huna

Say rather, The law of division does not apply to it, as [it does in the case of] a courtyard. For R' Huna ruled, ‘A courtyard is divided according to the number of its doors.’ (and) R' Chisda said, ‘Four amos are given for each door and the remainder is divided equally’.

R. Huna stated: The dispute relates only [to poles erected] on the edge of a roof: R. Jacob holds that we apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’ while the sages hold that we do not apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’. But [if they were] in the middle of the roof, all agree that [the sukkah is] invalid. R. Nahman said: there is a dispute if [the poles are] in the middle of the roof.

Now the ground is like the middle of a roof and still R. Jacob validates [the sukkah]. Is this not, then, a refutation of R. Huna? It is indeed a refutation.

Moreover, they dispute concerning the middle of the roof only but if he put [poles up] on the edge of the roof they all agree that it is valid. Shall we say then that this will refute R. Huna on two points?

R. Huna could answer you: They disagree about poles in the middle of the roof, and likewise also about those on the edge. And the reason why the dispute concerns the middle of the roof is in order to show you how far R. Jacob's view extends that even where the poles were in the middle of the roof he holds [the Sukkah] to be valid.

R. Huna said: [The height of the ark-cover may be deduced] from here, "Upon the face of the ark-cover" (Leviticus 16:14) on the east, and a 'face’ is not smaller than a handbreadth.

that of the Bar-Yokani? If you seized a large amount, you have not seized anything; but if you seized the lesser amount you have seized But perhaps it means a face like that of a tziparta which is very small? R. Aha b. Jacob said: R. Huna draws an analogy between two expressions of ‘face’. It is written here, ‘[Upon the face of the ark-cover", and it is written elsewhere, "From the face of Isaac his father" (Genesis 27:30).

R. Aha b. Jacob answered: We have a tradition that the face of the cherubim were not less than a handbreadth and R. Huna too made his deduction from this verse.

R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]. And Shmuel says,

It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah which are removed four [handbreadths from the skhakh] R. Nahman declares them valid, valid, And R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declare them invalid.

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, And R. Nahman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were separated four handbreadths [from the skhakh]. They were silent and they didn't say a word to him. He said to them, ‘Have our rabbis retracted their teaching’? They answered him: We are messengers performing a mitzvah, and [therefore] we are free from the obligation of the Sukkah.

Rabbah bar R. Huna expounded, It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a Sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high According to whom [does he hold]? According to R. Judah who said that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent, tent as we have learned: R. Judah said, We were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders.

GEMARA. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna, and he sat and he stated: "Or if he cut them it is valid. And Rav said: He must shake them.

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: one can even say that [it is valid even if] he does not loosen them, since a binding which is not made to be carried is not considered a binding.

R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;

While R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests [ears of grain] for skhakh does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness.

It was stated: If he placed the planks on their sides: R. Huna declared it invalid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declared it valid.

It was stated: If he placed the planks on their sides: R. Huna declared it invalid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declared it valid.

R. Nahman once came to Sura. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna came in to him and asked: If he placed them on their sides, what is the law? He said to them: It is invalid, since they are regarded as metal spits.

R. Huna said to them: Did I not tell you, say like me? They answered him: Did then the Master give us a reason and we did not accept it from him? He said to them: Did you ask me for a reason and I would not give you?

Gemara: Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?

Gemara: Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua can answer, ‘What is meant by equals them? That it can easily pass through them.

If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah.

It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah. But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it.

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of death? Haven't we learned: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die? About this it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: They adopted a higher standard with regard to atonement.

But if so, it should be permitted to carry objects over its whole area; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua say: One may not carry any objects there

What is the implication? Rav Huna said: Like "road." Just as "road" implies a non-obligatory activity, so too for all non-obligatory activities, excluding this one who is involved in a mitzvah.

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.’

