elazar

A condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean unless he says, "I did not touch the unclean thing." A condition of doubt in a public domain is clean unless he can say, "I did touch the unclean thing." What is regarded as a public domain? The paths of Bet Gilgul and similar places are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, and a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Rabbi Elazar says: they only mentioned the paths of Bet Gilgul because they are regarded as a private domain in both respects. Paths that open out towards cisterns, pits, caverns or wine-presses are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness.

One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, "I have watched over them carefully."

A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure.

A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure.

The outlet of a bath-basin: if it is in the center, it renders [the bath] invalid [as a mikveh]; but if it is at the side, it does not render it invalid, because then it is like one mikveh adjoining another mikveh, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: if the bath-basin can contain a quarter-log of [water] before it reaches the outlet, it is valid; but if not, it is not valid. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: if the outlet can contain any amount of [water], it is invalid.

The ‘purifier' in the bathhouse: the bottom was full of drawn [water] and the top full of valid [water], if [the space] in front of the hole can contain three logs it is invalid [as a mikveh]. How large must the hole be to contain three logs? 1/320th of the pool, the words of Rabbi Yose. But Rabbi Elazar says: even if the bottom [pipe] was full of valid [water] and the top [pipe] full of drawn [water] and by the hole's side were three logs, [the bath is] valid, for they have only said: "if three logs fell in."

If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five.

If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five.

The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Elazar says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail. Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.

A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included. The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk. Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots; All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.

Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.

Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd. The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together. As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile.

The [outer] leaves of vegetables: if they are green they join together, but if they have whitened they not join together. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: the white leaves of cabbage join together because they are edible. So also those of lettuces, because they preserve the edible part.

If it comes in impurity of the officiants? How is that? If defective persons slaughtered and pure ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten, but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat; there are pure ones available to eat it. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]. And where was this said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood, what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar. Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way. Rav Huna, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;> give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden. But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos, the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce,” etc. For what? Rebbi Elazar said, for his house; Rebbi Joḥanan said, for places. The Mishnah supports him who said, for his house: “If he came to Acco, and returned, it is invalidated following his condition.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce. But even if you say that Acco is part of the Land of Israel for bills of divorce, does that mean also for conditions imposed on a bill of divorce?

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

R. Elazar said, Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork? To teach thee that just as the pitchfork turns the grain from place to place in the threshing floor, so the prayers of the righteous turn the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of harshness to that of mercy.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Elazar, R. Judah agrees in, the case [of a ‘tent’ that is as large as] a fistful. So it has also been taught: R. Judah admits in the case of overhanging crags and clefts of rocks.

But has not a bed a breadth of many fistfuls and yet we have learned: Rabbi Judah said, we were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders? A bed is different, since it is made [to be slept] upon. But are not oxen also made [to be sat] upon? When Rabin came he explained in the name of R. Elazar:

Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.

If its pitom is removed. R. Yitzhak b. Elazar taught,: If its upper stem was removed.

Where the custom obtains to repeat. It was taught: Rabbi used to repeat [certain] words in it; R. Elazar b. Perata used to add [certain] words in it. What does it mean to add? Abaye explained: He added the doubling beginning with "I will give thanks" to the end of the Psalm.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.

And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Aibu said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok when a man brought an aravah before him, and he took it and shook it over and over again without reciting any blessing, or he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets. Aibu and Hezekiah, the sons of the daughters of Rav, brought an aravah before Rav, and he shook it over and over again without reciting a blessing, for he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets.

Aibu stated: I was standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok. A certain man came before him and said to him: I have cities, vineyards and olive trees, and the inhabitants of the cities come and hoe the vineyards and eat the olives [on the Sabbatical year]. Is this proper or improper? [R. Yohanan] rules that indeed it is improper As the man was about to leave him and depart, [R. Elazar] said I have now lived in the land for forty years, and I have never seen a man walking in the paths of righteousness as this man. The man went back and said to him: ‘What should be done?’ He answered him: Abandon the olives to the poor and pay the workers for hoeing the vineyards

Aibu stated: I was standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok. A certain man came before him and said to him: I have cities, vineyards and olive trees, and the inhabitants of the cities come and hoe the vineyards and eat the olives [on the Sabbatical year]. Is this proper or improper? [R. Yohanan] rules that indeed it is improper As the man was about to leave him and depart, [R. Elazar] said I have now lived in the land for forty years, and I have never seen a man walking in the paths of righteousness as this man. The man went back and said to him: ‘What should be done?’ He answered him: Abandon the olives to the poor and pay the workers for hoeing the vineyards

Aibu said in the name of R. Elazar b. Zadok: One should not walk more than three parasangs on erev Shabbat. R. Kahana said: They made this statement only [in reference to a man who was going to] his home, but if he was going to his inn he relies upon [the food] which he has with him.

