deut

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?"

GEMARA What is Rabban Gamaliel's reason? Because it is written, "A land of wheat and barley and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates" (Deut. viii. 8), and it is written, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness" (ibid. v. 9), and it is written "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord thy God" (ibid. v. lO).

GEMARA Whence is this derived? Rab Assi said : Because the Scriptures state, "O magnify ye the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together" (Ps. xxxiv. 4). R. Abbahu said : From the following, "For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe ye greatness unto our God" (Deut. xxxii. 3).

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where it has been redeemed but not according to the Halakah. With "the second tithe," for instance, where he redeemed it with uncoined silver, whereas the All-merciful declared, "Thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand" (Deut. xiv. 25) — i.e. money which has a stamp upon it. With "food belonging to the Sanctuary" for which [for instance] he had given a piece of land in exchange but he had not redeemed with money ; whereas the All-merciful declared, "He shall add the fifth part of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him" (Lev. xxvii. 19).

Our Rabbis have taught : Whence do we derive the Grace after meals from the Torah? As it is said, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless" (Deut. viii. 10) — this refers to the benediction "Who feedest"; "the Lord thy God" (ibid.)— to the benediction of Zimmun; "for the land" (ibid.) — to the benediction of "the land" ; "the good" (ibid.) — to "Who. . . rebuildest Jerusalem," for so it states "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (ibid. iii. 25); "which He hath given thee" (ibid. viii. 10) — to "Who art kind and dealest kindly." I have here only the Grace after meals ; whence do we derive the Grace before meals ? Thou canst reason by a fortiori argument — if a man should bless God when satisfied, how much more so when he is hungry !

I have here only the benediction for meals ; whence is the benediction over Torah derived? R. Ishmael said : By a fortiori reasoning — for temporal life one says a benediction ; how much more so for the life of the world to come! R. Hiyya b. Nahmani, the disciple of R. Ishmael, says in the name of R. Ishmael : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "For the good land which He hath given thee" (Deut. viii. 10) and elsewhere it is stated, "And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandments," etc. (Exod. xxiv, 12).

R. Meir said : Whence is it that as one blesses for the good so should he bless for the bad? There is a teaching to state, "Which the Lord thy God hath given unto thee" (Deut. xxvi. 11) — He is thy judge in every circumstance wherein He judgeth thee, whether it be with the attribute of goodness or the attribute of punishment.

R. Judah b. Batyra said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "Good" (Deut. viii. 7) and "the good" (ibid. 5:10) — "good" i.e. Torah, as it is said "For I give you good doctrine" (Prov. iv. 2); "the good" i.e. the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as it is said "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (Deut. iii. 25).

R. Judah b. Batyra said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "Good" (Deut. viii. 7) and "the good" (ibid. 5:10) — "good" i.e. Torah, as it is said "For I give you good doctrine" (Prov. iv. 2); "the good" i.e. the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as it is said "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (Deut. iii. 25).

R. Johanan said: The statement must be reversed. Abbai said : There is certainly no necessity to reverse it ; for here they differ in the interpretation of Scripture : R. Meir holds, "And thou shalt eat" (Deut. viii. 10) — i.e. eating; "and thou shalt be satisfied" — i.e. drinking ; and "eating" means the minimum quantity of the size of an olive. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied" — i.e. eating wherein is some satisfaction; and what is that? That is the minimum quantity of the size of an egg.

R. Johanan said : Whoever says the benediction over a full cup will be granted a boundless inheritance; as it is said, "And full with the blessing of the Lord ; possess thou the sea and the south" (Deut. xxxiii. 23). R. Jose b. R. Hannina said: He will be worthy to inherit two worlds, this world and the world to come.

'Ulla visited the house of Rab Nahman; he wrapped the bread and said Grace and gave the cup of benediction to Rab Nahman. Rab Nahman said to him, "Let the master send the cup of benediction to Jalta." He replied, "Thus spake R. Johanan: The fruit of a woman's body is only blessed through the fruit of a man's body; as it is said, 'He will also bless the fruit of thy body' (Deut. vii. 13) — it is not said 'the fruit of her body' but 'the fruit of thy body'."

A man is in duty bound to utter a benediction for the bad even as he utters one for the good ; as it is said, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. vi. 5) — "with all thy heart," i.e. with thy two impulses, with the good and the evil impulse ; "with all thy soul," i.e. even if He take thy soul; "with all thy might," i.e. with all thy wealth. Another explanation of "with all thy might [meodeka]" — with whatever measure [middah] He metes out to thee, do Thou return Him thanks [modeh].

"To be given a Scroll of the Torah from which to read and decline to read" — for it is written, "For that is thy life and the length of thy days" (Deut. 30:20). "To be handed the cup of benediction to say Grace and decline" — for it is written, "I will bless them that bless thee" (Gen. 12:3). "To give oneself an air of superiority" — for R. Hamma b. R. Hannina said : Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he gave himself superior airs.

