hamnuna

“Until sunrise.” Rebbi Zabida the son of Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Jonah: until the sun starts to appear at the mountain tops. “Rebbi Joshua says, until three hours of the day.” Rebbi Idi, Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Ada bar Aḥava in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Joshua for one who forgets. Rebbi Ḥuna told of two Amoraïm of whom one said ‘for one who forgot.’ His colleague responded: Do you ever fix practice for one who forgets? In fact, it is the practice. Why did they say, for one who forgot? That everybody should make an effort and read it at its best time.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath induces ṭevel? Because they collected for the Sabbath; therefore, not if they did not collect for the Sabbath! Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even if they collected for the Sabbath one may eat a snack from them on Sabbath eve. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Are they not children and even if they collected for the Sabbath it is as if they had not collected for the Sabbath! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Samuel said, capers are forbidden because of skins. It was stated so: (Lev. 19:23) “You shall treat as foreskin the foreskin of its fruit;” anything which envelopes the fruit. Rav commanded those of the House of Ati, Rav Hamnuna commanded the colleagues: Tell your wives that when they come to preserve capers to throw away the calix. Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Zeїra explained to me that all skins grow with the fruit but there, the fruit is on top and the skins below.

HALAKHAH: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree? There, they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical [year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes?

What is the difference between intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works or in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works? Rebbi Yose said, why intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works makes him liable for each single one? For if you tell him that this is [forbidden] work, he stops doing it and does other works. Why in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works makes him liable only once? For if you tell him that it is a Sabbath, he stops immediately. What if he is in error in both respects? Rav Hamnuna said, he is liable only once. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, is that not a case a fortiori? If he is intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works, is he not liable for each single one? Because there was added for him the error regarding work on the Sabbath; the error about works is lost?

Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four wide one may sit and provide for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct. Rebbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three [hand-breadths] a plank which is not four [hand-breadths] wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three [hand-breadths] which are close to a partition are as if of the partition. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container.

Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four wide one may sit and provide for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct. Rebbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three [hand-breadths] a plank which is not four [hand-breadths] wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three [hand-breadths] which are close to a partition are as if of the partition. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi), it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose], what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Gamliel’s opinion it is clear. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: They estimated to say, up to the place where it can be placed on the top of the head. For how many is there space? Two. Then even on weekdays? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if he wants to put there, he puts. Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rav Hamnuna explained to me, up to the place where the baby’s brain is soft. There we have stated: “About a chicken which was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a person.” It saw that the skull of the baby was soft; it went and picked it.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is, this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die. A private flour offering is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering. It is written, everybody being counted, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards (Peah), a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

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

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

Rebbi used to ordain double ordinations. If they were worthy of it they were continuing; if not they were disappearing. When he was to die, he commanded his son; he said, do not act thus but ordain all of them together, and ordain Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina first. Why did he not ordain him himself? Rebbi Derosa said, because the Sepphoreans complained about him. And because of complaints one acts? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, because he corrected him in public. Rebbi was sitting, stating: Their refugees will remember Me, on the mountains like valley doves, all of them cooing. He said to him, all of them cooing. He asked him, where did you study this text? He said, before the Babylonian Rav Hamnuna. He said to him, if you will descend there, tell him that he should ordain you as Ḥakham. He understood that he never would be ordained in his lifetime. After he died, his son wanted to ordain him, but he did not accept to be ordained unless Rebbi Ephes the Southerner was ordained before him. There was there an old man who said, if Ḥanina precedes me, I have to be the second; if Rebbi Ephes the Southerner precedes me, I have to be the second. Rebbi Ḥanina accepted to be ordained as third.

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.

HALAKHAH: “If he married her, she is his wife in every respect”, etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ketubah.” At the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a ketubah since she was not permitted to marry outside. That you should not say [the case] should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a ketubah; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a ketubah.

Rebbi Jehudah says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on a holiday. Just as a Jew bakes and cooks but is forbidden to work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday. Just as a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday collects from the field but is forbidden agricultural work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rebbi Simeon says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the remaining days of the year. Just as a Jew on the remaining days of the year ploughs, sows, and harvests, so does the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rav Ada, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Is there nobody who disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah? Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila, one marries his wife in levirate, that means that nobody disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah. If he betrothed, his betrothal is not problematic. If he was betrothed, his betrothal is problematic. If he was copulated with, he becomes disabled from heave like a woman. That is difficult. Rebbi Niḥa bar Rebbi Sava, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even with his own kind in any case. That is difficult, if he is a male, no male disables a male. If she is a female, no female disables a female. The male aspect of one disables the female aspect of the other. He enables his wives to eat but does not enable his slaves. He enables his wives to eat by his male aspect. But he does not enable his slaves because of his double aspect; his female aspect was desecrated.