R. Abbahu said: What is its Scriptural proof? As it is said, “Order the festival procession with boughs, up to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). R. Abbahu said n the name of R. Elazar: Whoever takes the lulav with its binding and the hadas in its thickness is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said,

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok said: There was a small empty space between the ascent and the altar, on the west side of the ascent, and once in seventy years the young of the priesthood used to descend there and gather up from there the congealed wine which looked like round cakes of pressed figs, and they would come and burn it in a state of sanctity as it is said, “In the holy place you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7)

Whose view is followed in what we learned, The law of sacrilege applies to drink-offerings at the beginning, but after they have descended into the pits, the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.” Must we say that it is that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of the rabbis–the pits descended to the abyss?

There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”

There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?

R. Elazar stated: Greater is he who performs charity than [he who offers] all the sacrifices, for it is said, “To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3). R. Elazar further stated: Acts of loving kindness (gemilut hasadim) are greater than charity (tzedakah), for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to your charity (tzedakah), but reap according to your hesed” (Hosea 10: 12); when one sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat [the harvest] or not, but when one reaps, he will certainly eat.

R. Elazar stated: Greater is he who performs charity than [he who offers] all the sacrifices, for it is said, “To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3). R. Elazar further stated: Acts of loving kindness (gemilut hasadim) are greater than charity (tzedakah), for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to your charity (tzedakah), but reap according to your hesed” (Hosea 10: 12); when one sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat [the harvest] or not, but when one reaps, he will certainly eat.

R. Elazar further stated: The reward of charity depends entirely upon the extent of the kindness in it, for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to charity, but reap according to the kindness.”

R. Elazar further stated: He who performs acts of charity and justice is regarded as though he had filled all the world with kindness, for it is said, “He who loves charity and justice, he has filled the earth with the loving kindness of God” (Psalms 33:5). But lest you say that whoever wishes to do good succeeds without difficulty, Scripture says, “How precious is Your loving kindness, O God” (Psalms 36:8). One might say that this applies also one who fears God, Scripture says, “But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time on those that fear Him” (Psalms 103:17).

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

At the conclusion of the first festival day etc. What was the great enactment? R. Elazar said: Like that of which we have learned: Originally [the walls of the Court of the Women] were smooth, but [later the Court] was surrounded with a gallery, and it was enacted that the women should sit above and the men below.

Levi showed a Kidah in the presence of Rabbi and he became lame. But was this the cause? Did not R. Elazar state: One should never cast reproach against Heaven, for a great man cast reproach against Heaven and was as a result rendered lame. And who was he? Levi? Both this and that were the cause [of his lameness].

R. Elazar stated: These seventy bulls [that were offered during the seven days of the Festival], to what do they correspond? To the seventy nations. To what does the single bull [of the Eighth Day] correspond?

Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by “laid waste”? If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], “which has a wall” [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?

Elazar said: These places were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. They were laid waste in the days of the concubine of Gibea, and Elpaal came and rebuilt them. They again fell, and Asa came and repaired them.

R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Rabbi planted a sapling on Purim,

R. Elazar said: The reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel is from what is written: “To confirm this letter of Purim, the second” (Esther 9:29).

This is like the following tannaim. “Write this” what is written here. For a memorial” what is written in Deuteronomy. “In a book,” what is written in the Prophet, the words of R. Joshua. R. Elazar HaModai says: “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; for a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.

It has been taught: R. Elazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart” (Esther 6:6). R. Akiva says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all that looked upon her” (2:15).

Rava said: They can all be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. Against the proof of R. Elazar it may be objected that it is reasonable [to suppose that Haman would think so] because there was no one who was so high in the esteem of the king as he was, and that when he spoke at length [to Ahashverosh], he was only speaking concerning himself.

Against the proof of R. Akiva it may be objected that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Elazar, who said that these words show that to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation.

Setting foot. But people are not particular about this? Rava said: Whose view is this? R. Elazar’s, who said that [even] a thing which is usually excused is forbidden to one who vows to have no benefit.

Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently. Or if you like, I can say that the latter is from R. Elazar b. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Yose says: “That has [no] wall” (Leviticus 25:30) even though it does not have one now, but it had in previous times.

R. Elazar replied: He himself does not rejoice, but he makes others rejoice. This is indicated also by the text, which writes yasis and not yasus; learn from this.

Elazar began his discourse on this with the following text: “By laziness he that lays beams (mekoreh) becomes poor [yimak], and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Through Israel’s laziness in not occupying themselves with Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, became poor. The meaning of “makh” is poor, as it says, “And if he is too makh for your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:8), and mekoreh means only the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says, “Who lays the beams [ha-mekareh] of Your upper chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3).

None did compel. R. Elazar said: This teaches that each one was given to drink from the wine of his own country. That they should do according to every man’s [ish, ish] pleasure. Rava said: This means that they should do according to the will of Mordecai and Haman. Mordecai [is called ish] as it is written, “A Jewish man;” and Haman, [as it is written], “A man (ish), an adversary and an enemy.”

“And Esther found favor” (Esther 2: 15). R. Elazar: said This teaches that to everyone she looked like a member of his own people. “So Esther was taken to king Ahashverosh into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tevet” (Esther 2: 16). The month when a body benefits from being close to another body.

