ibid

R. Isaac further said: Sunshine on Sabbath is a benefit to the poor, as it is said (Mal., 3.20): "Unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings." R. Isaac further said: Great is the day of rain, for even the money in the purse is blessed thereby, as it is said (Deut., 28.12): "To give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand." R. Isaac further said: Blessing rests only on a thing which is hidden from sight, as it is said (ibid., 28.8): "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns." A disciple of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Blessing is found only in things upon which the eye does not rest, as it is said: "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns." The Rabbis teach: One who is about to measure his grain should say: May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, that Thou bestow a blessing upon the work of our hands. As soon as he has begun to measure, he should say: Blessed be He who sendeth a blessing upon this pile. But if he measured first and then pronounced the benediction, the prayer is in vain, for a blessing is not bestowed upon anything that is measured, numbered, or weighed, but only upon things hidden from sight, as it is said: "The Lord will command the blessing with thee in thy barns."

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

Our Rabbis have taught: If an individual separates from the community when the latter is in distress, the two ministering angels that accompany every man, place their hands upon his head and say, such and such a man who separated himself from the community shall not live to see the comfort of the community. Another Baraita reads: When the community is in distress one should not say, I will go home, eat and drink, and peace will be upon my soul. And if he does so, Scripture says of him (Is., 22.13): "And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine—'let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.'" Now, what are the words that follow this verse? "And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears, surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die." This is the way of the average people, but what is the way of the wicked? "Come ye (say they), I will fetch wine and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant" (Is., 56.12). But what are the words that follow? "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart" (ibid., 57. 1). One should therefore afflict himself with the community, for thus we find that Moses afflicted himself out of sympathy with the community, as it is said (Ex., 17. 12): "But Moses's hands were heavy and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon." Now, did not Moses have a cushion or a pillow to sit upon? But Moses said to himself, as Israel is in trouble I will also share it with them. If a person should say, however, Who is going to testify against me? Yea, the stones of a man's house and the beams of a man's roof testify against him, as it is said (Hab., 2.11): "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it." R. Shila said, the two ministering angels that accompany a man testify against him, for it is said (Ps., 91. 11): "For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." R. Ḥidḳa says, one's soul testifies against him, for it is said (Micah, 7. 5): "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom." The other sages said, one's own limbs testify against him, for it is said (Is., 43. 12): "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God."

"Just and right is He" (ibid.): It was said that when man departs this life, all his deeds are enumerated before him and he is told, thus hast thou done in that place on that day. He, admitting it, says: Yes! and is then told: Sign (the record)! and he signs, as it is said (Job, 37. 7): "He sealeth up the hand of every man." Not only that, but he even acknowledges the justice of the verdict and says, you have judged me rightly, as it is said (Ps., 51. 6): "That Thou mayest be justified when Thou speakest, and be in the right when Thou judgest."

(Is., 49. 7): "Kings shall see and arise." "Princes will have to prostrate themselves," as it is written (ibid.): "Princes and they shall prostrate themselves." R. Zera or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Nahamani, raised an objection: If Scripture said, "they shall prostrate themselves," it would mean what you maintained, but since it says, "and they shall prostrate themselves," it indicates that they will have to do both. Said R. Naḥman: We say in addition that not all will share in light and not all in gladness, but the righteous will have light and the upright will have gladness. As to the righteous having light, it is written (Ps., 97. 11): "Light is sown for the righteous," and as for the upright having gladness, it is written (ibidem): "And gladness for the upright in heart."

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

The bulk of the Israelites belonging to that division assembled in the synagogues of their respective towns and read the Chapter on Creation. What is the basis for this provision? Said R. Jacob b. 'Aḥa in the name of R. 'Asi: Were it not for the Ma'amadot, heaven and earth would not exist, as it is said (Gen., 15. 8): "And he (Abraham) said, O Lord, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Master of the world! Peradventure the Israelites will sin before Thee, and Thou wilt then do unto them as Thou hast done unto the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion!" The Holy One replied: "No" (I will not do so unto them)! Whereupon Abraham said: "Master of the world! Whereby shall I know it?" The Holy One then said to him (ibid., 15. 9): "Take me a heifer of three years old." Abraham again said: "Master of the world! This may well be done when the Temple is in existence, but what shall become of them when the Temple is not in existence?" Said the Holy One: "I have already ordained for them the recitation of the order of sacrifices. Whenever they will recite it, I will account it unto them as if they offered up the sacrifices themselves and thus forgive them all their sins."

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

Five calamities befell our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz, etc. Whence is it known that on that day the tables of the Law were broken (by Moses)? It is stated in a Baraita: On the sixth of the month (of Siwan) the Ten Commandments were given to Israel; R. Jose said on the seventh thereof. He who says that it was on the sixth is of the opinion that the giving of the Commandments took place on the sixth, and the ascendance (of Moses to Mount Sinai) on the seventh; while he who says that it was on the seventh is of the opinion that both events took place on the seventh. Now, Scripture says (Exod., 24. 18): "And Moses was on the mount forty days and forty nights." Further it is written (ibid., 32. 19): "And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands and broke them beneath the mount."

