explicitly

If one redeemed maaser sheni but did not call it by its name: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must name it explicitly. If a man was speaking to a woman concerning her divorce or her betrothal, and gave her a get or betrothal money but did not state explicitly [what he was doing]: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must say it explicitly.

If one redeemed maaser sheni but did not call it by its name: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must name it explicitly. If a man was speaking to a woman concerning her divorce or her betrothal, and gave her a get or betrothal money but did not state explicitly [what he was doing]: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must say it explicitly.

If one redeemed maaser sheni but did not call it by its name: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must name it explicitly. If a man was speaking to a woman concerning her divorce or her betrothal, and gave her a get or betrothal money but did not state explicitly [what he was doing]: Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient. But Rabbi Judah says: he must say it explicitly.

Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3).

To which type of female slave [does this refer]? To one who is half a slave and half a free person, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: to a full female slave. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: all other forbidden sexual relations are stated explicitly, and of the remainder there is only one who can be half a slave and half a free person.

He then came to the small opening on the north. The great gate had two small openings, one on the north and one on the south. No one ever went in by the openings on the south, about which it is stated explicitly in Ezekiel, “And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be closed, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it” (Ezekiel 44:2). He took the key and opened the small opening and went in to the cell and from the cell to the Sanctuary, until he reached the great gate. When he reached the great gate he drew back the bolt and the latches and opened it. The slaughterer did not slaughter till he heard the sound of the great gate being opened.

The great gate had two small doors, one to the north and one to the south. By the one to the south no one ever went in, and concerning it was stated explicitly be Ezekiel, as it says, “And the Lord said to me: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut” (Ezekiel 44:2). He [the priest] took the key and opened the [northern] door and went in to the cell, and from the cell he went into the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah says: he used to walk along in the thickness of the wall until he came to the space between the two gates. He would open the outer doors from within and the inner doors from without.

Rebbi Eleazar went to pay a sick-bed visit to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba. He said to him: Since I am weak, when I am reciting Shema‘ I tend to slumber; do I fulfill my obligation? He said to him: yes. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Did Rebbi Eleazar give this ruling since he knew that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba is very scrupulous in the execution of his religious duties, or because he was so weak? He answered him: They disagree explicitly; Rebbi Eleazar said he fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yoḥanan said he did not fulfill his obligation. They disagree for the recitation of Shema‘ since that is composed of separate chapters, but for the recitation of Hallel and the Esther scroll, Rebbi Eleazar will agree.

Property abandoned to animals but not to humans, to Gentiles but not to Jews, to rich but not to poor, everybody agrees that it does not have the status of abandoned property. For humans but not for animals, for Jews but not for Gentiles, for the poor of one town but not for the poor of any other town is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, this abandoning is legal abandoning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this abandoning is not legal abandoning. Rebbi Lia said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this abandoning is legal abandoning. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this abandoning is not legal abandoning.

MISHNAH: When may one buy vegetables in the year following the Sabbatical? After similar ones are ready. When the early ripe one is ready, the late is permitted. Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical. One does not export oil to be burned and produce of the Sabbatical from the Land to outside the Land. Rebbi said, I heard explicitely that one exports to Syria but not to outside the Land. One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land. Rebbi said, I heard explicitly that one may bring from Syria but not from outside the Land.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or did you discuss ‘orlah and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count? Rebbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

MISHNAH: Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower are permitted for ‘orlah, the Fourth Year, and a nazir, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove. Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use ‘orlah sap as curd. Rebbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit. Anqoqlot, the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers, nut shells, and seeds are forbidden from ‘orlah, sacred groves, and for a nazir. They are permitted in the fourth year. Windfall is forbidden for all of these. Rebbi Yose said, one may plant an ‘orlah shoot but not an ‘orlah nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah.

How, either within four cubits of the ramp or four cubits of the altar? Since we have stated, “It happened that two were equally running up the ramp,” this implies within four cubits of the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explicitly did Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he who is first within four cubits of the altar got the right to do it.”

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

“How the sukkah seven? If he finished eating one may not undo his sukkah but one removes his vessels after afternoon prayers in honor of the last day of the festival.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav (Hoshaiah): He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and eats in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Immi, this implies that they disagree explicitly.