Said Rav Huna to some merchants, "When you buy Hadasim from Non-Jews, do not cut them yourselves, but rather make them cut it, and they shall give it to you. What is the reasoning? Normal worshipers of stars are thieves of land,

After all, if the merchants cut it, there would be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in the buyer's (lit. our ) hands [and therefore it seems that], We do not need [this solution]! [Rather, Rav Huna was trying to validate] the Hadasim of the merchants themselves. [But are they not able] to acquire it through a change [which takes place through] action [by tying it in the Lulav bundle]?

(Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel? He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

What is meant by ‘cedar’? Myrtle. Like Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: In the school of Rav they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle" etc. (Isaiah 41:19).

What is meant by ‘cedar’? Myrtle. Like Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: In the school of Rav they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle" etc. (Isaiah 41:19).

GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav. But why should he not pay him directly?

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?

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.

If he knows how to slaughter [animals ritually] we may eat from [the meat of animals] which he has slaughtered. R. Huna explained: This applies only where an adult was standing by his side [when he slaughtered the animal].

As was its performance on a weekday. R. Huna said: What is the reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka? As it is written, “Branches” which implies two, one for the lulav and one for the altar. But the Rabbis say: The word “branches” is written defectively (כפת).

the blessing. According to him who regards the day as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah, we also recite the blessing [of the Sukkah], while according to him who holds that it is regarded as the eighth in respect of both, we do not recite the blessing [of the Sukkah]. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan, since R. Huna b. Bizna and all the greats of his generation were in a Sukkah on the eighth day which may have been the seventh, they sat there, but they did not recite the blessing.

R. Huna pointed out a discrepancy between verses: It is written, “For the spirit of harlotry has led them astray” (Hosea 4:12) but is it not also written, [For the spirit of harlotry] is within them” (Hosea 5:4)? First it only causes them to err, but ultimately it enters into them.

Rabbah b. R. Huna said: A man who is insolent may be called wicked to his face, as it is said (Prov., 21.29): "A wicked man hardeneth his face." R. Naḥman b. Isaac said, it is commendable to hate him, as it is said (Eccl., 8.1): "And the hardness of his face is changed," do not read yeshunne (is changed), but yissane (is hated).

R. Samuel b. 'Idi, R. Huna b. Manoah and R. Ḥiyya of Vastania used to study under Raba. After Raba's death they studied under R. Papa. Whenever the latter taught them something which did not appeal to them, he noticed that they were winking to one another. R. Papa therefore felt discouraged,

A Baraita reads: Ḥananiah said, in the diaspora we must wait until the sixtieth day after the autumnal equinox. R. Huna b. Ḥiyya said in the name of Samuel, the law follows Ḥananiah. This cannot be so! For when Samuel was asked when we must begin to say: "And give dew and rain," he replied: From the time when the employees of Ṭabūt the Fowler begin to carry in the twigs! Answer: Both of these time-limits may be the same.

Who is meant by "individuals"? Said R. Huna, Scholars. R. Huna further said, the individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday. What does he teach us? Do we not read: Public fasts should not be decreed to begin on Thursday in order not to cause a sudden rise in market prices, but the first three fast-days should be in the order of Monday, Thursday, and Monday? Answer. You might think that this refers only to congregational fasts but not to the fasts of individuals, therefore he teaches us (that it applies also to fasts of individuals). The same is taught in a Baraita: Individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday, but must refrain from fasting if these days coincide with the New moon

Who is meant by "individuals"? Said R. Huna, Scholars. R. Huna further said, the individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday. What does he teach us? Do we not read: Public fasts should not be decreed to begin on Thursday in order not to cause a sudden rise in market prices, but the first three fast-days should be in the order of Monday, Thursday, and Monday? Answer. You might think that this refers only to congregational fasts but not to the fasts of individuals, therefore he teaches us (that it applies also to fasts of individuals). The same is taught in a Baraita: Individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday, but must refrain from fasting if these days coincide with the New moon