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.

Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Assi: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has two levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother? Explain it, if she says, I cannot stand you. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah speaks about a sister-in-law who has five levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her, she may repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry his brother. Why can she not repudiate his “bespeaking” and marry on the market place? Explain it if her father had married her off, this was a marriage by biblical standards.

What is the status of her co-wife? Rav said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, her co-wife is forbidden. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, her co-wife is permitted. Rebbi Eleazar said, I looked around at the rabbis here and at the rabbis there and did not find anybody agreeing with me except Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who says, her co-wife is permitted.Rav Hamnuna was sitting before Rav Ada bar Ahava and said, what is the status of her co-wife? He said to him, she is permitted. He asked, divorce? He answered, forbidden. He said, go around. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is reasonable following him who said that her co-wife is permitted. But following him who said, her co-wife is forbidden, as you take it: The aspect he acquired in her makes the corresponding aspect forbidden in her co-wife, the aspect he did not acquire in her makes the corresponding aspect permitted in her co-wife! Rebbi Shammai said, does one admit that kind of argument in matters of incest prohibitions? What about it? For any sister-in-law who is not totally outside [the family], the acquired aspect of her belongs to an incest prohibition and an incest prohibition forbids the co-wife.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water,” etc. “Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water,” etc. Rav Hamnuna said, the degenerating woman is permitted to her house. This parallels what was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even a pure woman who drank will in the end die in great pain because she brought herself into that great doubt.

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: She cannot be executed unless she is an adolescent at the time of the execution. What is the reason? “They shall execute the adolescent at her father’s door.” But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored in her father’s house and [the husband] calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the witnesses are executed by stoning. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: “If he escaped after being sentenced and then his pubic hair grew fully.” There, you can say “they shall execute the adolescent” who whored; can you say here “they shall execute him”, the son?

HALAKHAH: “He should not say to her ‘here is your ketubah’”, etc. What does he do? “He marries her, he may divorce her and take her back, and she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Yose said, the baraita has two possibilities. “Or she writes him a receipt for her ketubah.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: If he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, a Mishnah said so: “For he who takes back his wife, takes her back under the terms of her first ketubah.” In the end, if he married her, divorced her, and took her back? He tells you something new. Even if he married her, divorced her, and took her back, if he wrote her a new ketubah, the lien is on his property; otherwise, it is on the property of her first husband.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna said: A betrothed woman who died does not have a ketubah since she was not permitted to marry outside. That you should not say [the case] should be considered as if he divorced her and she should have a ketubah; therefore it was necessary to say that she does not have a ketubah.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth and half of dung one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: An underage girl has no definitive marriage to let her eat heave. Rebbi Immi said, a Mishnah said so, “married to a Cohen she eats heave.” Rebbi Abin asked: If she was definitively married but had no intercourse, [the husband] sent her to her father’s house and she grew up, may she eat heave? Let us hear from the following: “Based on her earlier definitive marriage.”

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

“Three kinds of bills of divorce are invalid,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All in handwriting. Rebbi Eleazar asked: There are witnesses; why do I need handwriting? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: All in handwriting except if its witnesses are with it. Rav Hamnuna said, they testified to their own sin since they agreed to lie by signing on an undated bill of divorce.

Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥa in the name of Rav: This is Rebbi Meїr’s. Why did you have to say this? Rebbi Mana said, since Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “This entire Chapter is Rebbi Meїr’s except for ‘if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.’ ” You should not come to say that the first is Rebbi Meїr’s, the second the rabbis’. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rebbi Meїr’s. Rebbi Yose said, since Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rebbi Eleazar, that you should not be led to say the same here. Therefore it is necessary to say that this is Rebbi Meїr’s.

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: If he sold a cow for money, then grabbed him and said, give me that money. He answered, for what do you need it? He said, to buy a donkey for him[self]. If the owner of the cow took possession of the donkey, the cow was not taken into possession. Was the donkey taken into possession? Rebbi Abba said, it was taken into possession. Rebbi Yose said, it was not taken into possession. Rebbi Abba thought that this was barter, but it was not barter. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sometimes it is a new deal for one party and a new deal for the other party. How is that? He sold him a cow for money; he left the money standing with him. The next day, he found him standing there and said, what are you doing here? He said, I want to collect the money. He answered, for what do you want it? He said, to buy myself a donkey. He answered, there is a donkey before you. If either one of them drew, the other one did not enter into possession; each one has to take possession separately.

