dates

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones, and white figs with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.

“Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, Caryotis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it is a kind known as ḥaṣda. If somebody transgressed and sold? It will come similar to what Rebbi Eleazar said, if he transgressed and built it is permitted, and here if he transgressed and sold it is permitted.

“Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, Caryotis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it is a kind known as ḥaṣda. If somebody transgressed and sold? It will come similar to what Rebbi Eleazar said, if he transgressed and built it is permitted, and here if he transgressed and sold it is permitted.

“Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, Caryotis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it is a kind known as ḥaṣda. If somebody transgressed and sold? It will come similar to what Rebbi Eleazar said, if he transgressed and built it is permitted, and here if he transgressed and sold it is permitted.

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.

No ; it is to include the instance of bread and dates. How is this to be understood ? Are we to suppose that it refers to one who ate bread and thinking that it was dates he had eaten, commences the benediction on the supposition it was dates, but concludes with the benediction for bread ? This is the same as the last-mentioned case!

No ; it is to include the instance of bread and dates. How is this to be understood ? Are we to suppose that it refers to one who ate bread and thinking that it was dates he had eaten, commences the benediction on the supposition it was dates, but concludes with the benediction for bread ? This is the same as the last-mentioned case!

No ; it is to include the instance of bread and dates. How is this to be understood ? Are we to suppose that it refers to one who ate bread and thinking that it was dates he had eaten, commences the benediction on the supposition it was dates, but concludes with the benediction for bread ? This is the same as the last-mentioned case!

No, [the "general rule"] is necessary for the following : If, for instance, one ate dates, and thinking it was bread, commenced with the benediction for bread but concluded with the benediction for dates, he has complied with the requirements of the law ; for even if he had concluded with the benediction for bread, he would also have so complied.

No, [the "general rule"] is necessary for the following : If, for instance, one ate dates, and thinking it was bread, commenced with the benediction for bread but concluded with the benediction for dates, he has complied with the requirements of the law ; for even if he had concluded with the benediction for bread, he would also have so complied.

What is the reason ? Because dates likewise nourish.

But it is not so ! For Rab Nahman has said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha : The calyces surrounding dates are forbidden because of 'Orlah, since they are the protection of the fruit ; and when are they the protection of the fruit? In the early stages [of the fruit's growth], then are they called the protection of the fruit !

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

According to whom, then, dost thou confirm [the teaching: After partaking of rice one benediction which is an abstract of three is necessary] ? According to Rabban Gamaliel. I will quote the latter part of the first teaching, viz. : "If the pieces are no longer whole, he first says '...Who createst various kinds of foods' and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three." Whose teaching is this ? If Rabban Gamaliel's, since he has just declared that for dates and pounded grain three benedictions are necessary, how much more necessary should they be if the pieces are no longer whole!

In the meantime Raba recalled it and he said to him : Thou must surely mean a brew of ground dates ; and thou remindest me of something that R. Assi said, viz. : It is permissible to make Trimma from dates brought as an offering, but one must not make strong drink of them. And the Halakah is : Over dates made into Trimma we say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree." On what ground ? Because [the dates are considered] as remaining in their original condition [as fruit].

In the meantime Raba recalled it and he said to him : Thou must surely mean a brew of ground dates ; and thou remindest me of something that R. Assi said, viz. : It is permissible to make Trimma from dates brought as an offering, but one must not make strong drink of them. And the Halakah is : Over dates made into Trimma we say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree." On what ground ? Because [the dates are considered] as remaining in their original condition [as fruit].

In the meantime Raba recalled it and he said to him : Thou must surely mean a brew of ground dates ; and thou remindest me of something that R. Assi said, viz. : It is permissible to make Trimma from dates brought as an offering, but one must not make strong drink of them. And the Halakah is : Over dates made into Trimma we say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree." On what ground ? Because [the dates are considered] as remaining in their original condition [as fruit].

In the meantime Raba recalled it and he said to him : Thou must surely mean a brew of ground dates ; and thou remindest me of something that R. Assi said, viz. : It is permissible to make Trimma from dates brought as an offering, but one must not make strong drink of them. And the Halakah is : Over dates made into Trimma we say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree." On what ground ? Because [the dates are considered] as remaining in their original condition [as fruit].

Over fruit which falls unripe from the tree [nobelot]. What are nobelot? R. Zera and R. El'a [differ in their explanation]. One says: They are the fruit scorched by the sun; the other says : They are dates blown from the tree by the wind.

Our Mishnah states : R. Judah declares : No benediction is to be pronounced over anything which comes under the category of a curse. That is quite right according to him who says nobelot means "Fruit scorched by the sun," for that may be called a kind of curse ; but according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how is this a kind of curse?