Rab Judah also said in the name of Rab : For three things it is necessary to offer supplication : A good king, a good year, and a good dream. "A good king" — for it is written, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the water-courses" (Prov. xxi. 1). "A good year" — for it is written, "The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year" (Deut. 11:12). "A good dream" — for it is written, "Wherefore cause Thou me to dream and make me to live" (Is. 38:16).

Three verses in which "turn" occurs — "Thou didst turn for me my mourning into dancing ; Thou didst loose my sackcloth and gird me with gladness" (Ps. xxx. 12); "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together; for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow" (Jer. xxxi. 12); "Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee" (Deut. xxiii. 6).

Bar Hedja was an interpreter of dreams. When one paid him a fee, he interpreted [the dream] favourably ; but if no fee was given him, he interpreted it unfavourably. Abbai and Raba had a dream ; Abbai gave him a Zuz but Raba gave him nothing. They said to him : We were made to read in our dream the words "Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes" (Deut. xxviii. 31). To Raba he said : Thy business will fail, and thou wilt have no desire to eat because of the grief of thy heart. To Abbai he said : Thy business will prosper, and thou wilt have no desire to eat because of the joy of thy heart.

We were made to read the words "Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather little in for the locust will consume it" (Deut. xxviii. 38). To Abbai he gave an interpretation from the first half of the verse ; to Raba from the latter half.

We were made to read the words "Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil, for thine olives shall drop off" (Deut. xxviii, 40). To Abbai he gave an interpretation from the first half of the verse ; to Raba from the latter half.

Who dreams of grapes should on rising say, "I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness" (Hos. ix. 10) before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "Their grapes are grapes of gall" (Deut. xxxii. 32). Who dreams of a mountain should on rising say, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good things" (Is. lii. 7), before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing" (Jer. ix. 9).

Who dreams of an ox should on rising say, "His firstling bullock, majesty is his" (Deut. xxxiii. 17), before another occurs to him, viz. : "If an ox gore a man" (Exod. xxi. 28).

Who dreams that he lays the Tefillin may hope for greatness ; as it is said, "And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall fear thee" (Deut. xxviii. 10); and there is a teaching : R. Eliezer the Great says : This refers to the Tefillin worn on the head. Who dreams that he is saying the Tefillah, it is a good omen for him ; but this applies only when he does not conclude it.

Who dreams of having intercourse with his mother may hope for understanding; as it is said, "Yea, thou wilt call understanding 'mother'" (Prov. ii. 3). [Who dreams] of having intercourse with a betrothed maiden may hope for Torah, as it is said, "Moses commanded us a law [Torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4) — read not morashah "an inheritance" but me'orasah "betrothed maiden." Who dreams of having had intercourse with his sister may hope for wisdom ; as it is said, "Say unto wisdom, thou art my sister" (Prov. vii. 4). Who dreams of having had intercourse with a married woman is assured that he is a son of the world to come ; but this applies only if he was not acquainted with her and did not think of her during the evening.

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Deut. vi. 5). There is a teaching : R. Eliezer says : If it is stated "With all thy soul," why is it stated "With all thy might"? And if it is stated "With all thy might," why is it stated "With all thy soul"? But should there be a man whose body is dearer to him than his money, therefore it is stated "With all thy soul"; and should there be a man whose money is dearer to him than his body, therefore it is stated "With all thy might." R. 'Akiba says: "With all thy soul" [means,] even if He take thy soul.

He replied, "I will tell thee a parable : To what is the matter like ? To a fox who was walking along the bank of the stream and saw some fishes gathering together from one place to another. He said to them, 'From what are you fleeing?' They answered, 'From nets which men are bringing against us.' He said to them, 'Let it be your pleasure to come up on the dry land, and let us, me and you, dwell together even as my fathers dwelt with your fathers.' They replied, 'Art thou he of whom they tell that thou art the shrewdest of animals? Thou art not clever but a fool ! For if we are afraid in the place which is our life-element, how much more so in a place which is our death-element!' So also is it with us ; Now while we sit and study Torah, in which it is written, 'For that is thy life, and the length of thy days' (Deut. xxx. 20), we are in such a plight, how much more so if we go and neglect it!"

Why should we not wipe with the right hand but only with the left? Raba said : Because the Torah was given with the right hand ; as it is said, "At His right hand was a fiery law unto them" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said : Because it is near the mouths. R. Simeon b. Lakish said : Because he binds the Tefillin with it. Rab Nahman b. Isaac said: Because he points to the accents of the Torah with it.

Further did R. Judah begin with the honour of the Torah and expound : "Attend and hear; this day thou art become a people unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xxvii. 9). But was it on that day that the Torah had been given to Israel? Was that not the completion of forty years! But it is intended to teach thee that every day is the Torah endeared to them who study it as on the day that it was given on Mount Sinai.