A breach was made in the walls of the city. Was that on the seventeenth of Tammuz? Is it not written (Jerem., 52. 6-7): "In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city," and further on it is said (ibid., 52. 7): "Then a breach was made in the city"? Said Raba, this is no difficulty, for one statement refers to the time of the First Temple, and the other to the time of the Second, as is stated in a Baraita: On the ninth day of the month a breach was made in the city during the time of the First Temple, but during the time of the Second Temple the breach was made on the seventeenth thereof.

He set up an idol in the Temple. Whence is this known? It is written (Dan., 12. 11): "And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the detestable thing that causeth appalment set up." Was there only one (detestable thing)? Is it not written (ibid., 9. 27): "And upon the wing of detestable things?" Said Raba, there were two, but one fell upon the other, breaking off its hand. On the idol the following inscription was later found:

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

(On the ninth of Ab) the first Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is written (II Kings, 25. 8): "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 25. 9): "And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Further it is written (Jerem., 52. 12): "In the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 52. 13): "And he burned the house of the Lord," etc. Now, a Baraita, commenting upon these verses, reads: "On the seventh" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the tenth"; "on the tenth" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the seventh"; how is this to be understood? On the seventh of the month the heathen entered the Temple, eating and drinking therein and breaking down its walls throughout the following eighth and ninth days until the (ninth) day declined, as it is said (ibid., 6. 4): "Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out." Towards the evening of that day they set it afire and toward sunset of the tenth of the month it had burned down. Therefore R. Johanan b. Zakkai said, had I lived in that generation, I would have fixed the tenth (as the day of mourning), for the greater part of the Temple was burnt on the tenth. Why did the Sages of that time select the ninth? Because they held that the beginning of the punishment is the main event.

(On the ninth of Ab) the first Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is written (II Kings, 25. 8): "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 25. 9): "And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Further it is written (Jerem., 52. 12): "In the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 52. 13): "And he burned the house of the Lord," etc. Now, a Baraita, commenting upon these verses, reads: "On the seventh" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the tenth"; "on the tenth" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the seventh"; how is this to be understood? On the seventh of the month the heathen entered the Temple, eating and drinking therein and breaking down its walls throughout the following eighth and ninth days until the (ninth) day declined, as it is said (ibid., 6. 4): "Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out." Towards the evening of that day they set it afire and toward sunset of the tenth of the month it had burned down. Therefore R. Johanan b. Zakkai said, had I lived in that generation, I would have fixed the tenth (as the day of mourning), for the greater part of the Temple was burnt on the tenth. Why did the Sages of that time select the ninth? Because they held that the beginning of the punishment is the main event.

(On the ninth of Ab) the first Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is written (II Kings, 25. 8): "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 25. 9): "And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Further it is written (Jerem., 52. 12): "In the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 52. 13): "And he burned the house of the Lord," etc. Now, a Baraita, commenting upon these verses, reads: "On the seventh" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the tenth"; "on the tenth" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the seventh"; how is this to be understood? On the seventh of the month the heathen entered the Temple, eating and drinking therein and breaking down its walls throughout the following eighth and ninth days until the (ninth) day declined, as it is said (ibid., 6. 4): "Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out." Towards the evening of that day they set it afire and toward sunset of the tenth of the month it had burned down. Therefore R. Johanan b. Zakkai said, had I lived in that generation, I would have fixed the tenth (as the day of mourning), for the greater part of the Temple was burnt on the tenth. Why did the Sages of that time select the ninth? Because they held that the beginning of the punishment is the main event.

But is Kitron Tzippori? Now Kitron was in the territory of Zevulun, as it is written, “Zevulun did not inherit the inhabitants of Kitron or the inhabitants of Nahalol” (Judges 1:30). Now Zevulun complained of his portion, as it says, “Zevulun was a people which shamed his soul to death” (Judges 5:18). Why? Because “Naphtali was on the high places of the field” (ibid).

And R. Joseph taught: “Hidden”—this is the hilazon; “treasures” this is the tunny fish; “Sand” this is white glass. Zevulun then said: Master of the Universe, who will inform me? He replied: “There they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness” (ibid). This shall be your sign: Whoever takes from you without payment will not prosper in his business.

“And he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite” (ibid): these are the theatres and circuses in Edom in which one day the chieftains of Judah shall publicly teach the Torah.

Resh Lakish said, Every one who turneth aside the judgment of the stranger is as though he turned aside the judgment of God; for it is written "ומטי the stranger" (ibid.), and the word is מטי.