Another version : It is quite right according to him who says nobelot means "Fruit scorched by the sun" that over it we pronounce the benediction "...By Whose word"; but according to him who says [it means] "Dates blown from the tree by the wind" the benediction "...By Whose word" should rather be "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

Shitin, Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan, are a species of figs. Rimin are lote. 'Uzradin are crab-apples. Benot Shuah, Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan, are white figs. Benot Shikmah, Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan, are sycamore-figs. Gofnin are late grapes. Nispah is the caper-bush. Nobelot Temarah — R. El'a and R. Zera [differ in their explanation] — One says "Fruit scorched by the sun" ; the other says "Dates blown from the tree by the wind."

It is quite right according to him who says [it means] "Fruit scorched by the sun," that is what he teaches, viz. "Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently" — it is the doubt that exempts them [from the tithe], but if there is certainty, then they are subject. But according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how can they be subject [to the tithe] in the case of certainty, since they are public property? With what are we here dealing?

It is quite right according to him who maintains it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind" — then that is why he mentions here [in our Mishnah] nobelot without further specification and there [in the Mishnaic quotation] he calls it [nobelot] temarah. But according to him who says [nobelot temarah] means "Fruit scorched by the sun," let him teach in both passages either nobelot temarah or nobelot without further specification ! The question [remains unanswered].

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

He replied, " 'Dates' is the second word after 'land,' 'pomegranate' the fifth word after 'land'." Rab Hisda said to him, "Would that we had iron feet so that we could always [follow and] listen to thee!"

Amemar, Mar Zotra and Rab Ashe dined together, and dates and pomegranates were placed before them. Mar Zotra took [some of the fruit] and threw it before Rab Ashe as his portion. The latter said to him, "Does not the master agree with that which has been taught : One may not throw articles of food?" [He replied], "That refers to bread." "But there is a teaching; Just as one may not throw bread, so one should not throw any article of food!" He replied, "But there is a teaching : Although one may not throw bread, other articles of food may be thrown!"

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.

To dream of any kind of metal-tool is a good omen, with the exception of the hoe, the mattock and the axe ; but this applies only when he sees them with their handles. To dream of any kind of fruit is a good omen with the exception of unripe dates. To dream of any kind of vegetables is a good omen with the exception of turnipheads. But Rab said : I did not become rich until I dreamt of turnip-heads ! When he saw them, he saw them on their stem. To dream of any kind of colour is a good omen with the exception of blue. To dream of any kind of birds is a good omen with the exception of the owl, the horned owl and the bat.

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.

Shall we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashya b. Gada is a dispute between tannas? For it has been taught: Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of grain, palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for skhakh], otherwise, they are invalid. ‘Others’ say, [they are not valid] unless the straw is more than both the ‘handle’ and the food.

It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.”

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

Raba Tosfa’ah said to Ravina: But perhaps it means two bunches of dates? The word is written kappat (in the singular). Then perhaps it means one? That would be called kaf.

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

R. Judah, seeing two men who were using bread in a wasteful manner, said: "It seems that there is too great plenty in the world." He cast an angry look about him and a famine came. Said the Rabbis to R. Kahana, son of R. Neḥunya, the disciple of R. Judah: "Try thou, who art his disciple, to prevail upon him (R. Judah) that he should go out to the market-place." He (R. Kahana) prevailed upon him. R. Judah went to the market, and noticing people crowding together, he asked: "What is the matter?" He was told that they were standing around a mass of offals of ground dates which was for sale. "There is evidently a famine in the country," said R. Judah, and ordered his disciple to pull his shoes from his feet. The disciple pulled off one of his master's shoes, and when he was about to pull off the other, Elijah appeared to him saying: "If you pull off the other shoe, you will destroy the world."

This is what we mean [by our question]: Since all these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, for if you should [deny this and say] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled an enactment made by the Men of the Great Assembly. Haven’t we learned: One court cannot annul the rulings of another court unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom’?

In any case, in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

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?

Since the dates of the month would have to go backwards, the Mishnah prefers to mention the days.

Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of dirt at a palm tree, and [the clod of dirt] knocked dates, and the dates fell and killed someone—[in this case] we have arrived at the disagreement between Rebi and the Sages! But this is obvious! Since you might have said that [the death in this instance is] like a case of secondary force, therefore this teaches you that this is not the case [and that this is a case where the death is a result of primary force, and therefore this case is parallel to the Mishnah].

Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of dirt at a palm tree, and [the clod of dirt] knocked dates, and the dates fell and killed someone—[in this case] we have arrived at the disagreement between Rebi and the Sages! But this is obvious! Since you might have said that [the death in this instance is] like a case of secondary force, therefore this teaches you that this is not the case [and that this is a case where the death is a result of primary force, and therefore this case is parallel to the Mishnah].

However, where can we find a case where Rebi [would exempt someone from exile] in an instance of secondary force? This is like [a case where] someone threw a clod of dirt and it struck a twig and the twig then went and hit a cluster of dates and the dates then fell and killed.

However, where can we find a case where Rebi [would exempt someone from exile] in an instance of secondary force? This is like [a case where] someone threw a clod of dirt and it struck a twig and the twig then went and hit a cluster of dates and the dates then fell and killed.

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.