Another explanation of "Attend [hasket] and hear, O Israel" (Deut. xxvii. 9) — i.e. submit to blows [kattetu] on behalf of the words of Torah ; according to the statement of R. Simeon b. Lakish who said : Whence is it learnt that the words of Torah endure only with him who would suffer death on its behalf? As it is said, "This is the law : when a man dieth in a tent" (Num. xix. 14).

R. Jose began [to speak] in honour of the hospitality and expounded : "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land" (Deut. xxiii. 8). Can we not use here an a fortiori argument? If the Egyptians are not to be abhorred, who only befriended the Israelites for their own needs — as it is said, "And if thou knowest any able men among them, then make them rulers over my cattle" (Gen. xlvii. 6) — how much more so, one who entertains a disciple of the wise in his house, giving him to eat and drink, and allowing him to enjoy his possessions!

It is found in the following Baraita (Sifre, Deut. § 41): "To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut., 11.13). Now "service" is prayer. You say it is prayer, may it not be (sacrificial) service? No, Scripture says: "with all your heart"; what service is that of the heart? You must say that it is prayer; while immediately following, Scripture says: "Then I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain."

It is found in the following Baraita (Sifre, Deut. § 41): "To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut., 11.13). Now "service" is prayer. You say it is prayer, may it not be (sacrificial) service? No, Scripture says: "with all your heart"; what service is that of the heart? You must say that it is prayer; while immediately following, Scripture says: "Then I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain."

Said R. Johanan: The following three keys have not been entrusted to the keeping of any angel:—for a woman in travail, for rain, and for resurrection. For a woman in travail, it is written (Gen., 30.22): "And God hearkened to her and opened her womb"; of rain it is written (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season";

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. 'Ashi said: A scholar who is not hard like iron is not a real scholar, as it is said: "And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces." Said R. 'Abba to R. 'Ashi, you derive it from that verse, we derive it from the following (Deut. 8.9): "A land whose stones are iron"; do not read 'ābānēha (its stones), but bōnēha (its builders, i.e., the scholars). Said Rabina: It is nevertheless one's duty to train oneself to be gentle, as it is said (Eccl., 11.10): "Remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh."

And He causeth to come down for you, etc. (Joel 2.23): Said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac: The former rain does not fall in Nisan, but in Marḥeshwan! For a Baraita reads (Sifrē, Deut., §42): The former rain falls in Marḥeshwan and the latter rain in Nisan! "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "this verse (Joel, 2.23) has proven true (only) in the days of Joel the son of Petuel, for it is written (Joel, 1.4): 'That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten,' etc. Now there is a tradition that in that year Adar had passed without rainfall, and the first rain did not appear until the first of Nisan. The Prophet then said to the Israelites: Go out and sow! But they replied: Should one who has a Ḳab of wheat or two Ḳabs of barley, eat it and live, or sow it and die? The prophet said: Nevertheless go out and sow! They then went out and sowed. Thereupon a miracle happened, that all the grain which was hidden (by mice) in the walls and in crevices (by ants) and in the holes of ants, appeared before their eyes. Again they went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth (of Nisan); on the fifth there was the second rainfall and on the sixteenth they offered the 'Omer. Thus, produce that used to ripen in six months ripened in eleven days, and the 'Omer which was usually offered from the crop that grew six months was now offered from one that grew in eleven days! With reference to that generation the Psalmist says (Ps., 126.5-6): 'They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Though he goeth on his way weeping, bearing forth the seed; he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.'"

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, Deut. § 42): The former rain is called yoreh (Deut., 11.14), because it teaches the people to plaster their roofs, to gather in their fruit, and to make all other preparations for the winter. Another opinion is that it is so called because it falls gently, not vehemently. Still another opinion is: because it saturates the earth and waters it to its very depth, as it is said (Ps., 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof. Thou makest her soft with showers; Thou blessest the growth thereof." But is it not possible that it is so called because of its damaging effect in making the fruit drop (from the trees) and in washing away the seeds? No, because Scripture has here also malḳōsh (the latter rain), and just as the latter rain comes as a blessing, so also the former rain. But may not the latter rain be called malḳōsh because it causes the houses to fall, breaks the trees, and brings the crickets? No, because Scripture has in the same verse also yoreh (the former rain), and just as the former rain comes as a blessing, so also the latter rain. But whence do you know that the former rain is a blessing? From the following verse (Joel 2.23): "Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He giveth you the former rain in just measure."

