conclude

R. Hisda found R. Hananel writing scrolls without a written copy. He said to him: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, but the Sages have ruled: It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. Since he said: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, we may conclude that he could produce them correctly. But we see that R. Meir actually did write? In case of emergency it is different.

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.

On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets.

On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets.

This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read. On a festival five. On Yom Hakippurim six. On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

1) They do not recite the Shema responsively, 2) And they do not pass before the ark; 3) And [the priests] do not lift up their hands; 4) And they do not read the Torah [publicly]; 5) And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets;

From here are we to conclude that fear is a small thing? Yes; for Moses our teacher it was a small thing. This is comparable to a man who was asked for a big vessel and who has it. To him it seems like a small thing, but if he is asked for a small vessel and he does not have it, it seems like a big thing.

They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. Eliezer says: They do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 16) as a haftarah.

They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. Eliezer says: They do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 16) as a haftarah.

From this we may conclude that that selling one Sefer Torah to buy another is permitted? Perhaps study comes under a different rule, since study leads on to practice. Marrying also [is permitted because it says], “He created it not as waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18) but to selling a Sefer Torah to buy another is not permitted.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.

On what do they argue? Concerning produce which had the processing finished prior to passing through Jerusalem. That Beis Shammai say that he must return it's maaser sheni and eat it in Jerusalem. But Beis Hillel say that it can be redeemed and eaten anywhere. And if we were to conclude that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given, why the walls already encompassed [the maaser sheni, and it would have to be brought back to Jerusalem even according to Beis Hillel!?]