contradiction

I can answer: For them also it does not override [Shabbat]. Does not then a contradiction arise between those two mishnayot, since one teaches “all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount,” and the other mishnah teaches... that they brought them] to the synagogue, and we answered, that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple? No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction

There is contradiction between the one statement concerning the lulav and the other, and between the one concerning Sukkah and the other.

The difficulty between the one statement concerning the lulav and the other is resolvable, since one refers to Temple times and the other to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence; But there is a contradiction between the two statements concerning the sukkah.

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

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

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

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

Said R. Ḥisda: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is a widow (without rain). Some say this is so because in that case the fields do not have to lie waste; others say, because the grain of such a year will not be subject to blast. But did not R. Ḥisda say: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is slushy (rainy)? This is no contradiction, for in the one case he has in mind a year in which there was rain previously, in the other a year in which there was no rain during the previous months.

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

"See that ye fall not out by the way" (ib., 45.24)—Joseph said to his brethren, Do not engage in discussions of the Law, lest the road become unsafe for you. This cannot be so! For R. 'El'ai b. Berechiah said: Two scholars who travel on the road and do not discuss among themselves the words of the Torah deserve to be burned, as it is said (II Kings, 2. 11): "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder," which shows that the reason they were saved (from the fire) was that there was talking (about the Torah) among them, but had there been none, they would not have been saved! This is no contradiction, for in the one case reference is had to the mere recitation of one's studies, in the other to the speculation about them.

as if the Holy One were within him, because it is said (Hos., 11. 9): "The Holy One in the midst of thee"? This is no contradiction, for in one instance he has in mind one who can stand privations, in the other one who cannot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

R. Ashi noted a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah,

And just because he finds a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah, he ascribe the baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah?

There is no contradiction; in the one case [the study] of an individual is meant, in the other that of the whole people.

There is no contradiction; the one [piece of advice] refers to one’s own affairs the other to religious matters.

Or if you like I may say that both refer to one’s own affairs, and still there is no contradiction: the one is addressed to one who is wholly righteous, and the other to one who is not wholly righteous, as R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look upon those who deal treacherously, and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habbakuk 1:13). He can swallow up one that is more righteous than himself, he cannot swallow up one that is completely righteous.

Rava replied: There is no contradiction;

Rather, there is no contradiction: the one statement [in the Mishnah] represents the view of the rabbis, the other that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.

But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.

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?

And they raised a contradiction with the following: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Were these all? Has it not already been said, “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob”, And it is written, “All these were fortified cities with high walls” (Deuteronomy 3:4-5)? Why then did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned, they found these [still walled] and sanctified them.

And not only these alone, but with regard to any in which you find a tradition from your ancestors that it was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, all these mitzvot are to be observed, because the first holiness was conferred for the time being and for all future time. There is thus a contradiction between the two statements of R. Ishmael!

In any case there is a contradiction between the texts. It is written [in one], "When there are accomplished for Babylon", (Jeremiah 29:10) and it is written [in the other], "For the desolation of Jerusalem?" (Daniel 9:2).

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. They raised contradiction [between this and the following]: He [the High Priest] reads [on Yom Kippur] “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and “Only on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). But he is skipping?

Abaye said: There is no contradiction; here so that the translator will have come to a stop [before the place is found] in the other case he will not have come to a stop.

Rather Abaye said: There is no contradiction: Here [the reader deals] with one subject, in the other case with two; and in fact it has been taught: The reader may skip in the Torah within one subject, and in a Prophet even if he goes on to another subject’; and in both cases only so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds the place].

The accounts of David and Amnon is read but not translated. But you just said that the story of Amnon and Tamar is both read and translated? — There is no contradiction; the former statement refers to where it says “Amnon son of David,” the latter to where it says “Amnon” simply.

Abaye answered, It isn't a contradiction. Here [where we retry the case] is in Israel; here [where we do not retry the case] is in Diaspora.

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!

Just like the city protects... etc.: And a contradiction, (Numbers 35, 25) "And he shall dwell there" "there" implies not in the boundary [so how can we say that the boundary also protects]? Abaye says, It is not a difficulty. Here [by our Mishna] it's referring to [receiving] protection. Here [by the verse in Numbers] it's referring to [not being permitted to] dwell.

GEMARA: But note a contradiction [from a baraisa regarding maiser sheni, the 2nd tithe], A tree which stands inside [of Jerusalem] but its branches extend outside [the city], or [a tree] which stands outside but its branches extend inside, from the wall and inside is considered inside [with regard to redeeming maiser shenei], and from the wall and outside is considered outside.

But note a contradiction from maiser to maiser, that it was taught in a baraisa, By Jerusalem go after the branches, by cities of refuge go after the branches. Rav Kahana said, It's not a difficulty, This [second baraisa that says maiser goes after the branches is like] Rebbi Yehuda, and this [first baraisa that says maiser shenei goes after the wall is like] the Rabbis. That it [Rebbi Yehuda's opinion] was taught in a baraisa,

[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

One statement of Rebbi Yehudah is in contradiction with another statement of Rebbi Yehudah?!

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

This is a contradiction between [one case of] recitation and [another case of] recitation. This is a contradiction between [one case of] placement and [another case of] placement.

This is a contradiction between [one case of] recitation and [another case of] recitation. This is a contradiction between [one case of] placement and [another case of] placement.

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

Rebbi Yossi asked [a possible contradiction from the following baraisa,] A Kohen that held in his hand a fig of tevel [untithed produce], and said that this fig has its Terumah portion in its stem, its maaser rishon in its northern part, and its maaser sheni in its southern part, and it is in a year of Maaser Sheni and he is in Jerusaelem or it is in a year of maaser ani and he is in the outskirts, if he then eats it

Shmuel said: "One of makes an incision with a tool (kli) is culpable [for the punishment of lashes]." But there's a contradiction here: [it has just been said that] an incision (serita) and a gash (gedidah) are one in the same, but an incision is made by hand and a gash is made by a tool. This one who spoke in accordance with Rabi Yossi,

Rav Sheises anwered, It is not a contradiction. [Our mishna which says that he is still flogged] is where they reexamined him on the same day. [The baraisa, however, which says that he is exonerated] is referring to where he was reexamined the following day or the day after.

Rav Sheises said, it is not a contradiction. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-one lashes [which would be rounded down to thirty-nine - only one set]. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-two lashes [which would include three of the second set as well].