formula

This is the formula of the prozbul: “I turn over to you, so-and-so, judges of such and such a place, that any debt that I may have outstanding, I shall collect it whenever I desire.” And the judges sign below, or the witnesses.

How far does one recite it? Bet Shammai say: Until “As a joyous mother of children” (Psalms 113:9). But Bet Hillel say: Until “The flinty rock into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And he concludes with [a formula of] redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt”, but he did not conclude [with a blessing]. Rabbi Akiva says: “So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers bring us to other appointed times and festivals which come towards us for peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city and glad in Your service, and there we will eat of the sacrifices and the pesahim” etc. until “Blessed are You who has redeemed Israel.”

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs”: Beth Shammai says: he is an [ordinary] nazirite. Beth Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “They are [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice.”

If one says, “This cow is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I get up,” or “This door is saying ‘Behold, I am a nazirite if I open”: Bet Shammai says: he is a nazirite, But Bet Hillel says: he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Judah said: even though Beth Shammai did say [that his formula is effective] they meant only one who says, “This cow is [forbidden] to me, as is a sacrifice if it gets up.”

How is it that the formula of halitzah [must be recited in Hebrew]? [It is said] “And she shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and elsewhere it says, “And the Levites shall answer and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14); just as the “answer” made elsewhere must be in the holy tongue, so must the [declaration discussed here] be in the holy tongue. Rabbi Judah says: “And she shall answer and say thus”, she must say it in this language.

Two men sent two identical gittin [to their wives] and they became mixed up they give both of them to this wife and both of them to this wife. Therefore, if one of them was lost the other is void. If five men wrote jointly in the same get, “So-and-so divorces so-and-so and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so and the witnesses [signed] below, all are valid and the get is to be given to each [of the women]. If the scribe wrote out the formula for each one and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the signatures are read is valid.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Then the Mishnah might be Rebbi Yehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is no terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Why does one finish with “the Land”? It is similar to Grace for day laborers. As has been stated: “Workers who were doing work with the owner shall recite the first benediction, include Jerusalem in the benediction for the Land and finish with ‘the Land.’ But if they were working for their food or if the employer was eating with them, then they recite four benedictions.” In the school of Rebbi Yannai they treated it as a formula of benediction.

It has been stated: Rebbi Yose says, anyone who changes the formula established by the Sages did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Yehudah says, everything that has been changed from the way it was created but one did not change its benediction, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Meïr says, even if he says: “Praised be He Who created this property, how beautiful it is,” he has fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: practice follows Rebbi Meïr. The words of Rav also say so. A Persian came before Rav: “Since I am eating my piece of bread, but I do not know how to recite the benediction over it, I use to say: ‘Praise to Him Who created this piece of bread,’ did I fulfill my duty?” He said to him: yes.

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.

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan went to make peace in the Southern settlements. They came to a place where they found the reader saying: “The great God, the strong and awe-inspiring, the noble and overpowering;” they stopped him and told him: you are not permitted to add to the formula the Sages coined for benedictions. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: (Job 37:23) “The All-powerful, we did not find for Him the fullness of His might,” we did not find out the might and strength of the Holy One, praise to Him! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: (Job 37:20) “Can it be told to Him if I should speak, if a man tells, he certainly will be swallowed up.” If a man comes to tell the strengths of the Holy One, praise to Him, he sets himself up to be swallowed away from the world. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said (Ps. 106:2) “Who can tell the strengths of the Eternal?” For example, I and my colleagues. Rebbi Abun said: “Who can ever tell the strengths of the Eternal?” Jacob of Kefar Naburaia explained in Tyre: (Ps. 65:2) “Silence is praise for You, God in Zion!” The medicine for everything is silence; like a priceless jewel: everyone who adorns himself with it, diminishes it.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

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.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not write on anything connected to the ground,” etc. This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. Samuel bar Abba asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected it again, detached it, and delivered it to her; what does Rebbi Jehudah say? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abin asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected again, signed, and detached it, and delivered it to her; what do the rabbis say?

HALAKHAH: “One does not write on anything connected to the ground,” etc. This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. Samuel bar Abba asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected it again, detached it, and delivered it to her; what does Rebbi Jehudah say? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abin asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected again, signed, and detached it, and delivered it to her; what do the rabbis say?

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: But is it not written: “He shall write for her,” in her name? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him. This follows what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid.

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

We understand, to the witnesses, sign! But to the scribe, write? Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. He explains it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulas.

Where do we hold? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. {Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

Where do we hold? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. {Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as a wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for the preliminary marriage of a woman. Just as preliminary marriage acquires completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

The answer is : In this case [of oil, the benediction is unaltered] because none other is possible. What other benediction could he say? Should he use the formula "...Who createst the fruit of the olive," the olive itself is called "fruit"!

Still there is a contradiction! No, there is not; [the formula in the Mishnah] applies when he heard [that it had been raining], the other when he actually sees it.

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

Ravina said: We learn from this that if a man is seized with fright though he sees nothing, [the reason is that] his star sees. What is his remedy? He should recite the Shema. If he is in a place which is foul, he should move away from it four cubits. If he cannot do this, he should say this formula: “The goat at the butcher’s is fatter than I am.”