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, Deut. § 42): The former rain is called yoreh (Deut., 11.14), because it teaches the people to plaster their roofs, to gather in their fruit, and to make all other preparations for the winter. Another opinion is that it is so called because it falls gently, not vehemently. Still another opinion is: because it saturates the earth and waters it to its very depth, as it is said (Ps., 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof. Thou makest her soft with showers; Thou blessest the growth thereof." But is it not possible that it is so called because of its damaging effect in making the fruit drop (from the trees) and in washing away the seeds? No, because Scripture has here also malḳōsh (the latter rain), and just as the latter rain comes as a blessing, so also the former rain. But may not the latter rain be called malḳōsh because it causes the houses to fall, breaks the trees, and brings the crickets? No, because Scripture has in the same verse also yoreh (the former rain), and just as the former rain comes as a blessing, so also the latter rain. But whence do you know that the former rain is a blessing? From the following verse (Joel 2.23): "Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He giveth you the former rain in just measure."

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, ibid. 42): Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan, and malḳosh is the rain that falls in Nisan. You say yoreh is in Marḥeshwan, is it not the rain that falls in Kislew? No, Scripture says (Deut., 11.14): "In its season, the former rain (yoreh), and the latter rain (malḳosh)." Now just as malḳosh is that one only which falls in its season (Nisan), so yoreh is that one only which falls in its season (Marḥeshwan).

R. Judah said: The day of rain is as important as the day on which the Torah was given to Israel, as it is said (Deut., 32.2): "My doctrine shall drop as the rain." "Doctrine" means the Torah, as it is said (Prov., 4.2): "For I give you good doctrine; forsake ye not my teaching." Raba said: (The day of rain is) more important than the day on which the Torah was given, for it is said: "My doctrine shall drop as the rain." Now, which is usually compared to which? The more important to the less important, or the reverse? No doubt, it is the less important that is compared to the more important.

We read: R. Bannaah used to say: If one studies the Torah for its own sake, it becomes to him an elixir of life, for it is said (Prov., 3.18): "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her," and it is further said (ibid., 3.8): "It shall be health to thy navel," and again it is said (ibid., 4.22): "For they are life unto those that find them"; but if one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes to him a deadly poison, for it is said (Deut., 32.2): "My doctrine shall drop as the rain," the term used here for dropping (ya'arof) being used elsewhere for killing, as it is said (Deut., 21.4): "And they shall break the heifer's neck" (we-'arefū).

We read: R. Bannaah used to say: If one studies the Torah for its own sake, it becomes to him an elixir of life, for it is said (Prov., 3.18): "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her," and it is further said (ibid., 3.8): "It shall be health to thy navel," and again it is said (ibid., 4.22): "For they are life unto those that find them"; but if one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes to him a deadly poison, for it is said (Deut., 32.2): "My doctrine shall drop as the rain," the term used here for dropping (ya'arof) being used elsewhere for killing, as it is said (Deut., 21.4): "And they shall break the heifer's neck" (we-'arefū).

R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: Come, Master, teach me something. R. Zera replied: My heart feels faint, and I cannot do it. Then (said R. Jeremiah) tell me something haggadic. R. Zera thereupon said: Why is it written (Deut., 20.19): "For man is the tree of the field?" Is man, indeed, a tree of the field? But the explanation is this: Having said immediately before: "for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down," the Bible adds the expression in question to intimate that if a scholar is a worthy man, thou mayest eat (learn) from him and shalt not cut him down, but if not, thou shalt destroy and cut him down.

R. Tanḥum son of R. Ḥiyya of Kefar 'Akko said: Rain is not withheld unless the enemies of Israel have been condemned to destruction, as it is said (Job, 24, 19): "Drought and heat consume the snow waters, so doth the nether-world those that have sinned." Said Ze'iri of Dahabat to Rabina: You derive this teaching from that verse, we derive it from this (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, etc., and ye perish quickly."

Said Resh Laḳish: Why is it written (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"? Because when the heavens are prevented from sending down dew and rain, they are to be compared to a woman that travails, but cannot give birth. This is in keeping with what Resh Laḳish said in the name of Bar Ḳappara: The expression "shut up" is used in connection with a woman and in connection with rain;

the expression "bear" is used in connection with a woman and with reference to the soil; the expression "remember" is also used both in reference to a woman and the soil. "Shutting up" is said with reference to woman (Gen., 20.18): "For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs"; and with reference to rain, it is said (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"; "bear" is said of a woman, as it is written (Gen., 30.23): "And she conceived and bore a son"; and is also said of the soil, as it is written (Is., 55.10): "And maketh it bring forth and bud"; "remember" is used in connection with woman, as it is said (Gen., 21.1): "And the Lord remembered Sarah"; and it is said also of the soil, as it is written (Ps. 65.10): "Thou hast remembered the earth, and watered her, greatly enriching her with the river of God that is full of water."

