exod

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Legal decisions. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to agree with the words of Rabbi. For there is a Baraitha, viz., Rabbi says, "Life for life" (Exod. xxi. 23) means money. Thou sayest, money, but it may not be so, but life in the literal sense. Nay; but the word giving is used in connexion with life in a succeeding and in a preceding passage (vv. 30, 22). As there it means money, so here it means money.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage "I will sing unto the LORD, for he is highly exalted" (Exod. xv. 1)? It means a song to Him who takes His place proudly above the high, as the Mishnah teacher said, The king among living creatures is a lion, the king among domestic beasts is an ox, the king among birds is an eagle, but man takes his place proudly above them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, takes His place proudly above them all, and above the whole world in its entirety.

R. Kattinah said, Even at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem there did not cease from them faithful men, as it is said, "When a man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler" (Is. iii. 6). Let things which are hid from the children of men, as a garment hides, be under thy hand. "And this ruin." What is the meaning of the expression "and this ruin"? Words which the children of men cannot understand, but if one tries, he stumbles over them, they are under thy hand. "In that day shall he swear, saying, I am not an healer, for in my house is neither bread nor clothing. Ye shall not make me ruler of the people" (Is. iii. 7). "Shall he swear" is simply a term expressing an oath, as it is said, "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD thy God" (Exod. xx. 7). "I am not an healer," i.e., I have not been of those that heal a college. "For in my house is neither bread nor clothing," i.e., There is not in my hand either Torah or Mishnah or Gemara. And perhaps it is different here. For if he had said to them, I teach Gemara, they would have said to him, Tell us something. But no, he cannot have feared detection, for he might have said, that he had learned it but had now forgotten. What is the meaning of the words "I am not an healer"? They mean, I am not a healer at all. But, after all, behold Rabba said, Jerusalem was not laid waste till there ceased from it honest men, as it is said, "Run ye to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth, and I will pardon her" (Jer. v. 1). There is no difficulty.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.