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot. And also from the following: “sons,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision, she may not leave. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rebbi Assi: If an underage girl married herself off preliminarily with two pubic hairs, her father repudiates the marriage but not she herself. This follows neither Rebbi Joḥanan nor Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If following Rebbi Joḥanan, there is no place for repudiation. If following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the marriage is valid by biblical standards. It follows only Rebbi Joḥanan. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan says that everybody agrees about preliminary marriage that her father contracts but not she herself, he agrees in this case that the father repudiates on her behalf.

HALAKHAH: “The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted. What is the difference between them? A Cohen who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.” He explains that Rebbi Jehudah only comes to add. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan, they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan.

Rav Hamnuna the scribe asked Rebbi Ḥanina: One verse says, “its height thirty cubits,” and another verse says, “its height twenty cubits.” He had never heard this and they could not answer him anything. He asked Rebbi Jeremiah, who told him, from the ground up thirty cubits, from the inner room up twenty cubits. Rebbi Abbahu said, destroy the inner room! The inner room was standing from the ground to the beams, as it is written, “covered with cedar from the ground to the beams.” But from the ground up thirty cubits, from the Cherub up twenty cubits. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is an aggadic tradition that the space in the inner room not be counted. Rebbi Levi said, the space occupied by the Ark is not counted. Rebbi Levi said, and it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai, the Ark stands in the middle and divides the room, ten cubits in every direction of the compass.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underaged because of the adults. But if the underaged found something additional and protested? Rebbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rebbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rebbi [Yose] bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna did instruct in this sense.

The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he never is punishable unless he deny and instruct in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, on condition that he simultaneously deduct in a matter which permits subtraction and addition. The face of Rav Hoshaia lit up. He told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state, “the body of baheret is the square area of a split cilician bean”? Rebbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state, “two paragraphs in the mezuzzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, was it not stated, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes.

“You are holding a mina for me;” he said “yes.” “Return it to me only in the presence of X and Y.” The next day he said, “return it to me,” “I returned it to you;” he is liable since he is required to return it in the presence of witnesses. Think of it, if he said, I returned it in the presence of witnesses. Bar Kappara stated: “when X and Y are standing there.” Think of it, if he said, “when X were Y are standing there.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Hamnuna, Rebbi Ada bar Ahava in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi, and he said, let X and Y come.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others from their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Rab Hamnuna said : What means that which is written, "Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation [pesher] of a thing?" (Eccles. viii. 1)? [It means]. Who is like the Holy One, blessed be He, Who knows how to make a reconciliation [pesharah] between the two righteous men, Hezekiah and Isaiah. Hezekiah said, "Let Isaiah come to me, for so we find that Elijah went to Ahab ; as it is said, 'And Elijah went to show himself unto Ahab' (I Kings xviii. 2)." Isaiah said, "Let Hezekiah come to me, for so we find that Jehoram, son of Ahab, went to Elisha" (II Kings iii. 12).

Rab Hamnuna said : "[Blessed]... Who hast chosen us from all nations and given us Thy Torah. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who givest the Torah." Rab Hamnuna said : This is the choicest of benedictions.

Rab Hamnuna said : "[Blessed]... Who hast chosen us from all nations and given us Thy Torah. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who givest the Torah." Rab Hamnuna said : This is the choicest of benedictions.

Raba used to add at the conclusion of his prayer : O my God, before I was formed I was nothing worth, and now that I have been formed I am but as though I had not been formed. Dust am I in my life ; how much more so in my death. Behold I am before Thee like a vessel filled with shame and confusion. O may it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that I may sin no more; and as to the sins I have committed, purge them away in Thine abounding compassion though not by means of affliction and sore diseases. That is the confession of Rab Hamnuna Zuta on the Day of Atonement.

Our Rabbis have taught : If he was standing in the Tefillah and the urine began to drip upon his knees, he should interrupt [his prayer] until it ceases and then repeat the Tefillah. To what point does he return? Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna [differ]. One says that he recommences from the beginning; the other says that he goes back only to the place where he stopped.

Rab Ashe said : The phrase "If the man has waited" must be altered to "If the man has not waited"; because everybody agrees that if he waited sufficient time to finish the remainder of the Tefillah, he recommences from the beginning; but the point of divergence there [between Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna] is the case where the man did not wait. One is of the opinion that the man was in an uncomfortable state and unfit [to pray], and therefore his Tefillah is invalid; while the other is of opinion that the man was fit [to pray] and his Tefillah is valid.