R. Ze'ira said in the name of R. Huna: If an individual takes upon himself a fast for the next day, he may pray on the following morning the prayer provided for fast days, although he ate and drank during the whole intervening night. If, however, he continued fasting also during the following night, he is not to say on the next morning the prayer provided for fasts. Said R. Joseph: What is the reason of R. Huna? Does he hold that fasting by hours does not count, or does he hold that fasting by hours does count, but that he who fasts by hours is not supposed to say the prayer provided for fasts? Said Abbayi to R. Joseph: He certainly holds that fasting by hours counts and that he who fasts by hours may also say the prayer provided for fasts; in the case under consideration, however, the matter is different, inasmuch as he had not taken upon himself at all the fasting of that intervening night.

R. Ze'ira said in the name of R. Huna: If an individual takes upon himself a fast for the next day, he may pray on the following morning the prayer provided for fast days, although he ate and drank during the whole intervening night. If, however, he continued fasting also during the following night, he is not to say on the next morning the prayer provided for fasts. Said R. Joseph: What is the reason of R. Huna? Does he hold that fasting by hours does not count, or does he hold that fasting by hours does count, but that he who fasts by hours is not supposed to say the prayer provided for fasts? Said Abbayi to R. Joseph: He certainly holds that fasting by hours counts and that he who fasts by hours may also say the prayer provided for fasts; in the case under consideration, however, the matter is different, inasmuch as he had not taken upon himself at all the fasting of that intervening night.

It is right to forbid all the other actions, because they give pleasure, but why should work be forbidden which causes pain? Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Scripture says (Joel, 1. 14): "Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly," which indicates that just as on days of a solemn assembly work is forbidden, so also on fast days. If this is the reason, then, just as on days of solemn assembly work must be stopped on the evening before, so it should be stopped on the evening before fast days! Said R. Zera, to me the matter was thus explained by R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Since Scripture says (ibidem): "Gather the elders," the fast must be similar to the gathering of the elders, hence just as the gathering of the elders takes place during the day, so the fast is obligatory only during the day. Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, this statement supports that of R. Huna, who said: The fast-meeting takes place in the morning. What do they do the whole day? Said 'Abbayi: From morning to midday they consider communal affairs, from midday to evening, one quarter of the day is spent in reading the portions from the Pentateuch and the Prophets and the other quarter in praying and asking for mercy, for it is said (Nehem., 9. 3): "And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God a fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and prostrated themselves before the Lord their God."

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.

R. Huna had wine in a ruinous house and wanted to remove it. He therefore engaged R. Adda b. 'Ahabah in a learned discussion until the wine was removed. As soon as they left the house, it fell in. When R. Adda b. 'Ahabah noticed that he was used for such a purpose, he became angry, saying, "Is not this an instance with regard to which R. Jannai said, one should never stay in a place of danger and say, I shall be saved by a miracle, for it might be that no miracle will be performed for him, and even if one should be performed, such performance would be charged against his merits?" Said R. Hanan, where is the biblical verse to prove it? "I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth" (Gen., 32. 11).

Raba said to Rafrem b. Papa, tell me some of the noble deeds performed by R. Huna. Said Rafrem, of his earlier days I remember nothing; as to his later years I remember that after cloudy (stormy) days he used to be taken out in a gilt carriage, in which he inspected the whole city, and wherever there was a damaged wall, he ordered it to be torn down. If the owner was in a position to build a new wall, he had to do so, if not, R. Huna would have it built at his own expense. Every Friday toward evening R. Huna would send a servant to the market who would buy up all the vegetables left over with the gardeners and throw them into the river. Why did he not rather give them to the poor? Because they would sometimes rely on these gifts and fail to provide themselves for the Sabbath. Why did he not throw it to the animals? He was of the opinion that food proper for human beings should not be given to animals. Why did he buy them at all? Because if he had not done so, it would lead the gardeners to sin in the future (by failing to provide the community with vegetables).