R. Isaac further said: Sunshine on Sabbath is a benefit to the poor, as it is said (Mal., 3.20): "Unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings." R. Isaac further said: Great is the day of rain, for even the money in the purse is blessed thereby, as it is said (Deut., 28.12): "To give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand." R. Isaac further said: Blessing rests only on a thing which is hidden from sight, as it is said (ibid., 28.8): "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns." A disciple of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Blessing is found only in things upon which the eye does not rest, as it is said: "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns." The Rabbis teach: One who is about to measure his grain should say: May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, that Thou bestow a blessing upon the work of our hands. As soon as he has begun to measure, he should say: Blessed be He who sendeth a blessing upon this pile. But if he measured first and then pronounced the benediction, the prayer is in vain, for a blessing is not bestowed upon anything that is measured, numbered, or weighed, but only upon things hidden from sight, as it is said: "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns."

R. Johanan said: The day of rain is as important as that of the gathering of the exiled (Israelites), for it is said (Ps., 126.4): "Turn our captivity, O Lord, as the streams in the dry land," the word 'afiḳim (streams) meaning rain, as it is said (Ps. 18.16): "And the channels of water appeared." R. Johanan further said: Great is the day of rain, for then even armies must stop fighting, as it is said (Ps. 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof." R. Johanan further said: Rain is withheld only on account of those who subscribe to charity in public and refuse to pay, for it is said (Prov., 25.14): "As vapours and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of a false gift." R. Johanan further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Deut., 14.22):

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

We read in a Baraita ('Erubin, 45b): R. Eliezer said, the whole universe drinks from the ocean, as it is said (Gen., 2.6): "There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Said R. Joshua to R. Eliezer, is not the water of the ocean salty?! Said R. Eliezer, it gets sweetened in the clouds. R. Joshua said, the whole universe drinks from the waters above (the firmament), as it is said (Deut., 11.11): "A land that drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down." How then can one explain the verse: "There went up a mist from the earth"? This verse teaches that the clouds rise and soar upward, where they open their mouths like a leathern bottle and receive the rain water, as it is said (Job, 36.27): "They distil rain from His vapour." They (the clouds) are perforated like a sieve and distil water to the ground, as it is said (II Samuel, 22.12): "Gathering of waters, thick clouds of the skies." Between each drop of rain there is no more space than the breadth of a hair, which is to impress upon us the truth that the day of rain is as miraculous a phenomenon as the day on which heaven and earth were created, for it is said (Job, 5.9): "Who doeth great things and unsearchable, marvellous things without number," and further on (ib., 5.10): "Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields," and elsewhere (Is., 40.28): "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out."

"A God of faithfulness and without iniquity" (Deut., 32. 4). "A God of faithfulness" means to say that just as the Holy One, blessed be He, pays reward to the righteous in the world to come for every light precept they have performed in this world, so does He pay to the wicked in this world for every light precept they perform in this world.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

It is at all events generally admitted that a drunken priest is not allowed to raise his hands. Whence is this view derived? Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported it in the name of Bar Ḳappara, Why is the portion dealing with the blessing priest placed (in the Bible) immediately after the portion dealing with the Nazir? In order to convey the lesson that as the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing. An objection was raised against this statement by 'Ahabah, son of R. Zera, or, as some say, by Joshua b. Gizora: If this deduction is correct, we ought also to say that as the Nazir is forbidden to eat the kernel (Num 6.4), so is the blessing priest! Said R. Isaac, Scripture says (Deut., 10.8): "To minister unto Him, and to bless in His name," which indicates that as the ministering priest is allowed to eat the kernel, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing.

R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Naḥman, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the last one of the generation that was doomed to die in the desert, died; for it was stated by some authority, God did not address Himself to Moses until the last one of that generation had died, as it is said (Deut., 2. 16-17): "So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people, that the Lord spoke unto me saying," that is to say: To me then came a message through speech.

Our Rabbis taught: Wherever a disgraceful expression is written in the text, we read it in a more polite way. [Thus for] yishgalenah [we read] yishkavenah (Deuteronomy 28:30); [for] ba’afolim [we read] batehorim (Deut 28:27); [for] hiryonim [we read] divyonim (II Kings 6:25); [for] le’ekhol et horehem velishtot et meme shinehem [we read] le’ekhol et zo’atham velishtot et meme raglehem (II Kings 18:27); [for] lamahara’ot [we read] lemoza’ot (II Kings 10:27).

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

R. Tanchum said, He that is deaf in one ear is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "in their ears" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And this expression "in their ears" must mean, in the ears of all Israel, for this comes out of the words "before all Israel." How "before all Israel"? I should say, that, although they could not all hear, the Merciful One wrote it in their ears, and the fact that they heard comes out of the expression "in order that they may hear."

Our Rabbis have taught, There is a matter with regard to R. Jochanan ben Beruka and R. El'azar ben Chisma, viz., that they went to visit R. Joshua in Pekiin. He said to them, What news was there in the College to-day? They said to him, We are thy disciples, and of thy waters we drink. He said to them, Although it be so, it is impossible for the College to be without something new. Whose Sabbath was it? It was the sabbath of R. El'azar ben Azariah. And on what was the discourse to-day? They said to him, On the section, "Assemble." And how did he explain it? "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12); if men, they come to learn; if women, they come to hear; but little ones, wherefore do they come? in order to get a reward for those that bring them. He said to them, There was a fair jewel in your hand, and ye sought to deprive me of it.

