cups

“Six for voluntary gifts.” Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the six clans. Bar Pedaiah said, corresponding to seven animals: bull, and calf, and he-goat, ram, and lamb, and kid goat. Samuel said, corresponding to six sacrifices: the nests of the sufferer from gonorrhea, the nests of the sufferer from flux, the nests of the new mother, purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices, flour offerings, and the Tenth of an Ephah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because the gifts were many, they added many horns for it. [As it is said], when they were finished they brought before the king and Jehoyada etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [said], two voluntary gifts. Rebbi Ismael stated, one gift. But is it not written, the king commanded and they made a chest and put it at the outside of the gate of the Eternal’s House. Rav Ḥuna said, because of those impure. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Because of but silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House. Things similar to silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not interrupt between Purim and cow. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: One does not interrupt between cow and this month. Rebbi Levi said, a sign for these paragraphs, “between these cups, he may drink if he wants to drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink.” Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, it would have been logical that this month should precede cow since the Tabernacle was erected on the First of Nisan and the cow was burned on the Second. Why does cow precede? Because it is the purification of all of Israel.

There, we have stated: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands.” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure.

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

“The produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving.” They wanted to say, for the Four Cups (of water or) wine. But if he said, “a vow that I shall drink and be a nazir”, “that I shall drink” comes to say that he will not drink.

“Rebbi Yose says, the lower one contributes the roofing and the upper one the roof covering,” etc. Rebbi Justus in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:: The bottom dweller contributes the logs and the planks; the dweller on the upper floor contributes the roof covering. Which kind of roof covering? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: heavy roof covering. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: medium roof covering, since they only spoke about rinsing cups. But if he wanted to wash clothing, also Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar will agree that the roof covering has to be heavy. Rebbi Ḥanina instructed those of Sepphoris that both of them should contribute the logs and the plates since they expect to bring up there their wine and their produce.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One fills Gentiles’ jugs with water three days from time to time. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi asked, does one do this? Rebbi Yose from Malḥa brought a case before Rebbi Mana. He told him, that is what happened; he answered that it is permitted. Is that to start? He told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah went to Goblana; he instructed about large cups that one fills them with water three days from time to time.

Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject, he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah, which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers.The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command. “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone.

Coverings are the same as protuberances. Veiled is the same as hulled. Roofs are the same as covers. Cups are the same as grooves. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,.

Coverings are the same as protuberances. Veiled is the same as hulled. Roofs are the same as covers. Cups are the same as grooves. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,.

Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even the contemptible ones are forbidden. If it is certain that they are not worshipped, even the honored ones are permitted. But we must deal with the indeterminate case. Rebbi Crispus said, those cups belong to the contemptible category, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba had a pitcher and the (worth) [fortune] of Rome was pictured on it. He came to ask Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, since water swims on top of it, it is a contemptible one. A drinking cup is contemptible since one immerses it in water. In the days of Rebbi Joḥanan they started painting on walls and he did not protest against it. [In the days of Rebbi Abun they started depicting by mosaics and he did not protest against it.]

"Crowning" — Rab Judah used to crown it with disciples. Rab Hisda used to crown it with small cups. R. Hanan said : And with undiluted [wine]. Rab Sheshet said : Until the benediction of "the land."

Rab Assi said : One must not speak over the cup of benediction. Rab Assi also said : We may not say the benediction over a cup of ill-luck. What means "a cup of ill-luck"? Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : A second cup. There is a teaching to the same effect : He who drinks [cups of wine] of an even number should not say Grace ; because it is said, "Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel" (Amos iv. 12); but such an one is not fitly prepared.

But it states: "There is only sufficient for one cup"! There was not sufficient for two cups, but more than enough for one.

And they brought oxen, upon whose back were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. ... When they reached the Shiloah they went down into the water and filled them, then ascended and at again [on the doors]. R. Yose said, [Each child] used to let [his cup] down and fill it from his place because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths.

It has been taught in agreement with Rava: R. Judah said, They did not bring doors at all, because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanness on account of a grave in the depths... but they brought Egyptian oxen with wide bellies, and the children sat on their backs with stone cups in their hands. When they came to Shiloah they descended, filled them, and ascended and sat again on their backs.

This is the general principle: Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. To include the arrangement of the cup and the removal of the cups, and like R. Yose,

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.