gamaliel

Our Rabbis have taught : Simeon the Cotton-dealer arranged the eighteen benedictions in order in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel at Jabneh. Rabban Gamaliel asked the Sages, "Is there anyone who knows how to word the benediction relating to the Minim?" Samuel the Small stood up and worded it.

Our Rabbis have taught : It once happened that the son of Rabban Gamaliel was ill. He sent two disciples of the wise to R. Hannina b. Dosa to pray on his behalf. When he saw them, he ascended to an upper chamber and prayed on his behalf. On descending he said to them, "Go, the fever has left him." They said to him, "Art thou a prophet?" He replied, "'I am no prophet nor a prophet's son' (Amos vii. 14) ; but so is my tradition : If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted ; but if not, I know that he is rejected." They sat down and wrote and noted the time. When they came to Rabban Gamaliel, he said to them, "By the Temple-service! You have neither understated nor overstated [the time]. But thus it happened ; at that very hour the fever left him, and he asked us for water to drink."

Our Rabbis have taught : It once happened that the son of Rabban Gamaliel was ill. He sent two disciples of the wise to R. Hannina b. Dosa to pray on his behalf. When he saw them, he ascended to an upper chamber and prayed on his behalf. On descending he said to them, "Go, the fever has left him." They said to him, "Art thou a prophet?" He replied, "'I am no prophet nor a prophet's son' (Amos vii. 14) ; but so is my tradition : If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted ; but if not, I know that he is rejected." They sat down and wrote and noted the time. When they came to Rabban Gamaliel, he said to them, "By the Temple-service! You have neither understated nor overstated [the time]. But thus it happened ; at that very hour the fever left him, and he asked us for water to drink."

But there is a teaching: After partaking thereof no benediction is required ! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction : one being the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, the other of the Rabbis. For there is a teaching : This is the general rule — Any food which belongs to the seven species, Rabban Gamaliel says : Three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], whereas the Rabbis say : One benediction which is an abstract of three.

But there is a teaching: After partaking thereof no benediction is required ! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction : one being the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, the other of the Rabbis. For there is a teaching : This is the general rule — Any food which belongs to the seven species, Rabban Gamaliel says : Three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], whereas the Rabbis say : One benediction which is an abstract of three.

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

and is not a kind of corn, or if a kind of corn it has not been made into bread, Rabban Gamaliel declares three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], but the Sages declare: Only one benediction. And any food which does not belong to the seven species and is not a kind of corn, for instance, bread of rice or millet, Rabban Gamaliel declares: One benediction which is an abstract of three, but the Sages declare : None at all.

and is not a kind of corn, or if a kind of corn it has not been made into bread, Rabban Gamaliel declares three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], but the Sages declare: Only one benediction. And any food which does not belong to the seven species and is not a kind of corn, for instance, bread of rice or millet, Rabban Gamaliel declares: One benediction which is an abstract of three, but the Sages declare : None at all.

According to whom, then, dost thou confirm [the teaching: After partaking of rice one benediction which is an abstract of three is necessary] ? According to Rabban Gamaliel. I will quote the latter part of the first teaching, viz. : "If the pieces are no longer whole, he first says '...Who createst various kinds of foods' and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three." Whose teaching is this ? If Rabban Gamaliel's, since he has just declared that for dates and pounded grain three benedictions are necessary, how much more necessary should they be if the pieces are no longer whole!

Rab Hamma b. R. Hannina said: He who makes it a habit to use black cumin will not suffer with pain of the heart. It is quoted in objection : Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Black cumin is one of the sixty deadly poisons, and he who sleeps to the east of his store [of cumin], his blood is on his own head ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to its odour, the other to its taste. The mother of R. Jeremiah used to bake bread for him and sprinkle [black cumin] upon it, and then scrape it off.

Our Rabbis have taught: If they set before him oil and myrtle, Bet Shammai declare : He first says the benediction over the oil and then over the myrtle ; Bet Hillel declare : He first says the benediction over the myrtle and then over the oil. Rabban Gamaliel said : I will decide — Oil we use for its fragrance and for anointing, whereas we use the myrtle only for its fragrance and not for anointing. R. Johanan said : The Halakah is in accord with him who decided.

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

And the Rabbis? [The reference to] the "land" interrupts the subject-matter. But for Rabban Gamaliel likewise [the reference to] the "land" interrupts the subject-matter ! He requires that to exclude the case of one who chews wheat.