Raba said to Rafrem b. Papa, tell me some of the noble deeds performed by R. Huna. Said Rafrem, of his earlier days I remember nothing; as to his later years I remember that after cloudy (stormy) days he used to be taken out in a gilt carriage, in which he inspected the whole city, and wherever there was a damaged wall, he ordered it to be torn down. If the owner was in a position to build a new wall, he had to do so, if not, R. Huna would have it built at his own expense. Every Friday toward evening R. Huna would send a servant to the market who would buy up all the vegetables left over with the gardeners and throw them into the river. Why did he not rather give them to the poor? Because they would sometimes rely on these gifts and fail to provide themselves for the Sabbath. Why did he not throw it to the animals? He was of the opinion that food proper for human beings should not be given to animals. Why did he buy them at all? Because if he had not done so, it would lead the gardeners to sin in the future (by failing to provide the community with vegetables).

Raba said to Rafrem b. Papa, tell me some of the noble deeds performed by R. Huna. Said Rafrem, of his earlier days I remember nothing; as to his later years I remember that after cloudy (stormy) days he used to be taken out in a gilt carriage, in which he inspected the whole city, and wherever there was a damaged wall, he ordered it to be torn down. If the owner was in a position to build a new wall, he had to do so, if not, R. Huna would have it built at his own expense. Every Friday toward evening R. Huna would send a servant to the market who would buy up all the vegetables left over with the gardeners and throw them into the river. Why did he not rather give them to the poor? Because they would sometimes rely on these gifts and fail to provide themselves for the Sabbath. Why did he not throw it to the animals? He was of the opinion that food proper for human beings should not be given to animals. Why did he buy them at all? Because if he had not done so, it would lead the gardeners to sin in the future (by failing to provide the community with vegetables).

When R. Huna was in possession of some medicament, he would take a pitcherful thereof, hang it on the door-post and say: "Whoever wishes to have some, let him come and take it." Some report that he knew of a medicine against a disease called shibta, and he would place it on a jug of water, hang the latter outside and say: "Anyone who needs it, let him come (and use it) to avoid danger (of contagion)." When he was about to sit down to a meal, he would open the doors, saying: "Anyone who desires to eat, let him come in and eat." Said Raba, I could do all these things myself, except this last one,

A fire once broke out in Droḳeret, but the neighborhood of R. Huna was spared. The people thought that it was due to the merit of R. Huna, but they were told in a dream that R. Huna's merits were too great and the sparing of his neighborhood from fire too small a matter to attribute it to him, and that it was due to the merits of a certain woman who used to heat her oven and place it at the disposal of her neighbors.

A fire once broke out in Droḳeret, but the neighborhood of R. Huna was spared. The people thought that it was due to the merit of R. Huna, but they were told in a dream that R. Huna's merits were too great and the sparing of his neighborhood from fire too small a matter to attribute it to him, and that it was due to the merits of a certain woman who used to heat her oven and place it at the disposal of her neighbors.

Said R. Zeriḳa to R. Safra: Come and see the difference between the imperious men of Palestine and the pious men of Babylonia. The pious men of Babylonia (namely R. Huna and R. Ḥisda), when there was need of rain, would say: "Come let us meet together in prayer; peradventure the Holy One, blessed be He, will accept our prayer and rain will come;" but as to the imperious men of Palestine, there is, for example, R. Jonah, the father of R. Mani, who, when they needed rain, would go into the house and say: "Get me my haversack and I will go and buy grain for a zuz," whereupon he would go to some cave-like, hidden place, cover himself in sackcloth and pray until rain came. When he came back he was asked, "Did you bring anything?" "No," he answered, "I thought that after this rainfall there would be relief everywhere."

