explicit

Leaves, sprouts, sap of vines, and vine-buds are permitted in respect of orlah and the laws of the fourth year, and to a nazirite, but are prohibited if they come from an Asherah [tree]. Rabbi Yose says: vine-buds are prohibited because they are fruit. Rabbi Eliezer said: if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substances of [a tree liable to] orlah, it is prohibited. Rabbi Joshua said: I have received an explicit tradition that if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substance of the leaves, or with the resinous substance of the roots, it is permitted, but with the resinous substance of the unripe berries, it is prohibited, because these are fruit.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” Rebbi Nathan said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

It is written (Neh. 8:6): “Ezra praised the Eternal, the great God.” In what did he declare Him great? He declared Him great by the Explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by a benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the Men of the Great Assembly? Because they returned the Crown to its former status. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses fixed the formula of benediction, (Deut. 10:17) “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Jeremiah said (Jer. 32:18): “the Great, Strong God,” but he left out “Awesome.” Why did he say “the Strong”? He may rightly be called strong because He sees the destruction and is silent. And why did he not say “the Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is said (Ps. 68:36): “Awesome is the Eternal from Your holy place.” Daniel said (Dan. 9:4): “the Great and Awesome God,” he did not say “the Strong”; His sons are put in neck-irons, where is His strength? Why did he say: “the Awesome?” He may well be called “the Awesome” by the wonders He did for us in the fiery oven. But when the Men of the Great Assembly came,they restituted Greatness to its former place, “the Great, Strong, and Awesome God.” Does flesh and blood have power to set limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is Truth and they will not fawn before him.

HALAKHAH: It is written: (Lev. 19:19) “you should not sow your field kilaim;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, (Deut. 22:11) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

How must he be explicit? “This is your bill of divorce, or this is for your preliminary marriage,” and here: “This is for redemption of Second Tithe.”

Rebbi Ammi asked Rebbi Simeon: Did you hear that one ordains Elders outside the Land? He answered, I heard that one does not ordain Elders outside the Land. Rebbi Levi said, is that not an explicit verse (Ez. 36:17): “Son of man, the House of Israel are dwelling on their Land;” that all your academies shall only be on your Land. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one may ordain Elders outside the Land on condition they return. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman was in Gaza and they ordained him on condition he return. Rebbi Zemina was in Tyre and they ordained him on condition he return. Also Rebbi Jonah was on the list but he refused to be ordained as long as his teacher was not ordained. They ordained his teacher. Rebbi Ḥama said, Jehudah ben Titus was in Rome and they ordained him on condition he return.

HALAKHAH: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

There, we have stated: “One removes four or five baskets.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar objected, did we not state “bundles of straw”? Is straw not as if dispersed? “One removes even four or five baskets,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

There, we have stated: “one who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups of Passover add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

“One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

There, we have stated: “One removes four or five baskets.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

HALAKHAH: [Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of three baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit. It is stated:] One distributes from the lodge into three boxes of three seah each, which is nine seah, which is seah; it is written on them ג ,ב ,א. Why is ,ג ב ,א written on them? To say that one does not take from the first before one has taken from the second, and not from the second before one has taken from the third.

[There, we have stated: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of a cup? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

Rav commanded to the House of Rav; there came Rav Hamnuna commanding the colleagues, if you are giving a gift on the holiday, only give it fully explicit. As the following: Rav Huna gave an etrog to his son. He told him, if today is holiday it is a gift to you, and if it is tomorrow it is a gift to you.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa said, in four places it is said “make for yourself.” In three it is explicit, one is not explicit. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make yourself two silver trumpets. Make yourself flintstone knives. Make yourself a poisonous snake He did not make explicit. Moses said, is its root not nḥš? Therefore, Moses made a brass snake. From there, Rebbi Meïr interpreted names. There was a man called Kidor. Rebbi Meïr told them, guard yourselves from him, he is a bad person; for a generation of perverts they are.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa said, in four places it is said “make for yourself.” In three it is explicit, one is not explicit. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make yourself two silver trumpets. Make yourself flintstone knives. Make yourself a poisonous snake He did not make explicit. Moses said, is its root not nḥš? Therefore, Moses made a brass snake. From there, Rebbi Meïr interpreted names. There was a man called Kidor. Rebbi Meïr told them, guard yourselves from him, he is a bad person; for a generation of perverts they are.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa said, in four places it is said “make for yourself.” In three it is explicit, one is not explicit. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make yourself two silver trumpets. Make yourself flintstone knives. Make yourself a poisonous snake He did not make explicit. Moses said, is its root not nḥš? Therefore, Moses made a brass snake. From there, Rebbi Meïr interpreted names. There was a man called Kidor. Rebbi Meïr told them, guard yourselves from him, he is a bad person; for a generation of perverts they are.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden [because of dedicating], and we have stated, “one does [not] dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