Against this is quoted : Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : If one has ascended [the couch] and reclined with them, even though he has not dipped with them except the smallest quantity and has not eaten with them except a single dried fig, he is to be reckoned with them [for Grace] !

There is a teaching to the same effect : Those who belonged to the school of Rabban Gamaliel used not to exclaim Marpe' in the House of Study because of the interruption it causes.

But Rab Safra thought that it was dangerous; for there is a teaching : Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : If the fecal discharge is kept back it causes dropsy, and if the fluid in the urinary duct is kept back it causes jaundice.

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it has been taught: One who builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship. R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid.

‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it has been taught: One who builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship. R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid.

We learned there A cistern between two courtyards—they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

But why does he not say, From the words of R. Gamaliel"? He informs us of something [else] by the way, like that which R Aha b. Ada, and others say, R. Aha b. Ada in the name of R. Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that even the casual conversation of disciples of the sages demands study? As it says, "And whose leaf does not wither" (Psalms 1:3).

a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel ruled,

a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said, if they can support a half-brick in its length of three handbreadths, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.

GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid. Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze; R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.

Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah]. Our Rabbis taught, The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.

It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.”

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

But behold both R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer agree that as regards the Sabbatical Year the etrog's status is determined by the time of its blossoming, as we have learned, The etrog is like a tree in three respects, and like a vegetable in one.

in that its tithing is determined by the time of its picking, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. R. Eliezer ruled: The etrog is like a tree in all respects.

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

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

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

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

Why did he need to mention that [R. Gamaliel] had bought it for one thousand zuz? In order to let you know how precious to them was the opportunity of fulfilling a mitzvah.

It was taught: They said of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel that when he rejoiced at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to take eight fire torches and throw them in the air and catch one and throw one and they did not touch one another; and when he prostrated himself, he used to dig his two thumbs in the ground, bend down, kiss the ground, and stand himself up again, a feat which no other man could do, and this is what is meant by Kidah.

3. On the third of Marḥeshwan one is to begin praying for rain; Rabban Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month, fifteen days after the feast of Tabernacles, so that even the tardiest Israelite may reach the Euphrates.

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.

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.

'Amemar transmits the statement of R. Ḥisda as referring to the Mishnah (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain, R. Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month. Hereupon R. Ḥisda remarked: The law follows R. Gamaliel.

'Amemar transmits the statement of R. Ḥisda as referring to the Mishnah (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain, R. Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month. Hereupon R. Ḥisda remarked: The law follows R. Gamaliel.

Whose opinion is represented in the following Baraita (Tos., ibid.): R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if rain falls seven days without interruption, I consider it either as the combined first and second or as the combined second and third rainfalls? It is the opinion of R. Jose.

On the third of Marḥeshwan one is to begin praying for rain; Rabban Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month.

Said R. Eleazar, the law is in accordance with the view of R. Gamaliel.

Another Baraita reads: Not every one who wishes to act as a distinguished individual is entitled to do so; students, however, are entitled thereto: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if it is a case where acting as a distinguished individual would bring him distinction, he may not do so, if it would bring him suffering, he is well entitled to it.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

10. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of the New Moon, Ḥanukkah, and Purim, but if the fasts began prior to these days, they should not be interrupted; this is the opinion of R. Gamaliel. Said R. Meir: Although R. Gamaliel said that if the fasts had begun they should not be interrupted, he admitted that one should not fast to the end of the respective days. The same rule applies to the Ninth of Ab that happens to be on a Friday.

10. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of the New Moon, Ḥanukkah, and Purim, but if the fasts began prior to these days, they should not be interrupted; this is the opinion of R. Gamaliel. Said R. Meir: Although R. Gamaliel said that if the fasts had begun they should not be interrupted, he admitted that one should not fast to the end of the respective days. The same rule applies to the Ninth of Ab that happens to be on a Friday.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, etc. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim, but if the fasts began, etc. What constitutes a beginning? R. Aḥa said, three fasts, R. Jose said, even one fast. R. Judah said in the name of Rab, this view (that one should not fast to the end of the day) is the view of R. Meir, who offered it in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, but the other Sages say, one must fast to the end of the day. Mar Zuṭra lectured in the name of R. Huna that the law is, one must fast to the end of the day.

Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for rain for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for the cisterns, ditches, and caves it is sounded also during the Sabbatical year; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, for the trees also we sound during the Sabbatical year, because they furnish a livelihood to the poor. Another Baraita teaches: The alarm is sounded for the trees during the six years of the Septenary (but not during the Sabbatical year); for cisterns, ditches, and caves, it is sounded even during the Sabbatical year; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, also for what grows of itself we sound during the Sabbatical year, because it furnishes a livelihood to the poor.

