clause

When the decree was brought to be read over to the king for his approval, it contained all the other provisions except the phrase 'any captives who were in the land before that time or were brought hither afterwards,' and in his magnanimity and the largeness of his heart the king inserted this clause and gave orders that the grant of money required for the redemption should be deposited in full with the paymasters of the forces and the royal bankers, and so the matter was decided and the decree ratified within seven days.

If he did not write for her, “The male children that will be born from our marriage shall inherit the money of your ketubah over and above their shares with their brothers”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.

If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.

If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Aqiba but not Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ismael explained (Deut. 14:26): “Spend the money on anything you want,” a general clause. “For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink”, detail. “And anything you want,” another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in the light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba.

Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Aqiba but not Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ismael explained (Deut. 14:26): “Spend the money on anything you want,” a general clause. “For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink”, detail. “And anything you want,” another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in the light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

Rebbi Ismael stated: Spend the money on anything you want, this is a general clause. For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink, this is detail. And anything you want, another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael they may not be bought.

Rebbi Ismael stated: Spend the money on anything you want, this is a general clause. For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink, this is detail. And anything you want, another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael they may not be bought.

HALAKHAH: “If he did not write her a ketubah,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said: “Anybody who writes for a virgin less that 200 [zuz] or a mina for a widow engages in immoral intercourse.” Who needs it? Rebbi Meïr! Even though Rebbi Meïr says that any contract which does not contain an alienation clause cannot be foreclosed, here he agrees that it can be foreclosed.

“He is permitted fish cake”; therefore not if it is not ground. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a fish, that he should sell him a sardine. Rebbi Abin understood it from the last clause, “if somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine,” therefore not if it is not ground? Rebbi [Jeremiah] said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a טְרִי, that he sells him a צַחְנָא. There, they call צַחְנָה טְרִית.

HALAKHAH: “If a bull intended,” etc. A bull which intended [to attack] another; therefore, if it intended to hit the woman is he liable? Does it make a difference whether it intended to hit the woman or intended to hit another [bull]? Then why was it stated here? Abba bar Rav Ḥana said, because he had to state the next clause: “But if a human intended [to hurt] another human but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children.”

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.

HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.

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

Here is a self-contradiction ! The first clause declares such a man to be exempt from the obligation, and the latter imposes the obligation upon him !

There is no contradiction : the latter clause referring to where there are two, the former to one.

To which [clause in this teaching does this last statement refer] ? If to the first clause, it is self-evident ; for is a scroll of the Torah less than bones? Nay; it refers to the second clause.

To which [clause in this teaching does this last statement refer] ? If to the first clause, it is self-evident ; for is a scroll of the Torah less than bones? Nay; it refers to the second clause.

To which [clause in this teaching does this last statement refer] ? If to the first clause, it is self-evident ; for is a scroll of the Torah less than bones? Nay; it refers to the second clause.

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

Our question is solved for us ; but the two teachings are contradictory ! Reverse [the names of the teachers] in the latter clause.

What seest thou to reverse [the names of the teachers] in the latter clause ? Reverse them in the former !

What, then, does it signify? "Until" and including. Then the difficulty in the first clause remains, viz. : What is the point of variance between R. Judah and the Rabbis? Dost thou hold the opinion that when R. Judah mentioned "The middle of the afternoon" he meant the second half? He meant the first half, and he must be understood to say : When does the first half conclude and the latter half commence? At the expiration of the eleventh hour less a quarter.

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

And the attendant who has eaten less than the size of an olive. That is evident ! But since he taught the first clause relating to food the size of an olive, he also teaches the latter clause relating to food less than the size of an olive.

And the attendant who has eaten less than the size of an olive. That is evident ! But since he taught the first clause relating to food the size of an olive, he also teaches the latter clause relating to food less than the size of an olive.

It is quite right that even if they are half and half, he should also say the benediction ; but since he taught the first clause "If the majority are gentiles," he also adds "If the majority are Israelites."

Our Rabbis have taught : It happened that Hillel the Elder was returning from a journey and heard a cry of lamentation in the city and said, "I am confident that it is not in my house" ; and to him the Scriptural verse applies, "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings ; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord" (Ps cxii. 7). Raba said : Whenever thou expoundest this verse, it is to be explained from the first clause to the second and from the second to the first. It is to be explained from the first clause to the second, thus : "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings." Why? "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord." It is to be explained from the second clause to the first, thus : "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord"; [therefore] "he shall not be afraid of evil tidings."