Rab Hamnuna b. Rab Joseph said : On one occasion I was standing before Raba, and he said to me, "Go, bring me my Tefillin"; and I found them between the mattress and the bolster, where he did not lay his head ; and I knew that it was the day of bathing and he had done this for the purpose of teaching us the Halakah for practice.

in the matter of sneezing! No; there is no difficulty; for here it was from above, but the latter refers to one who does so from below. For R. Zera said : This thing was taught me in the school of Rab Hamnuna, and is equal in worth to me to all my studies. He who sneezes during prayer may regard it as a good omen ; for just as it brings him gratification below [on earth], so will it bring him gratification above.

His opinion agrees with that of Rab Hamnuna who said : The Torah only forbids [the Shema' to be read] by fecal matter. He is also in agreement with

The Rabbis said to Rab Hamnuna the Small at the wedding-feast of Mar b. Rabina, "Let the master sing for us." He replied to them, "Woe to us for we are destined to die! Woe to us for we are destined to die!" They said to him, "What can we answer after thee ?" He said to them, "Where is the Torah and where the religious precept which will protect us?"

Rab Hamnuna said : How many weighty Halakot there are to be learnt from the passage relating to Hannah ! "Now Hannah, she spake in her heart" (I Sam. i. 13) — hence it is deduced that one who prays must direct his heart. "Only her lips moved" — hence, one who prays must pronounce [the words] with his lips. "But her voice was not heard" — hence, it is forbidden to raise the voice when praying. "Therefore Eli thought she had been drunken" — hence, it is forbidden to pray when intoxicated. "And Eli said to her. How long wilt thou be drunken?" (ibid. v. 14) — [[fol. 31 b.]] R. Eleazar said:

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna were sitting at a meal, when dates and pomegranates were set before them. Rab Hamnuna took and pronounced the benediction over the dates first. Rab Hisda said to him, "Does not the master agree with the statement of Rab Joseph (another version : R. Isaac), viz. : That which is given precedence in the verse (Deut. viii. 8) must precede for the benediction?"

Rab Hamnuna expounded : Who sees the wicked Babylon should utter five benedictions. If he sees Babylon, he says "Blessed... Who hast destroyed wicked Babylon." If he sees the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, he says "Blessed...Who hast destroyed the palace of Nebuchadnezzar." If he sees the den of lions or the fiery furnace, he says "Blessed ...Who hast performed miracles for our fathers in this place." If he sees a statue of Hermes, he says "Blessed... Who hast shown long-suffering to those who transgress Thy will." If he sees a place [in Babylon] from which dust is being taken away, he says "Blessed...Who sayest and doest, Who doth decree and fulfil."

When Raba saw asses carrying this dust, he struck them upon the back with his hand and exclaimed, "Run, ye righteous, to perform the will of your Master." When Mar b. Rabina came to Babylon, he took up some earth in his mantle and cast it out, to fulfil that which was said, "I will sweep it with the besom of destruction" (Is. xiv. 23). Rab Ashe said : I had not heard that of Rab Hamnuna, but from my own mind I said all those benedictions.

Rab Hamnuna also said : Who beholds crowds of Israelites should say "Blessed... Who art wise in secrets"; but [on beholding] crowds of idolaters he says, "Your mother shall be ashamed" etc. (Jer. 1. 12).

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).

The other answered him: That case is different, for it has been said concerning it: R. Shmuel bar Hattai said in the name of R. Hamnuna Saba who said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said in the name of R. Huna who said in the name of Rav: For instance they brought it from a chamber that contained animals which had not been examined.

What [in this context] could be meant by Torah? R. Hamnuna said: Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. What [in this context] is meant by the Shema? The first verse.

R. Salla said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Rain is withheld only on account of the insolent people, as it is said (Jer., 3.3): "Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hadst a harlot's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed." R. Salla further said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Everyone who is insolent will in the end fall a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead." R. Naḥman said, it is certain that he has already fallen a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead," it is not said thou wilt have, but thou hadst.

R. Salla said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Rain is withheld only on account of the insolent people, as it is said (Jer., 3.3): "Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hadst a harlot's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed." R. Salla further said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Everyone who is insolent will in the end fall a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead." R. Naḥman said, it is certain that he has already fallen a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead," it is not said thou wilt have, but thou hadst.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

And they are not sold as Hebrew slaves. R' Hamnuna held here it applies when the accused thief has money, since they would not be sold. Here also they [witnesses] would not be sold. But in the case where the accused does not have money, the witnesses are sold, even though they have money.

Rava said to him, Let the witnesses say if you had, would you be sold? So likewise we should not be sold. Rather R' Hamnuna meant to say If either the accused or the witnesses have, they are not sold, but if neither the accused nor the witnesses have, they are sold. Rava said to him, The Torah states, he is sold for his theft, meaning theft and not conspiring.