Rebbi Jonah said, what you are saying refers to washing to wear; but washing to mend? So we are saying, this washerman is forbidden to work in his trade? Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, “the week in which the Ninth of Av falls one is forbidden to barber and to launder, but on Thursday one is permitted for the honor of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna, it was repeated regarding (addition) [barbering.] Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. If the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, both weeks are permitted. What is afterwards? Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached it to the Sepphoreans but they did not accept it. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi [Yasa]. Does not the nephew of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree with him? He answered, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explain it? He explains it if the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, and one cannot infer anything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar announced at the end of the Ninth of Av, the barbers shall open, any who has to eulogize may eulogize. It is written, I shall eliminate all her enjoyment, her holiday, her month, her Sabbath, and all her feast. The Southerners have the custom of ḥer holiday, the Sepphoreans have the custom of her month, the Tiberians have the custom of her week. The Rabbis of Tiberias changed to follow the Rabbis of Sepphoris.

“Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Eleazar said: You say that in case the tetradrachma lost or added value. But for earnings or losses they split evenly. That is difficult! One gave 100 denars and the other gave ten, and you say so? The colleagues say, he may say to him, by my contribution the merchandise rose. So far, if they ran after little merchandise. If there was much merchandise? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he may say to him, by the time you sold one piece, I am selling ten. That is, at a nearby place. If it was far away? Rebbi Hila said, he may say to him, by the time you go and return once, I am going and returning ten times. There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi [Ze‘ira]: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

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.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

There, we have stated: “If [the ox] gored an ox worth 200, the last one takes 100, the one before him 50, and the two first ones each a gold denar.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: The same holds for earnings. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Ze‘ira disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Mani said, I asked this before Rebbi Yudan. He said to me: does Rebbi Eleazar not agree if they contracted between themselves that each can take according to his contribution? Oxen are as if contracted. He turned around and said this before Rebbi Yose, who answered him, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Eleazar said, if nothing was said, they split evenly; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if nothing was said, each takes according to his contribution.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one invests in improving a field and does not worry about interest. How is this? One leased a field for ten kor of wheat and said to him, give me a tetradrachma and I shall give you twelve kor at threshing time, it is permitted.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because the field may bring an extraordinary yield. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is as if he increased the rent for the field. What is the difference between them? A store or a ship. According to him who said, because the field may bring an extraordinary yield, one invests in a store or a ship. According to him who said, it is as if he increased the rent for the field, one may not invest in a store or a ship. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one invests in a store or a ship. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not invest in a store or a ship, nor in anything which is not invested in the object itself.

MISHNAH: The blasphemer is not liable unless he explicitly use the Name. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, during the trial one deals with the witnesses by substitute name, may Yose hit Yose. At the end of the proceedings one does not sentence him to death by substitute name but one dismisses the public, retains the most prestigious among them and says to him, tell us explicitly what you heard. He says it while the judges are standing; they tear their garments and never mend them. The second one says, also I [heard] like him; the third one says, also I [heard] like him.

MISHNAH: The blasphemer is not liable unless he explicitly use the Name. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, during the trial one deals with the witnesses by substitute name, may Yose hit Yose. At the end of the proceedings one does not sentence him to death by substitute name but one dismisses the public, retains the most prestigious among them and says to him, tell us explicitly what you heard. He says it while the judges are standing; they tear their garments and never mend them. The second one says, also I [heard] like him; the third one says, also I [heard] like him.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “Under which circumstances did they say that her timing is exact,” etc. Samuel said, they taught only about a virgin and an old woman. But to a pregnant or nursing woman they give all during preganncy and nursing time. Both Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan say, the rules are identical for virgin, post-menopausal, pregnant, or nursing woman. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan parallel Rebbi Ḥanina’s and they all disagree with Samuel’s opinion, since Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Once Rebbi instructed following the leniencies both of Rebbi Meïr and of Rebbi Yose. How was this? If the fetus was noticed and after that she bled, Rebbi Meïr says, her timing is exact; Rebbi Yose says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours. If she then bled frequently, interrupted for three periods, and then bled, Rebbi Meïr says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours; Rebbi Yose says, her timing is exact. If you say, one gives her all the time during pregnancy, why would we need Rebbi Yose’s leniency? Is not that of Rebbi Meïr less weighty than that of Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Might we say, following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose of milk? He said to him, it was said so explicitly.

The teacher stated : From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah. Yes, but when do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. Then let him explicitly teach : "From the time of the appearance of the stars" !

If he holds that the night is divided into three watches, let him say explicitly [in the Mishnah] "until the end of the fourth hour." If, on the other hand, he holds that the night is divided into four watches, let him say explicitly "until the end of the third hour."