R. Judah Nesiah (Patriarch) once ordained a fast during which he prayed for rain, but rain did not come. Said he: "What a difference between Samuel the Ramathite and Judah b. Gamaliel! [Samuel the Ramathite did not decree any fast and yet rain fell, while Judah decrees a fast and no rain comes!] Woe unto a generation that is placed in such a position! Woe unto him in whose lifetime such a thing happens!" and became very much discouraged, whereupon rain came.

7. With the beginning of Ab we should limit our rejoicing. During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls, one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes) but one may do so on Thursday in honor of the coming Sabbath. On the day before the ninth of Ab, one should not partake of two courses, nor eat meat or drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should merely modify (his usual way of living). R. Judah made it obligatory to turn over the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him.

8. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: The Israelites never had such joyous days as the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement, for on those days the sons of Jerusalem used to go out dressed in white garments, which they borrowed from one another in order not to cause shame to him who had none of his own. All these garments had to be immersed (before they were used). The daughters of Jerusalem too used to go out on these days and dance in the vineyards, saying, "Young man, lift up thine eyes, and consider what thou wilt select for thyself (as a wife); do not fix thine eyes upon beauty, but consider the family." And the young man replied (Cant. 3.11): "Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, even upon the crown wherewith his mother hath crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart."

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

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.

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.

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

There is one Baraita that agrees with the first statement, while another Baraita agrees with the second statement. The Baraita that agrees with the second statement reads: He who takes a meal on the eve of the ninth of Ab, may, if he expects to take another meal at a later hour, eat meat and drink wine, but if he does not expect to eat again, he is not allowed to do so. The Baraita that agrees with the first statement reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, neither eat meat nor drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, he should change his usual mode of living. Said R. Judah: How is this change to be made? If he was used to eat of two courses, he should eat of only one; if he was used to dine in the company of ten people, he should now dine with five; and if he was used to drink wine out of ten successive glasses, he should now drink the same quantity in five glasses; the foregoing prohibitions apply only to meals taken in the afternoon, but not to the forenoon.

Another Baraita reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, nor eat meat or drink wine; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the other Sages said, he should make a change, while in the case of meat and wine he should reduce the quantity. How is he to reduce it? If he was used to eat a pound of meat, he should now eat only half a pound; if he was used to drink a log of wine, he should drink half a log; and if he was not used to meat or wine, he should not partake of them at all. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, if he was used to eat radishes or salted food after the meals, he may do so.

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the Israelites never had such joyous holidays as the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. This is quite right so far as the Day of Atonement is concerned, which is a day of pardon and forgiveness, a day on which the second Tables were given, but why the fifteenth of Ab? Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the (twelve) tribes were given permission to intermarry. What was the Scriptural basis for this permission? The verse (Numb., 36. 6): "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad," etc., which means that 'this thing' (forbidding intermarriage) shall apply only to this generation (of Moses).

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Yose that it is to be read again in the second, because all mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar may not be performed in the first. They all however agree in regard to mourning and fasting, that they are forbidden on [the fourteenth and fifteenth of] both.

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

on the other hand held that even the Megillah may be read ab initio in the first [Adar]; And R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that even the special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second.

Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.

Or if you want, I can say that in fact it is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and this is what it means: There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar except for reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor. From which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are the same, but it doesn’t mention the special portions.

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who said it in the name of R. Yose.

R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text, In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:

R. Eliezer, who holds that Purim is observed in Adar I makes sense for there is a principle that one should never pass up an opportunity to perform a mitzvah. But why would R. Shimon b. Gamaliel hold that Purim is delayed until Adar II.

R. Tabi says that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel wanted the redemption of Purim to be close to the redemption of Pesah. Therefore, they should be observed in adjacent months.

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

We have learned elsewhere: If any who has incurred the penalty of karet is flogged — they are exempt from karet, as it says, “Lest your brother should be dishonored in your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3) once he has been flogged, he is like thy brother, the words of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan said: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel’s colleagues disagreed with him on this point.

We have learned elsewhere: If any who has incurred the penalty of karet is flogged — they are exempt from karet, as it says, “Lest your brother should be dishonored in your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3) once he has been flogged, he is like thy brother, the words of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan said: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel’s colleagues disagreed with him on this point.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.

Rather, there is no contradiction: the one statement [in the Mishnah] represents the view of the rabbis, the other that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.

But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.