Our Rabbis have taught : It happened that Hillel the Elder was returning from a journey and heard a cry of lamentation in the city and said, "I am confident that it is not in my house" ; and to him the Scriptural verse applies, "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings ; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord" (Ps cxii. 7). Raba said : Whenever thou expoundest this verse, it is to be explained from the first clause to the second and from the second to the first. It is to be explained from the first clause to the second, thus : "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings." Why? "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord." It is to be explained from the second clause to the first, thus : "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord"; [therefore] "he shall not be afraid of evil tidings."

Our Rabbis have taught : It happened that Hillel the Elder was returning from a journey and heard a cry of lamentation in the city and said, "I am confident that it is not in my house" ; and to him the Scriptural verse applies, "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings ; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord" (Ps cxii. 7). Raba said : Whenever thou expoundest this verse, it is to be explained from the first clause to the second and from the second to the first. It is to be explained from the first clause to the second, thus : "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings." Why? "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord." It is to be explained from the second clause to the first, thus : "His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord"; [therefore] "he shall not be afraid of evil tidings."

And it is stated, "It is time for the Lord to work ; they have made void Thy Law" (Ps. cxix. 126). Raba said : This verse is to be explained from the first clause to the second, and from the second to the first.

It is to be explained from the first clause to the second, thus : "It is time for the Lord to work" ; why? Because "they have made void Thy Law." It is to be explained from the second to the first, thus: "They have made void Thy Law"; why? Because "It is time for the Lord to work."

This stands to reason also, since it was stated in the final clause To what can it be compared? To a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out of the window and read the Shema’. Learn from this.

‘Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter. Rava said: One should not say: "Let His great name" and then say "be blessed." Rather he should say, "Let His great name be blessed" R. Safra said to him: Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter.

‘Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter. Rava said: One should not say: "Let His great name" and then say "be blessed." Rather he should say, "Let His great name be blessed" R. Safra said to him: Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter.

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

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

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.

How [does this work out]? If it falls on Monday, villages and larger towns read on that same day etc. Why is it that in the first clause of the Mishnah the dates of the month are mentioned and in the second the days of the week?

as a high priest, so as not to create enmity, as an ordinary priest, because raise to a higher grade of holiness but we never put down to a lower. Are we then to say that the first clause [of the Mishnah] follows the Sages and the second R. Meir?

Hisda said: Yes; the first clause follows the Sages and the second R. Meir. R. Joseph said: I t is the opinion of Rabbi, who combined the views of differing tannaim.

But perhaps there is one rule for the one and another rule for the other? Since it teaches in the final clause that R. Judah validates a minor, we may conclude that the first clause does not state the opinion of R. Judah.

But perhaps there is one rule for the one and another rule for the other? Since it teaches in the final clause that R. Judah validates a minor, we may conclude that the first clause does not state the opinion of R. Judah.

How then have you explained [the first clause of the Mishnah]? Like R. Judah and ex post facto.

Come and hear: On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. Thus on public fasts only three read But what about the previous clause: On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah three read. Thus on public fasts four read! Rather we cannot learn from here.

What about the last clause: Nor a humash in the coverings of a Sefer Torah, which would imply that a Sefer Torah in the coverings of another Sefer Torah is allowed? Rather from this we cannot learn [the answer to our question].

To what do these last words apply? Shall I say, to the last clause? Since he burns them on the spot, what respect does this show for the dead? Rather it refers to the preceding clauses.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

Or alternatively, Rav did not learn [anything] missing from the kortov in the first clause [of the Mishnah] and when R' Yochanan b. Nuri disagreed, he disagreed only the last clause,

Or alternatively, Rav did not learn [anything] missing from the kortov in the first clause [of the Mishnah] and when R' Yochanan b. Nuri disagreed, he disagreed only the last clause,

R' Yosef said, I never heard this. Abaye said to him, You told us and this is how you told us, that Rav did not learn [anything] missing from a kortov in the first clause, R' Yochanan disagreed only the last clause and Rav says like the majority.

R' Yosef said, I never heard this. Abaye said to him, You told us and this is how you told us, that Rav did not learn [anything] missing from a kortov in the first clause, R' Yochanan disagreed only the last clause and Rav says like the majority.