R. Chănina bar Papa said, Every one who doeth a thing and repenteth of it is forgiven at once, for it is said, "and they fear not me" (ibid.). Lo, if they do "fear me," it follows that they are forgiven at once.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Nor on the work of Creation with two. How then is this shewn? Inasmuch as our Rabbis have taught, "For ask thou now of the days that are past" (Deut. iv. 32). It is one person who asks, not two who ask. One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about things that were before the world was created. No, for the teaching says, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should not ask about the six days of creation. No, for the teaching says, "of the days that are past, which were before thee" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. No, for the teaching says, "and from the one end of heaven unto the other" (ibid.). From the one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest ask, but thou mayest not ask about what is above, what is below, what is before, what is after.

Nor on the work of Creation with two. How then is this shewn? Inasmuch as our Rabbis have taught, "For ask thou now of the days that are past" (Deut. iv. 32). It is one person who asks, not two who ask. One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about things that were before the world was created. No, for the teaching says, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should not ask about the six days of creation. No, for the teaching says, "of the days that are past, which were before thee" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. No, for the teaching says, "and from the one end of heaven unto the other" (ibid.). From the one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest ask, but thou mayest not ask about what is above, what is below, what is before, what is after.

Nor on the work of Creation with two. How then is this shewn? Inasmuch as our Rabbis have taught, "For ask thou now of the days that are past" (Deut. iv. 32). It is one person who asks, not two who ask. One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about things that were before the world was created. No, for the teaching says, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should not ask about the six days of creation. No, for the teaching says, "of the days that are past, which were before thee" (ibid.). One might have thought that it possibly means that a man should ask about what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. No, for the teaching says, "and from the one end of heaven unto the other" (ibid.). From the one end of heaven unto the other thou mayest ask, but thou mayest not ask about what is above, what is below, what is before, what is after.

Now seeing that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," to what purpose are there given me the words, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (Deut. iv. 32)? They are to agree with the words of R. El'azar; for R. El'azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament, for it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.), and inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, "Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, The first man extended from one end of the world to the other, for it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth," and from one end of heaven unto the other (Deut. iv. 32). Inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). If so, the passages are difficult to reconcile. No, for both are of the same dimensions.

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, Ten things were created on the first day, and they are these; heaven and earth, chaos and desolation, light and darkness, wind and waters, the measure of the day and the measure of the night: heaven and earth; for it is written, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" (Gen. i. 1) chaos and desolation; for it is written, "And the earth was chaos and desolation;" (Gen. i. 2) light and darkness; darkness, for it is written, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," (ibid.) light, for it is written, "And God said, Let there be light;" (Gen. i. 3) wind and water; for it is written, "and the wind of God was brooding upon the face of the waters;" (Gen. i. 2) the measure of the day and the measure of the night; for it is written, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. i. 5). There is a Baraitha, Chaos is a green line encompassing all the world, and from it darkness springs, as it is said, "He made darkness his hiding place round about him" (Ps. xviii. 12; E.V. 11). Desolation—this means the stones covered with mud, which are sunk in the deep, from which waters come forth, as it is said, "and he shall stretch upon it the line of chaos and the stones of desolation" (Is. xxxiv. 11). And was light created on the first day? But there is against this view the passage, "and God set them in the firmament of the heaven" (Gen. i. 17), and the passage, "and there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day" (Gen. i. 19). But it is as R. El'azar says; for R. El'azar said, The light which the Holy One created on the first day, Adam saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One considered the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, and saw that their works were vain, He stood up and took it from them, as it is said, "and from the wicked their light is withholden" (Job xxxviii. 15). And for whom did He take it away? For the righteous of the time to come, as it is said, "And God saw the light, that it was good" (Gen. i. 4), and there is nothing good but a righteous man, as it is said, "Say ye of a righteous man, that he is good" (Is. iii. 10). When He saw that He had taken away the light for the righteous, He rejoiced, as it is said, "He rejoiceth at the light of the righteous" (Prov. xiii. 9). And this is in accordance with the Baraitha which says, The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam observed and saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. These are the words of R. Jacob. But wise men say, These are the luminaries, which were created on the first day, but were not hung up until the fourth day.

They made him as one unclean through touching a dead animal. But regard it thus. Such an unclean thing will not make a man unclean by touching him. Perhaps it will not, you will say. But then to what purpose is the Baraitha, viz., He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Or was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man? If so, this would require the purifications of the third and seventh days. To what purpose is the Baraitha, He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Dipping, yes; but the purifications of the third and seventh days, no. But was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man on his seventh day? But lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., They absolutely refrain from making any new ordinance in the case of the heifer. But Abai said, They do not say that a spade makes unclean when used as a seat, according to the teaching, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel" (Lev. xv. 6). I might have thought, If he were to turn a two gallon measure upside down, and sit upon it, or a peck measure, and sit upon it, he would be unclean. But no; I should have been wrong, for the teaching says, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel, upon which there sitteth—" (ibid.), shall be unclean. But it must mean, that which is intended for sitting, and the other is excepted, for if he sit upon it, he will be told, Stand up and let us do our work.