And again, he expounded the passage, "Thou hast avouched the LORD this day," "and the LORD hath avouched thee this day" (Deut. xxvi. 17, 18). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, Ye have made me a glory in the world, and I will make you a glory in the world. Ye have made me a glory in the world, for it is written, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4), and I will make you a glory in the world, for it is said,

And again, he expounded the passage, "Thou hast avouched the LORD this day," "and the LORD hath avouched thee this day" (Deut. xxvi. 17, 18). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, Ye have made me a glory in the world, and I will make you a glory in the world. Ye have made me a glory in the world, for it is written, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4), and I will make you a glory in the world, for it is said,

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

Women and slaves who are not manumitted etc. This is all right as regards women, as we have said, but slaves—how do we get them here? R. Hunna says, The scripture says "before the LORD God" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). This expression can only apply to him who has but one Lord. He is excluded who has another lord. But why do I need a verse for it? Surely by every precept by which a woman is bound a slave is bound, and by every precept by which a woman is not bound a slave is not bound. The teacher learns it from the case of a woman through the double occurrence of the words "unto her." Rabena said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. This is precisely too what the teaching of the Mishnah is, women and slaves who are not manumitted. What is the meaning of the addition, who are not manumitted? If I should say that it means, who are not manumitted at all, then the words ought to be simply, slaves, but do you not think that it means, those who are not completely manumitted? and who are such? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this the meaning.

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

R. Hunna, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings and shalt eat there" (Deut. xxvii. 7). Should a servant, whose master is looking out for him to eat at his table, absent himself from him? For it is written "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord" (Is. i. 11).

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them" (Deut. xxxi. 21). A slave, whose master brings upon him evils and troubles—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "evils and troubles"? Rab said, Evils which become troubles counterbalancing one another, as in the case of the wasp and the scorpion. But Samuel said, This refers to him who bestows money upon the poor man in the hour of his extreme distress. Rabba said, This agrees with the proverb, Money for corn standing in the field is not found, for corn hanging up it is found.

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them" (Deut. xxxi. 17). R. Bardala bar Tabyumi said that Rab said, Every one who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them; every one who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured" (Deut. xxxi. 17)

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them" (Deut. xxxi. 17). R. Bardala bar Tabyumi said that Rab said, Every one who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them; every one who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured" (Deut. xxxi. 17)

"And I will surely hide my face in that day" (Deut. xxxi. 18). Rabba said, The Holy One said, Even if I hide mine eyes from them, I will speak to him by a dream. R. Joseph said, His hand is stretched out over us, as it is said, "and I have covered thee in the shadow of my hand" (Is. li. 16).

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

Abai said to him, Of course. For otherwise the question would arise, Which of them wilt thou cause to be sinners, and which of them wilt thou cause to be obedient? But wherefore then does the passage come? It is to correspond to the saying of others. For there is a Baraitha, viz., Others say, The cordwainer, and the smelter in bronze and the tanner, are exempt from the holocaust, for it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who can go up with all thy males. These are excluded, for they cannot go up with all thy males.

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings. Our Rabbis have taught thus, "And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast" (Deut. xvi. 14). This means to include in the word joy all kinds of joy. Hence wise men have said, Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the priests by the eating of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and by the firstborn, and by the wave breast and heave shoulder. I should have thought that they might have done it also with birds and meal-offerings. The teaching says, And thou shalt rejoice in thy Feast, meaning

I. (5) He who has many to eat with him and few possessions, brings many peace-offerings and few burnt-offerings. He who has many possessions and few to eat with him, brings many burnt-offerings, and few peace-offerings. If a man have little of both, to his case applies the saying about the meah of silver and the two pieces of silver. If he have much of both, to his case apply the words, "every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God, which he hath given thee" (Deut. xvi. 17).

