hisda

R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall. How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud.

It was taught: R. Hanina stated: When I went down to the Diaspora I came across an old man who said to me, A reed mat may be used as skhakh.” And when I came before R. Joshua, my father’s brother, he agreed with his words. R. Hisda said only if it has no rim.

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

As was the case of Rava and Rami b. Hama when they were standing before R. Hisda, [first] they ran through the gemara together, and then they investigated the reasons.

Our Rabbis taught: If the larger part of its leaves were withered, and only three bunches of green leaves remained, it is valid. And R. Hisda added: Provided] that they are at the top of each [twig].

Or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves. R. Hisda said: This matter was stated by our great master, and may God be his help! They taught it only [if all the berries were] in one place, but if in two or three places, it is valid.

Rather if it was at stated, it was stated in this way: or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. R. Hisda said: This matter was stated by our great master, and may God be his help!! They taught this only if the berries were black, but if they were green they are merely a species of hadas and valid.

R. Hisda said: Since the destruction of the Temple the following three things have had their names interchanged: [What was called] halafta [is now called] aravta, and what was called aravta, is now called halafta. What is the practical significance of this? With regard to the lulav.

If a rash spread out on the majority of it [it is invalid]. R. Hisda said: The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the etrog] is valid. Rava said: On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the etrog is as though it is striped and it is invalid.

Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of the mishnah]: if on its lesser part it is valid. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the etrog is as speckled and invalid. Rava said: And if it is on its nose, even the smallest rash, the etrog is invalid.

If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of grain, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water. R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeva said: But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

What might I have said? That that applies only where one does not lift [the lulav] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time [he would fulfill his obligation], therefore he teaches us that it is not so. R. Hisda said in the name of R. Yitzchak: One may fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple? Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod.

Fifteen steps. R. Hisda said to a certain rabbi who was arranging his aggadot before him. Have you heard concerning these fifteen Songs of Ascent, what did David compose them to correspond to? — He said to him: Thus said R. Yohanan: When David dug the Pits the Deep (tehom) rose up and threatened to submerge the world. David recited the fifteen Songs of Ascent and caused it to subside.” But if so Songs of Ascent, it should be of Descent?

GEMARA. But are not the emurim the Most High's? R. Hisda said: [The meaning is], that which is said [amur], that which is said [amur]

R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: The law is not according to Rav who said, [First the blessing over] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season, rather first [is the blessing of] the season and then [that of] the Sukkah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: First [the blessing of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season. And the halakhah is that the blessing of the Sukkah is first and then that of the season.

Do you really think so? Is it not written, “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce anything new afterwards? And further R.Hisda has said: The mem and the samekh in the Tablets

Hisda said: Yes; the first clause follows the Sages and the second R. Meir. R. Joseph said: I t is the opinion of Rabbi, who combined the views of differing tannaim.

“Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”. R. Hisda said: At first he ruled over seven, then over twenty [more], and finally over a hundred [more]. But if so, [what did you do with the verse], “And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years?” (Exodus 6:20). How do you expound this? It is different here, because the whole text is superfluous, since it is written, “From Hodu to Cush,” what would I then do with, “seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”? You must conclude that it is for a special lesson.

R. Nahman son of R. Hisda gave the following exposition. What is the meaning of the verse, "Thus says the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held" (Isaiah 45:1). Now was Cyrus the Messiah? Rather what it means is this: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I have a complaint on your behalf against Cyrus. I said, He shall build my house and gather my exiles, and he said, "Whosoever there is among you of all his people, let him go up" (Ezra 1:3).

“Yet all this is worth nothing to me” (Esther 5:13). R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Just because he saw Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, was this any reason why he should say, ‘Yet all this is worth nothing to me?” As R. Hisda said, for R. Hisda said: The one came [to the court] as with his wealth and the other

“Yet all this is worth nothing to me” (Esther 5:13). R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Just because he saw Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, was this any reason why he should say, ‘Yet all this is worth nothing to me?” As R. Hisda said, for R. Hisda said: The one came [to the court] as with his wealth and the other

R. Hisda found R. Hananel writing scrolls without a written copy. He said to him: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, but the Sages have ruled: It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. Since he said: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, we may conclude that he could produce them correctly. But we see that R. Meir actually did write? In case of emergency it is different.

Rami b. Abba was building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue which he wanted to tear down, and to bring the bricks and beams from it and use them for the other. He was sitting and trying to figure out the implications of what R. Hisda had said, for R. Hisda said: A man should not tear down a synagogue until he has built another [to take its place]. The reason there [that it was prohibited] was so that there should be no negligence. But what about in a case like this? He came in front of R. Papa, who forbade him; and in front of R. Huna, and he also forbade him.

Rami b. Abba was building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue which he wanted to tear down, and to bring the bricks and beams from it and use them for the other. He was sitting and trying to figure out the implications of what R. Hisda had said, for R. Hisda said: A man should not tear down a synagogue until he has built another [to take its place]. The reason there [that it was prohibited] was so that there should be no negligence. But what about in a case like this? He came in front of R. Papa, who forbade him; and in front of R. Huna, and he also forbade him.

And we deliver a public eulogy in them. If not, let him stay a little while and then get up. Hisda showed: For instance, a eulogy at which R. Sheshet is present. Shesheth showed: For instance, a eulogy at which R. Hisda is present.

And we deliver a public eulogy in them. If not, let him stay a little while and then get up. Hisda showed: For instance, a eulogy at which R. Sheshet is present. Shesheth showed: For instance, a eulogy at which R. Hisda is present.

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

GEMARA: How is it valued? R' Hisda said, [according] to the husband.

Rav Hisda said: This is not a difficulty! Here [where he is exiled] is where he killed in a downward motion, and here [where he is not exiled] is where he killed in an upward motion. [I.e:] If [he killed him] in a downward motion, [in which case] an Israelite would be exiled, then exile should be enough for the [resident foreigner] as well. If [he killed him] in an upward motion, [in which case] an Israelite is exempt, then the resident foreigner is put to death.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Hisda [from the following verse]: "Behold, you should die because of the woman you have taken" (Genesis 20:3) [regarding Avimelekh and taking Sarah as his wife when he thought that she was Abraham's sister]. Does this not mean that he should die at the hands of people?

And if you want to say [another solution]: What [does Rabbi Yohanan mean when he says the words of Torah] are effective at providing refuge? [Refuge] from the angel of death. For when Rav Hisda was sitting and studying in the yeshiva, the messenger, the angel of death, was not able to come near him since his mouth was never quiet from his learning. He climbed and sat on the cedar tree of the yeshiva. The cedar broke and he was silent, and [then] the [angel of death] was able [to take him].