date

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas; it was heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father or any person from whom he might inherit went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of broken persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known. Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of broken people. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

HALAKHAH: “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah,” etc. “Two bills of divorce and two ketubot” etc. But only if the bill of divorce is dated between the two ketubot. So far if they are equal. If one was for a mina, the other for 200 [zuz]? Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah and Rav Ḥisda. One said, she collects the first one. The other said, she collects the second one and the excess she collects from the date of the second.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat dates, he is permitted date honey; from winter grapes, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, if he vowed to forbid to himself anything which is called by the name of its derivative, he also is forbidden the derivative, but the Sages permit it.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to use wine, he is permitted apple wine. Not oil, he is permitted sesame oil. Not honey, he is permitted date honey. Not vinegar, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Not leeks, he is permitted field leeks. Of vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables, because that is an accompanying name.

HALAKHAH: If one fixed the time for his son’s wedding and said, a qônām that I shall not taste wine until the wedding, is that as if the time was fixed? Or, since he could move the time to a later date, is it as if the time was not fixed?

“I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date.” They told him, this [warning] is for now, and that for the later date. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is [] whipped; within the last 30 days, he is (not) whipped. Should one not say that the first days may be within the period of his vow, the later ones are after the period of his vow? “All days of his status as nazir,” to make the days after he finished his term like the days before he finished his term with respect to wine, impurity, and shaving.

“I made a vow of nazir but I forgot whether it was for now or for a later date.” They told him, this [warning] is for now, and that for the later date. If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is [] whipped; within the last 30 days, he is (not) whipped. Should one not say that the first days may be within the period of his vow, the later ones are after the period of his vow? “All days of his status as nazir,” to make the days after he finished his term like the days before he finished his term with respect to wine, impurity, and shaving.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevasses, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he [filled] it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better she should be judged as single rather than as a married woman.

There, we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Bibon bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

MISHNAH: A man may contract a premininary marriage either in person or through an agent, and a woman may be taken in preliminary marriage either in person or through an agent. A man may give away his adolescent daughter in preliminary marriage himself or through his agent. If a man say to a woman: Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit, be preliminarily married by that one, she is preliminarily married if one of them was worth a peruṭah, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. By this and by that one, she is preliminarily married if together they are worth a peruṭah, but if she was eating immediately what she received, she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.

Mishnah: “Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit,” etc. The Mishnah [presents the case] that she said, I cannot accept this one, try that one; I cannot accept this one, try that one. “By this and by that one and by that one.” Who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Meïr, either this or this or that one.

A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.

A person stole a hard date. The case came before Samuel who said to him, go and estimate for him at the top of the date palm. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was a preserve of unripe dates.

It was stated: “One who says, my house shall acquire for me any find that fell into it, did not say anything. If the find was known, his words stand.” As in the case of Rebbi Abba bar Mina’s sharecropper who climbed a date palm, found pigeon chicks there, and took them. He went to ask the master, who said nothing to him. He went and returned them. Rebbi Abba bar Mina said, his returning is more difficult for us than his finding.

Rebbi Eleazar said, for I am saying that he wanted to take a loan but did not. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the debtor agreed, he should return it. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the document was generally known to be in the creditor’s hand, he should return it. But all three are broken, “the Sages say, in no case should he return them.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

But could he not return it if the date was not of the same day? Do they disagree? But Rebbi Abbahu said* in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Joḥanan said*: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

But could he not return it if the date was not of the same day? Do they disagree? But Rebbi Abbahu said* in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Joḥanan said*: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

MISHNAH: If somebody paid off part of his debt, deposited his bond with a third party, and told him, if I have not paid him by date x, return the bond to him. If the time has passed while he did not pay, Rebbi Yose says, he shall return it; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall not return it. If somebody’s bond became illegible, he presents witnesses about it to the court and they confirm for him: The bond of Mr. X, son of Mr. Y, dated from day Z became illegible; U and V were his witnesses.

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”?