Whence do you gather this? R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Ishmael, The same word, Restraint, is used of the seventh day of Passover, and of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. What is true of the former as regards postponement of payments, the same is true of the latter. The word is used in an unrestricted way. For if it were not used in an unrestricted way, the force of the argument drawn from it might have been broken by saying, Whereas the seventh day of Passover is not separated from those that precede it, you may say that the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from those that precede it. Assuredly, it is used in a wholly unrestricted sense. What does restraint really mean? That one is restrained from acts of work. But we have the passage, "Thou shalt do no work" (Deut. xvi. 8). Why then has the Merciful One written me Restraint? But learn from it that it was to give the unrestricted sense of the word. And a Baraitha brings out the same thing thus. For there is a Baraitha, "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 41). One might have thought from this passage that one was to go on sacrificing all seven days. No, for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it," and thou art not to sacrifice all seven days. If so, why have we seven stated as the number of the days of the Feast? For postponements of payments; and whence do you gather that if a man has not observed the Feast on the first high holiday of the Feast, he is to go and sacrifice during any part of its extent, even including the last high holiday? Because the teaching says, "Ye shall keep it in the seventh month" (Lev. xxiii. 41). If it had merely said, In the seventh month, one might have thought that one was to go and sacrifice the whole month. No; for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it" and thou art not to sacrifice further.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Nor on the work of Creation with two. How then is this shewn? Inasmuch as our Rabbis have taught, "For ask thou now of the days that are past" (Deut. iv. 32). It is one person who asks, not two who ask. One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about things that were before the world was created. No, for the teaching says, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should not ask about the six days of creation. No, for the teaching says, "of the days that are past, which were before thee" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. No, for the teaching says, "and from the one end of heaven unto the other" (ibid.). From the one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest ask, but thou mayest not ask about what is above, what is below, what is before, what is after.

Now seeing that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," to what purpose are there given me the words, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (Deut. iv. 32)? They are to agree with the words of R. El'azar; for R. El'azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament, for it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.), and inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, "Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, The first man extended from one end of the world to the other, for it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth," and from one end of heaven unto the other (Deut. iv. 32). Inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). If so, the passages are difficult to reconcile. No, for both are of the same dimensions.

Now seeing that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," to what purpose are there given me the words, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (Deut. iv. 32)? They are to agree with the words of R. El'azar; for R. El'azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament, for it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.), and inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, "Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, The first man extended from one end of the world to the other, for it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth," and from one end of heaven unto the other (Deut. iv. 32). Inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). If so, the passages are difficult to reconcile. No, for both are of the same dimensions.

There is a Baraitha of R. Jose, which says, Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars, as it is said, "Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble" (Job ix. 6). The pillars stand upon the waters, as it is said, "To him that spread forth the earth upon the waters;" (Ps. cxxxvi. 6) the waters upon the mountains, as it is said, "the waters stood above the mountains" (Ps. civ. 6); the mountains upon the wind, as it is said, "For lo he that formeth the mountains and createth wind;" (Amos iv. 13) the wind upon the storm, as it is said, "Storm making the substance of the wind;" (Ps. cxlviii. 8) the storm is suspended upon the arm of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut. xxxiii. 27). And wise men say, It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is said, "He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel" (Deut. xxxii. 8). And there are some who say, Seven pillars, as it is said, "she hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov. ix. 1). R. El'azar ben Shammua' says, Upon one pillar, and its name is The Righteous, as it is said, "but the righteous is the foundation of the world" (Prov. x. 25).

There is a Baraitha of R. Jose, which says, Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars, as it is said, "Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble" (Job ix. 6). The pillars stand upon the waters, as it is said, "To him that spread forth the earth upon the waters;" (Ps. cxxxvi. 6) the waters upon the mountains, as it is said, "the waters stood above the mountains" (Ps. civ. 6); the mountains upon the wind, as it is said, "For lo he that formeth the mountains and createth wind;" (Amos iv. 13) the wind upon the storm, as it is said, "Storm making the substance of the wind;" (Ps. cxlviii. 8) the storm is suspended upon the arm of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut. xxxiii. 27). And wise men say, It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is said, "He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel" (Deut. xxxii. 8). And there are some who say, Seven pillars, as it is said, "she hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov. ix. 1). R. El'azar ben Shammua' says, Upon one pillar, and its name is The Righteous, as it is said, "but the righteous is the foundation of the world" (Prov. x. 25).

R. Jehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, "Behold, unto the Lord thy God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens" (Deut. x. 14). Resh Lakish said, There are seven, and these be they, Vilon, Rakia', Sh'chakim, Z'bul, Ma'on, Makhon, Araboth. Vilon serves no purpose whatever save this, that it enters in in the morning, and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of Creation, as it is said, "That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Is. xl. 22). Rakia' is that in which are set sun and moon, stars and constellations, as it is said, "and God set them in the firmament (Rakia') of the heaven." Sh'chakim is that in which the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous, as it is said, "Yet he commanded the clouds (Sh'chakim) above and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down manna upon them to eat, etc." (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24) Z'bul is that in which is the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple, and the altar is built there, and Michael the great prince stands and offers upon it an offering, as it is said, "I have surely built thee an house of habitation (Z'bul), a place for thee to dwell in for ever" (1 Kings viii. 13). And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "Look down from heaven and behold from the habitation (Z'bul) of thy holiness and thy glory" (Is. lxiii. 15). Ma'on is that in which are companies of ministering angels, who utter His song in the night and are silent in the day for the sake of the glory of Israel, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives His merciful command and by night His song is with me" (Ps. xlii. 8).