“If he wrote it,” this implies that work is permitted. Should we say on the Fourteenth, in walled cities? “Studied it,” only he should not let his mind wander to other topics. “He corrected it.” It was stated: one is not explicit about its mistakes. Rebbi Isaac bar Abba from Mehasia and Rebbi Ḥananel were sitting before Rav. One said, Yehudim. And the other one said, Yehudiim, and neither of them changed his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan was reading always “Yehudim”. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One verse says “book”, another verse says “letter.” How is this? They made it light for sewing. They were lenient regarding its sewing, that if he stitched two or three stitches it is qualified.

There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, rolls up, and recites the benediction. There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel, Practice follows him who said, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. And what is the reason? When he opened it, the entire people stood up. What is written afterwards? Ezra praised the Eternal, the Great God. In what did he declare Him great? Rebbi Giddul said, by the explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the men of the Great Assembly? Because they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses instituted the prayer formula, the God, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome. Jeremiah said, the Great and Strong God; he did not mention “the Awesome”. Why is He strong? He is appropriately called strong since He sees the destruction of His Temple and is silent. Why did he not mention “Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is written, God Awesome in Your Sanctuary. Daniel said the Great and Awesome God. Why did he not mention “the Strong”? His sons are delivered to iron collars; where is His strength? But why does he say, Awesome? He is appropriately called awesome by the awesome deeds he made for us in the fiery oven. But when the men of the Great Assembly arose they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory: But now, our God, the Power, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome, keeper of Covenant and grace, may it not be little in Your eyes, etc. But does flesh and blood have the power to state limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is truthful and they do not flatter him.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God. For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. How following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference de minore ad majus. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah which needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah which needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food which needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat. Rebbi Nathan said, you shall serve the Eternal, your God, and give praise for your bread and your water; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, so much more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

MISHNAH: Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively and explicit ones liberally. How is this? If one said, this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine, if his intent was for Heaven, he is forbidden, if for idolatry, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like a ban, if by a ban for Heaven, he is forbidden, if priest’s, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like tithe, if animal tithe, he is forbidden, if from grain, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like heave, if Temple heave, he is forbidden, if heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave. Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.

From here, “if his hair became heavy”: Rebbi. For Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: The words of Rebbi: A nazir in perpetuity shaves once in twelve months. The words of the Sages: A nazir in perpetuity sometimes shaves every thirty days, sometimes once in twelve months. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Assi: It says so: “I am a nazir like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea. He is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days. Rebbi says, this one does not shave every thirty days,” but once in twelve months. “Who is one who shaves every thirty days? If he says, I am obligated for nezirut like the hair on my head, like the dust of the earth, or like the sand of the sea.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they differ if it was not made explicit. Where do we hold? If he says, “the fullness of my hair”, everybody agrees that he shaves once every thirty days. If he says, “the number of the hairs on my head,” everybody agrees that he shaves after twelve months. But we must hold that he says “like hair”. Rebbi says, “the fullness of my hair”. But the rabbis say, he means “the number of the hairs on my head.” And here, why? Why did the man not make the vow? He only encourages himself to avoid prohibitions. In addition, from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah added: If he said, like that which is collected in the fig harvest, or like sheaves in a Sabbatical year, or like stars in the sky, he is a nazir in perpetuity and shaves every thirty days.” Could you say that Rebbi Jehudah follows the rabbis? He holds with Rebbi, as Rebbi Jehudah added: “Absalom was a nazir in perpetuity and shaved every twelve months.” What is the reason? Because of nezirut. But that would mean for the rabbis that he shaved every thirty days; that is what we have stated: “I am a nazir the house full, or a chest full. One checks him out.” It was stated on that: He shaves every thirty days. But here he said, he shaved every twelve months.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out, and his seventh day is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit, he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out, and his seventh day is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit, he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

HALAKHAH: “A woman may lend to her neighbor,” etc. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? He said to him, I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

HALAKHAH: “A woman may lend to her neighbor,” etc. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? He said to him, I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Is not this disagreement the same as that disagreement, as we have stated there: “If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her the bill of divorce or [some valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient; Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.” Then Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abin, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? [If they thought about] other things but if he still was on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce. But here, even if they are still on the same subject there is disagreement.

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? “He answered him, from the additional text of the verse. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other.” You cannot, as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice? He said to him, do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written? He told him, even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good? Therefore never for the past.

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.