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

A person brought a suit before Rav Huna, He told him, bring me a person who climbs the date palm instead of me.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years but not months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the (month) [year] one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but [he said] “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

MISHNAH: An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable only once. An oath that I shall eat neither wheat bread, nor barley bread, nor spelt bread; when he ate wheat bred, and barley bread, and spelt bread, he is liable for each single one. An oath that I shall not drink; if he drank many kinds he is liable only for one. An oath that I shall drink neither wine, nor oil, not date syrup, if he drank he is liable for each single one.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Scurvy is dangerous. Rebbi Joḥanan had it; he was treated by the daughter of Domitianus of Tiberias. Friday evening he went down to her and asked her, will I need anything tomorrow? She said no, but if you need anything take date pits, some say of Nicolaus dates, split and heated, skin of barley grain, and dry excrement of a baby, grind it and apply it; do not tell this to anybody. The next day he went up and preached it in the House of Study. She heard it and strangled herself; but some say that she converted. You understand from this three things. You understand that scurvy is dangerous. You understand that anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. You understand what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place.

Mar b. Rab Ashe also said : Over the honey of the date-palm we use the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist." What is the reason ? Because it is only the moisture [of the tree].

According to whom is this ? According to the Tanna of the following Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the honey of the date-palm, cider, the vinegar of winter-grapes and other fruit-juices which are brought as an offering, [if a non-priest in error partake thereof] R. Eliezer condemns him to pay the value plus a fifth; but R. Joshua exempts him.

"Honey" — one must have eaten as much as a large date on the Day of Atonement [to have incurred the penalty for breaking the fast]. But the other [Rabbi]? [He asks] : Are these standards explicitly stated in this verse ? No, they are ordained by the Rabbis, and this verse serves only as a support.

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan : A man is only shown [in a dream what emanates] from the thoughts of his heart ; as it is said, "As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed" (Dan. ii. 29). Or if thou wilt I can say from this passage, "That thou mayest know the thoughts of thy heart" (ibid. v. 30). Raba said : Thou mayest know this from the fact that a man is never shown [in a dream] a golden date-palm or an elephant entering the eye of a needle.

The Roman Emperor said to R. Joshua b. R. Hannina, "You declare that you are wise. Tell me what I shall see in my dream." He replied, "Thou wilt see the Persians enslaving thee, despoiling thee, and making thee pasture unclean animals with a golden crook." The Emperor reflected upon it the whole day and in the night saw it [in a dream]. King Shapor said to Samuel, "You declare that you are very wise. Tell me what I shall see in my dream." He replied, "Thou wilt see the Romans come and take thee captive and make thee grind date-stones in a golden mill." The king reflected upon it the whole day and in the night saw it [in a dream].

They said to him : We saw [in a dream] a jug hanging upon a date-palm. To Abbai he said : Thy wares will be exalted like the palm. To Raba he said : Thy wares will be sweet as dates.

Three things enter the body without its deriving any benefit therefrom ; melilot, date-berries and unripe dates. Three things do not enter the body, but it derives benefit therefrom : [they are] washing, anointing and regular motions [tashmish]. Three things are of the essence of the world to come : [they are] the Sabbath, the sun and tashmish.

‘Honey’ alludes to the size of a large date, [which is the minimum size forbidden] on Yom Kippur.

If it is peeled. Raba ruled: An etrog which was peeled so as to resemble a red date is valid. But have we not learned, if it is peeled . . . It is invalid? There is no difficulty:

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

And R. Judah holds that the other [species] were for the walls, while the ‘myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees’ were for skhakh. And we have learned: Planks may be used as a skhakh, the words of R. Judah. Therefore sinews and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive.

R. Levi said: [The reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka is that Israel is] compared to the date-palm; as the date-palm has but one heart also Israel has but one heart for their Father in Heaven.

R. Levi said: [The reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka is that Israel is] compared to the date-palm; as the date-palm has but one heart also Israel has but one heart for their Father in Heaven.

It is quite proper to set a date for the first rainfall, because from that date on we are to pray for rain; it is also proper to fix a date for the third rainfall, because from that date on distinguished individuals begin to fast; but what is the object in fixing a date for the second rainfall? Said R. Zera: It is of importance for vows, for we read

It is quite proper to set a date for the first rainfall, because from that date on we are to pray for rain; it is also proper to fix a date for the third rainfall, because from that date on distinguished individuals begin to fast; but what is the object in fixing a date for the second rainfall? Said R. Zera: It is of importance for vows, for we read