And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? As it is said, "Look down from thy holy habitation (Ma'on), from heaven" (Deut. xxvi. 15). Makhon is that in which are the treasures of snow and the treasures of hail, and the high dwelling-place of harmful dews, and the high dwelling-place of round drops, and the chamber of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the retreat of noisome vapour, and their doors are made of fire, as it is said, "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure" (Deut. xxviii. 12). But are not these in the firmament? Nay, they are in the earth, as it is written, "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour; storm making the substance of the wind" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 8). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, David besought the Merciful One for them, and He sent them down to the earth. He said before Him, O Lord of the world, "Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with thee" (Ps. v. 5; E.V. 4) in thy dwelling. Righteous art thou, O Lord; evil shall not sojourn in thy dwelling. And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "And hear thou in heaven, the habitation (Makhon) of thy dwelling" (1 Kings viii. 39, 43, 49).

And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? As it is said, "Look down from thy holy habitation (Ma'on), from heaven" (Deut. xxvi. 15). Makhon is that in which are the treasures of snow and the treasures of hail, and the high dwelling-place of harmful dews, and the high dwelling-place of round drops, and the chamber of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the retreat of noisome vapour, and their doors are made of fire, as it is said, "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure" (Deut. xxviii. 12). But are not these in the firmament? Nay, they are in the earth, as it is written, "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour; storm making the substance of the wind" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 8). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, David besought the Merciful One for them, and He sent them down to the earth. He said before Him, O Lord of the world, "Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with thee" (Ps. v. 5; E.V. 4) in thy dwelling. Righteous art thou, O Lord; evil shall not sojourn in thy dwelling. And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "And hear thou in heaven, the habitation (Makhon) of thy dwelling" (1 Kings viii. 39, 43, 49).

Araboth is that in which are righteousness and judgment and grace, the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessing, and the souls of the righteous, and the spirits and souls which are about to be created, and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is about to quicken mortals: righteousness and judgment; for it is written, "Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of thy throne:" (Ps. lxxxix. 15; E.V. 14) grace; for it is written, "And he put on grace as a coat of mail:" (Is. lix. 17) the treasures of life; for it is written, "For with thee is the fountain of life:" (Ps. xxxvi. 9) and the treasures of peace; for it is written, "and called it, The LORD is peace:" (Jud. vi. 24) and the treasures of blessing; for it is written, "He shall receive a blessing from the LORD:" (Ps. xxiv. 5) the souls of the righteous; for it is written, "Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God:" (1 Sam. xxv. 29) the spirits and souls which are about to be created; for it is written, "For the spirit before me shall join itself to a body, and the souls which I have made:" (Is. lvii. 16) and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is about to quicken mortals; for it is written, "Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, thou didst confirm thine inheritance when it was weary" (Ps. lxviii. 10; E.V. 9). There there are celestials and seraphs and holy beings and ministering angels, and the throne of glory, and the King, the Living God, high and lifted up, sitting over them among the clouds, as it is said, "Cast up a highway for him that rideth upon the clouds (Araboth); his name is Jah" (Ps. lxviii. 4). And whence do we get it that they are called heaven? Because mention of riding occurs in two passages. It is written in one place, "Cast up a highway for him that rideth upon the clouds," and it is written in another, "who rideth upon the heaven for thy help" (Deut. xxxiii. 26). And darkness and cloud and thick darkness surround Him, as it is said, "He made darkness his hiding place, his pavilion round about him; darkness of waters, thick clouds" (Ps. xviii. 12; E.V. 11). And how is there darkness in the presence of the Lord? For against this, there is the passage, "He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness and the light dwelleth with him" (Dan. ii. 22). There is no difficulty.

What did he expound? Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). He is clearly marked among His ten thousand. And R. Abohu said, "The chiefest among ten thousand" (Cant. v. 10). He is a sign among His ten thousand. And Resh Lakish said, "The LORD of hosts is His name" (Is. xlviii. 2). He is LORD amid His host. And R. Chia bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, "The LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the LORD passed by" (1 Kings xix. 11, 12).

R. El'azar said that R. Oshaia said, How is it that in regard to Pentecost offerings are transferable all seven days? It is because it is said, "In the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles" (Deut. xvi. 16). Holy Writ compares the Feast of Weeks with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As in the Feast of Unleavened Bread offerings are transferable all seven days, so in the Feast of Weeks offerings are transferable all seven days. But, it is objected, I might say by parity of reason, Holy Writ compares it with the Feast of Tabernacles. As in the Feast of Tabernacles offerings are transferable all eight days, so in the Feast of Weeks offerings are transferable all eight days. But then the eighth day in the Feast of Tabernacles is a festival apart. Yes, they say indeed that the eighth day is a festival apart, but this only applies to matters connected with the lots, season, festival, korban, psalm, blessing.

Because it is written, "and thou shalt turn in the morning and go to thy tents" (Deut. xvi. 7).

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.