R. Elazar said: What is the meaning of the verse,

What modesty did Saul display? — As it is written, “But concerning the matter of the kingdom of which Shmuel spoke he told him not” (I Samuel 10:16).He merited that Esther should descend from him. R. Elazar further said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, assigns greatness to a man, he assigns it to his sons and his sons’ sons for all generations, as it says, “[With kings on the throne;] He sets them forever and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). If, however, he becomes arrogant, God humiliates him, as it says, “And if they be bound in fetters etc” (Job 36:8).

“Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther put on royalty” (Esther 5:1). Surely it should say, “royal clothing”? R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: This tells us that the holy spirit clothed her. It is written here, “and she put on,” and it is written elsewhere, “And a spirit clothed Amasai” (I Chronicles 12:19).

R Elazar b. Hanina also said: Let not the blessing of an ordinary man be held lightly in your eyes, for two men great in their generation were blessed by ordinary men and their blessings were fulfilled. They were, David and Daniel. David was blessed by Aravnah, as it is written, “And Aravnah said to the king, The Lord your God will accept you” (II Samuel 24:23). Daniel was blessed by Darius, as it is written “Your God whom you serve continually, He will deliver you” (Daniel 6:17).

R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Let not the curse of an ordinary man be held lightly in your eyes, because Avimelech cursed Sarah, saying, “Behold he is for you a covering of the eyes” (Genesis 20:16) and this was fulfilled in her seed, [as it says], “And it came to pass that when Isaac was old his eyes were dim” (Genesis 27:1).

R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Come and observe that the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the way of flesh and blood — The way of flesh and blood is that a man places a pot on the fire and then pours water into it, but God first puts in the water and then sets the pot, to fulfil what is written, “At the sound of his giving a multitude of waters in the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:13).

R. Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it originally brings deliverance to the world, as it says, “And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22).

R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: When a righteous man dies, he dies only for his own generation. It is with him as with a man who loses a pearl. Wherever it is, it remains a pearl, and is lost only to its owner.

“Yet all this is worth nothing to me” (Esther 5:13). R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Just because he saw Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, was this any reason why he should say, ‘Yet all this is worth nothing to me?” As R. Hisda said, for R. Hisda said: The one came [to the court] as with his wealth and the other

R. Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: God will in the time to come be a crown on the head of every righteous man, as it is said, “In that day the Lord of Hosts will be for a crown of glory and for a diadem of beauty” (Isaiah 28:5) What is meant by a “crown of glory (tzvi)” and a “diadem [zefirat] of beauty”? For them that do his will [tzivyono] and who await [mezapin] his glory. Shall He be so to all? Scripture says, “To the residue of [lish’ar] his people,” that is, to whoever makes of himself a mere residue [shirayim].

How much [was it stretched]? — R. Jeremiah said: It was two cubits long and he made it twelve cubits — Some say, sixteen, and some again twenty-four. In a Baraitha it was stated, sixty. so too you find with the arm of the daughter of Pharaoh, and so you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written, You have broken [shibarta] the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8) and Resh Lakish said: Do not read shibarta but shirbavta. Rabbah b. Ofran said in the name of R. Elazar who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, [that the sceptre was stretched] two hundred [cubits].

“Let the king and Haman come to a banquet” (Esther 5:4). Our Rabbis taught: What did Esther see that she invited Haman? R. Elazar said: She set a trap for him, as it says. “Let their table before them become a snare” (Psalms 69:23). R. Joshua said:

He came into the house, and there “Haman was falling upon the couch.” “Falling”? It should say, “had fallen”? R. Elazar said: This teaches us that an angel came and made him fall on it. Ahashverosh then said: Trouble inside, trouble outside! “And the king said, Will he also try to overcome the queen with me in the house?” (Esther 7:8)

“Then said Harbonah,” (Esther 7:9) etc. R. Elazar said: Even Harbonah was a wicked man and was part of that plot. When he saw that his plan was not succeeding, he at once abandoned, and so it is written, “And he cast on him and did not pity, from his hand he surely flees” (Job 27:22).

“And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s necks” (Genesis 45:14). How many necks did Benjamin have? R. Elazar said: He wept for the two Temples which were destined to be in the territory of Benjamin and to be destroyed. “And Benjamin wept upon his neck”: he wept for the tabernacle of Shiloh which was destined to be in the territory of Joseph and to be destroyed.

“And behold your eyes see and the eyes of my brother Benjamin.” (Genesis 45:12) R. Elazar said: He said to them: Just as I bear no malice against my brother Benjamin who had no part in my selling, so I have no malice against you. “That it is my mouth that speaks to you.” As my mouth is, so is my heart.

“And to his father he sent in like manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt” (Genesis 45:23). What are “the good things of Egypt”? R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: He sent him [old] wine which old men find very comforting.

“And his brothers also went and fell down before him” (Genesis 50:3). R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: This is what people say: A fox in its hour — bow down to it.

“And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them” (Genesis 50:21): R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: This teaches that he spoke to them words which would be acceptable to them, [saying], If ten lights were not able to put out one, how can one light put out ten?

“Honor” means tefillin, and so it says, “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10); and it has been taught: R. Elazar the Great says that this refers to the tefillin of the head.