It is quite proper to set a date for the first rainfall, because from that date on we are to pray for rain; it is also proper to fix a date for the third rainfall, because from that date on distinguished individuals begin to fast; but what is the object in fixing a date for the second rainfall? Said R. Zera: It is of importance for vows, for we read

It is quite proper to set a date for the first rainfall, because from that date on we are to pray for rain; it is also proper to fix a date for the third rainfall, because from that date on distinguished individuals begin to fast; but what is the object in fixing a date for the second rainfall? Said R. Zera: It is of importance for vows, for we read

It is quite proper to set a date for the first rainfall, because from that date on we are to pray for rain; it is also proper to fix a date for the third rainfall, because from that date on distinguished individuals begin to fast; but what is the object in fixing a date for the second rainfall? Said R. Zera: It is of importance for vows, for we read

R. Papa said: The date (for the second rainfall) is of importance as regards walking through private property, for we read (Baba Ḳamma, 81a): One may walk through private property until the second rainfall. R. Naḥman b. Isaac said: It is of importance with regard to the removal of the fruits of the Sabbatical year, for we read (Shebi'it, 9.7): Until what time are we allowed to use or destroy the straw and stubble of the Sabbatical year? Until the second rainfall, as it is written (Lev., 25.7): "And for thy cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food." This means to say that as long as the beasts find food in the field, you may feed your domestic animals from what there is in the house, but when there is nothing left in the field for the beasts, you must also stop feeding the cattle from what is in the house.

Wherever the "Scroll of Fasts" records a day as one on which mourning is forbidden, it is not allowed to mourn even on the preceding day; on the day following, however, it is allowed. The Rabbis have taught: On the following days fasting, and on some of them also mourning, is forbidden: From the first until the eighth day of the month of Nisan, during which time the Daily Offering was established, mourning is forbidden; from the eighth thereof until the close of the festival (of Passover), during which the date for the Feast of Weeks was fixed (in accordance with the Pharisaic view), mourning is likewise forbidden.

"From the eighth thereof until the close of the festival", etc. Why does he say "from the eighth thereof", why not from the ninth thereof, since the eighth is anyhow a holiday? Because if for some reason we should have to abolish the first seven days of Nisan as holidays, mourning would still be forbidden on the eighth because it immediately precedes the days on which the date for the Feast of Weeks was legally fixed. Now that you have arrived at this point, the matter becomes clear also regarding the twenty-ninth of Adar, for if it happened that we should have to abolish the twenty-eighth of Adar as a holiday, fasting on the twenty-ninth would still be prohibited on the ground that it immediately precedes the time during which the Daily Offering was established.

They objected: “R. Judah said: When [does this rule apply]? When the years are reckon from it, only when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil. But today, since we can calculate [the date, the Megillah] is to be read only on the proper day”.

He wanted to reveal [by] a targum [the inner meaning] of the Writing, but a Heavenly Voice went forth and said, Enough! What was the reason? — Because the date of the Messiah is foretold in it.

What [source refers to] Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, villages and large towns push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and walled cities read on the day itself. Rabbi said: I say that towns should not have to shift their date, but both one and the other read on the day itself.

But why not say: “In every year” just as every year towns do not have to shift their date, so here towns should not have to shift their date? This is different because it is not possible.

But why not say: “In every year” just as every year towns do not have to shift their date, so here towns should not have to shift their date? This is different because it is not possible.

What is Rabbi’s reason? “In every year”: just as in most years the towns have not to shift their date, so here they should not have to shift their date.

What is Rabbi’s reason? “In every year”: just as in most years the towns have not to shift their date, so here they should not have to shift their date.

Akiva asked R. Nehunia the Great: How did you live so long? His attendants came and beat him. He went and sat on the top of a date tree. He said to him: Rabbi, seeing that it says “a lamb” why does it also say “one” (Numbers 28:4)? Thereupon he [R. Nehuniah] said: He is a rabbinical student, leave him alone.

When R. Dimi came, he said, They say in the West, R. Meir was eating a date and threw away the stone. Rabba expounded the meaning of the passage, "I went down into the garden of nuts, to see the green plants of the valley, etc." (Cant. vi. 11) Why are the disciples of wise men likened to a nut? It is to tell thee that, just as, although this nut be soiled with mud and dirt, what is in the heart of it is not therefore rejected, so also, although a disciple of a wise man has sinned, his study of the Law is not rejected.