Does a cedar produce young shoots? Do we not read in a Baraita: He who buys a tree from his neighbor in order to fell it, must cut it a hand-breadth above the ground; if the tree is a virgin-sycamore, he must cut it three hand-breadths above the ground; and if it is a truncated sycamore, he must cut it two hand-breadths above ground; if he buys reeds and vine, he must cut them above the knot; in case of palm-trees and cedars he may dig deep in the ground and uproot them, because they do not produce young shoots! Answer. In the passage above (of R. Ḥiyya) reference is had to different kinds of cedars, which is in keeping with a statement of Rabbah b. R. Huna; for Rabbah b. R. Huna said that it was taught in the School of Rab: There are ten kinds of cedars, as it is said (Is., 41. 19): "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane-tree and the larch together."

Does a cedar produce young shoots? Do we not read in a Baraita: He who buys a tree from his neighbor in order to fell it, must cut it a hand-breadth above the ground; if the tree is a virgin-sycamore, he must cut it three hand-breadths above the ground; and if it is a truncated sycamore, he must cut it two hand-breadths above ground; if he buys reeds and vine, he must cut them above the knot; in case of palm-trees and cedars he may dig deep in the ground and uproot them, because they do not produce young shoots! Answer. In the passage above (of R. Ḥiyya) reference is had to different kinds of cedars, which is in keeping with a statement of Rabbah b. R. Huna; for Rabbah b. R. Huna said that it was taught in the School of Rab: There are ten kinds of cedars, as it is said (Is., 41. 19): "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane-tree and the larch together."

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, R. Meir's view is law; R. Huna said, it is established usage; R. Johanan said, the people adopted it as a usage. [The opinion of him who says that a view is law, carries with it that we must teach it in the school sessions; if one says that a view is established usage, it means that we do not teach it in the school sessions, but, if asked, decide accordingly; if one says that the people have adopted a view as usage, it means that we do not even decide according to it, but that when someone has already acted in accordance with it, we do not nullify his action.] R. Naḥman said, R. Jose's view is law and, indeed, R. Jose's view has been recognized as law. Why then do the priests nowadays spread their hands during the Minḥah service of public fasts? Inasmuch as they do it close to sunset, it is as if it were done during the Ne'ilah service.

And in reference to this, Rabbah b. Huna said: The festival involves no mourning restrictions in the case of a scholar, still less Hanukkah and Purim.

Whose authority does R. Helbo in the name of R. Huna follow: If Purim falls on Shabbat, all shift their reading to the day of gathering? All shift their reading, do you really think? But aren’t there the walled cities which read on the Sunday? Rather [say]: All who shift [their readings] shifted to the day of gathering. According to whom? — According to Rabbi.

Or if you like I may say that both refer to one’s own affairs, and still there is no contradiction: the one is addressed to one who is wholly righteous, and the other to one who is not wholly righteous, as R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look upon those who deal treacherously, and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habbakuk 1:13). He can swallow up one that is more righteous than himself, he cannot swallow up one that is completely righteous.

From where is this derived? — As R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak taught in front of R. Huna: “Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean” (Leviticus 13:6); he is clean at the outset from having been liable to rend garments and loosen the hair.

“Six months with the oil of myrrh” (Esther 2:12). What is the oil of myrrh? R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Stakat. R. Huna said: Oil from olives not a third grown. It has been taught: R. Judah says: Anpikon is oil of olives not a third grown. Why is it used for smearing? Because it removes hair and makes the skin soft.

R. Huna said: They derived it from here: “Of what they saw in that matter and of what came upon them” (9:26).

No, Rav read as kohen, for R. Huna also read as kohen.

I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him?

I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him?

The question was raised: Should the person who takes the Maftir Aliyah be counted among the seven? R. Huna and R. Jeremiah b. Abba: One said that he does count and the other that he does not count. The one who says he does count, for he too reads, while the

Huna said: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands. But was there not one in the neighborhood of R. Huna who used to spread forth his hands? The townspeople had become accustomed to him. It has also been taught: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands, but if the townspeople are accustomed to him, he is permitted.

Huna said: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands. But was there not one in the neighborhood of R. Huna who used to spread forth his hands? The townspeople had become accustomed to him. It has also been taught: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands, but if the townspeople are accustomed to him, he is permitted.

Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It is permitted to an Israelite to say to a non-Jew, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tof.” Ashi said: It is permissible to disgrace a person with the term gimel shin who has terrible reports about him. It is permissible to praise a person who has good reports about him and if one does praise him, “blessings shall rest upon his head.”

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.

Huna once proclaimed a fast day. R. Hana b. Hanilai and all the men of his place happened to visit him [on that day], and he made them give charity and they gave it. When they were about to leave, they said to him [R. Huna]: Please return it to us so that we may go and provide for the poor of our own town.

Huna once proclaimed a fast day. R. Hana b. Hanilai and all the men of his place happened to visit him [on that day], and he made them give charity and they gave it. When they were about to leave, they said to him [R. Huna]: Please return it to us so that we may go and provide for the poor of our own town.

Huna once came before Rav girded with a string. He said to him: What is this? He replied: I had no [wine for] Kiddush, and I used my girdle as a pledge so as bring [wine] for Kiddush. He said: May it be the will of Heaven that you be [one day] smothered in robes of silk.

When his son Rabbah was getting married, R. Huna, who was a short man, was lying on a bed and his daughters and daughters-in-law stripped [clothes] from themselves and threw them on him until he was smothered in silks. When Rav heard he was angry and said: Why when I blessed you did you not say, The same to you, Master?

I have not sought respect through the degradation of my fellow, as was the case with R. Huna who once was carrying a spade on his shoulder. R. Hana b. Hanilai wanted to hold it for him, but he said to him: If you are accustomed to carry it in your own town, take it, but if not, I do not want to be honored through your degradation.

Nahman b. Yitzchak said: If one goes in without any intention of using it as a short cut, he may afterwards use it as a short cut. And R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: If one enters a synagogue to pray, he may afterwards use it as a short cut, as it says, “But when, the people of the land shall come before the Lord at the appointed times, he that enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate” (Ezekiel 46:9).

If it falls on Shabbat itself: R. Huna said: All agree that Parshat Zakhor is not read on the Shabbat before. But R. Nahman said: There is still a dispute. It was also stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Abba, who had it from Rav:... If Purim falls on Sabbath, Zakor is read on the Shabbat.

But on fast days [according to R. Jeremiah], why should there be an interruption [of the regular portion]? Let us read in the morning from the portion of the week and at minhah on the subject of the fast? This supports R. Huna; for R. Huna said: In the morning of fast days there is a public assembly.

But on fast days [according to R. Jeremiah], why should there be an interruption [of the regular portion]? Let us read in the morning from the portion of the week and at minhah on the subject of the fast? This supports R. Huna; for R. Huna said: In the morning of fast days there is a public assembly.

Huna said in the name of R. Sheshet: On the Shabbat which falls in the intermediate days of the festival, whether Pesah or Sukkot, the passage we read from the Torah is “See, You [say to me]” (Exodus 33:14-34:26) and for haftarah on Pesah the passage of the “Dry bones” (Ezekiel 37:1-14) and on Sukkot, “In that day when Gog shall come” (Ezekiel 38:18-39:16).

Huna said:

Levi b. Buti was once reading the curses [in Deuteronomy] in the presence of R. Huna hesitatingly. R. Huna said to him:... Do just as you want, This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading].

Levi b. Buti was once reading the curses [in Deuteronomy] in the presence of R. Huna hesitatingly. R. Huna said to him:... Do just as you want, This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading].

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said (and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said): "From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings [we can learn that] on the road the a person wants to travel on [to the cities of refuge], they permit him to go.

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said (and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said): "From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings [we can learn that] on the road the a person wants to travel on [to the cities of refuge], they permit him to go.

Rav Huna said: "A murderer that is exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood avenger finds him and kills him—he is exempt." He [Rav Huna] thinks "And for him there is no death penalty" (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger it is written. [Pay close attention to this verse and you will see that it's actually ambiguous, though at first it seems obvious what it means].