "In the multitude of people is the King's glory" (Prov. xiv. 28).

It is quite right that Bet Hillel explain the reason [for their view] ; but what is the reason of Bet Shammai ? They hold that it will cause an interruption in the House of Study.

It is quite right that Bet Hillel explain the reason [for their view] ; but what is the reason of Bet Shammai ? They hold that it will cause an interruption in the House of Study.

Thou mayest, however, argue that the same thing applies to one who omitted it intentionally and the statement "he forgot" is only intended to show the extreme view of Bet Shammai ; therefore he informs us.

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There is a teaching : Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai : According to your words, he who ate at the top of the Temple Mount and forgot and descended without saying Grace must return to the top and say it! Bet Shammai replied to Bet Hillel : According to your words, if one left a purse at the top of the Temple Mount, should he not go up to fetch it? For his own purpose he may go up ; how much more so for the honour of Heaven !

There were two disciples ; one acted in error according to the view of Bet Shammai and found a purse of gold, and the other acted deliberately according to the view of Bet Hillel and a lion devoured him.

There were two disciples ; one acted in error according to the view of Bet Shammai and found a purse of gold, and the other acted deliberately according to the view of Bet Hillel and a lion devoured him.

Whenever he came to 'Arabot he said the benediction "Blessed... Who hast wrought for me a miracle in 'Arabot and with the camel" ; and whenever he came to the market-place of Mahoza he said, "Blessed... Who hast wrought for me a miracle with the camel and in 'Arabot." They answer : In the case of a miracle wrought on behalf of the many, everybody is obliged to utter the benediction; but in the case of a miracle wrought on behalf of an individual, only he is obliged to say it. Our Rabbis have taught : He who beholds the fords of the [Red] Sea, or the fords of the Jordan, or the fords of the valleys of Arnon, or the hail-stones in the descent of Bet Horon, or the stone which Og, king of Bashan, sought to cast upon Israel, or the stone upon which Moses sat when Joshua fought against Amalek, or [the pillar of salt of] Lot's wife, or the wall of Jericho which was swallowed up in its place — over all these one must give thanks and praise before the All-present. It is quite right with the fords of the [Red] Sea ; for it is written,

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He places it opposite the departing wall. And so they rule in the Bet Midrash: He places it opposite the departing wall.

Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

What then is Bet Shammai's reason? -There is another Scriptural verse "You shall make the festival of Sukkoth for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13). This implies that we require a sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival.

And Bet Hillel? They need this verse to teach that a sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

And Bet Shammai? — They hold the same opinion as R. Eliezer, who said that no sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.

But doesn't Bet Hillel agree with the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If a man made [tzitzit] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid.

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that ‘You shall make’, but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is ‘You shall make’ but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?

This is what he (R. Meir) means: Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above. Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.

Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above. Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.

If thick like a house. Our rabbis have taught, if it is thick like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it: Bet Shammai invalidates it, and Bet Hillel declares it valid.

If thick like a house. Our rabbis have taught, if it is thick like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it: Bet Shammai invalidates it, and Bet Hillel declares it valid.

except where its area was not bigger than two bet se'ah?

Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

Our rabbis taught: on account of four things is the sun in eclipse: On account of an Av Bet Din who died and was not eulogized properly; on account of a betrothed young girl who cried out in the city and there was none to save her; on account of sodomy, and on account of two brothers whose blood was shed at the same time.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

In the case of lulav there is a restrictive enactment on account of the reason of Rabbah. But if so, let us make the same restrictive enactment with regard to the aravah also? In the case of the aravah the agents of the Bet Din would bring it but the lulav is entrusted to everyone.

Mishnah: The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day.

R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.

They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat, the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

Can we also say that they dispute only concerning the music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, but that with regard to the music that accompanied the sacrifices all agree that it overrides Shabbat, and this would, therefore, constitute a double refutation of R. Joseph?

R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].

R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].

R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

Mishnah: They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life 1) At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat Nashim) and they would make there a great enactment. 2) And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls. 1) From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps. 2) And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.

Mishnah: They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life 1) At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat Nashim) and they would make there a great enactment. 2) And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls. 1) From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps. 2) And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple? Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod.

The school of R. Ishmael taught: If this repulsive wretch meets you, drag him to the Bet Hamidrash. If he is of stone, he will dissolve, if he is of iron he will burst into fragments. “If he is of stone he will dissolve,” for it is written, “Hoy, every one that is thirsty come to the water” (Isaiah 55:1) and it is written, “The waters wear the stones” (Job 14:19). “If he is of iron, he will burst into fragments,” for it is written, “Is not my word like fire? Says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29).

A woman could sift wheat by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.

It was taught: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to say: If I am here, everyone is here; but if I am not here, who is here?’ He also used to say: “To the place that I love, there my feet take me. If you will come into my House, I will come into your house. If you will not come to my House, I will not come to your house, as it is said, “In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).

It was taught: They said of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel that when he rejoiced at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to take eight fire torches and throw them in the air and catch one and throw one and they did not touch one another; and when he prostrated himself, he used to dig his two thumbs in the ground, bend down, kiss the ground, and stand himself up again, a feat which no other man could do, and this is what is meant by Kidah.

It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hanania stated: When we used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoeavh our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour [was occupied with] the daily morning sacrifice; from there [we proceeded] to prayers; from there [we proceeded] to the additional sacrifice, then the additional prayers, then to the Bet Midrash, then to eating and drinking, then to Minhah, then to the daily evening sacrifice, and after that the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.

It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hanania stated: When we used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoeavh our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour [was occupied with] the daily morning sacrifice; from there [we proceeded] to prayers; from there [we proceeded] to the additional sacrifice, then the additional prayers, then to the Bet Midrash, then to eating and drinking, then to Minhah, then to the daily evening sacrifice, and after that the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.