If he holds that the night is divided into three watches, let him say explicitly [in the Mishnah] "until the end of the fourth hour." If, on the other hand, he holds that the night is divided into four watches, let him say explicitly "until the end of the third hour."

What reply does R. Nathan make to this? He asks, Does Scripture state "one of the two middle watches"? No; the "middle watch" is explicitly mentioned.

When Rab Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine], he said : The statement of Rab Aha b. R. Hannina in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi was not explicitly said but was inferred.

But R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : It is "Who formest light." When Rab Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine], he said : The statement of R. Zerika was not explicitly made but was inferred ; for what R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish was : This teaches that the benedictions do not invalidate one another.

Quite right that three of these are explicitly stated therein ; viz. : the yoke of the commandments, as it is written, "That ye may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord" (ibid. xv. 39) ; the command of Fringes, as it is written, "That they make for themselves fringes" (ibid. v. 38) ; the exodus from Egypt, as it is written, "I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God ; I am the Lord your God" (ibid. 5:41). But where is there reference to heretical opinions and lustful imagination and idolatrous longing ?

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

As for the Tefillah of the evening, it has no fixed time. What means it has no fixed time? If we are to suppose that should a man so desire, he can say the Tefillah at any time during the night, then let the Mishnah teach explicitly, "The evening Tefillah [may be said] at any time during the night"! What, then, means it has no fixed time?

"Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them and that I may consume them ; and I will make of thee a great nation" etc. (Exod. xxxii. 10). R. Abbahu said : Were it not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say it ; for this teaches that Moses caught hold of the Holy One, blessed be He, like a man who takes hold of his neighbour by his garment, and said before Him, "Lord of the universe ! I will not let Thee alone until Thou forgivest and pardonest them."

Does, then, the olive need inclusion because of the factor of the altar ? Behold, the expression kerem "vineyard" is explicitly written in connection therewith ; for it is stated, "And he burnt up the shocks and the standing corn, and also the olive-yards" (Judges xv. 5) ! Rab Pappa answered : It is called "a kerem of olives" but not kerem without qualification.

"Honey" — one must have eaten as much as a large date on the Day of Atonement [to have incurred the penalty for breaking the fast]. But the other [Rabbi]? [He asks] : Are these standards explicitly stated in this verse ? No, they are ordained by the Rabbis, and this verse serves only as a support.

[But] in case [you would say] that just as, with holy objects, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes its sanctity and [the holy object itself] becomes desacralized, so also with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money for which it is redeemed assumes its sanctity and the [produce itself] becomes desacralized, Scripture explicitly says, "It shall be"—it remains in its original [holy] state.

Which [blessing] does one omit? — The blessing on the time. Say that one omits the blessing of the miracle? The miracle occurred every day. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak taught this explicitly: Rav said: The commandment of the lulav applies to all seven days.

When R. Aha b. Hanina came from the south, he brought a baraita with him: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with trumpets” (Numbers 10:8). For Scripture would not have needed to state explicitly “shall blow” since it is also written, “You shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offering sand over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10). Why then was it stated, “shall blow”? [To teach you that] the sounding of the trumpets is in accordance with the number of the additional offerings. He taught this [baraitha] and he also explained it to mean that the trumpet is to be sounded for every single additional offering.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

But these were stated explicitly: On Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival four read!

R' Ulah said Where is there a hint to the laws of false witnesses in the Torah? A hint to the laws of false witnesses?? It is written [explicitly] And you shall do to him as he plotted... No, a hint for the forty lashes It is written And you shall exonerate the innocent and condemn the guilty and if the wicked deserves to be beaten because they [the court] exonerated the innocent party and they condemned the guilty party (in a case of civil dispute), the guilty deserve to be beaten?

Rebbi Abahu answers, the Torah explicitly compared liabilities of kares to malkus that we learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Leviticus 20,17) "לעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך". Rebbi Abba bar Mamal inquired, If so [that we can learn out to kares from a gezaria shava], then liabilities of court execution should also be [subject to malkus, as we should] learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Numbers 15,24) "מעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך"?

Why, [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni whilst in a state of] bodily tumah [impurity] is explicitly written, (Leviticus 22,6) "The soul that touches it and is tamai until the evening may not eat from the holy. etc."! Rather from where is [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni when] it itself is tamai derived from?