ilai

Sibbecai the Hushathite, Ilai the Ahohite,

Rabbi Ilai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer, even if it is as large as a bet kor. I also heard from him that if one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden to him for taking in or taking out any object but it is permitted to them. I also heard from him that people may fulfill their duty [for bitter herbs] at Pesach by eating hart’s tongue (akrevanim). I went round among all his disciples seeking a fellowstudent but I found none.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: If someone did not mention Torah in the benediction on the Land one tells him to repeat. What is the reason? (Ps. 105:44) “He gave them the lands of peoples”; why? “That they should keep His decrees and preserve His teachings.” Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi: If one did not mention the covenant in the benediction on the Land or the kingdom of David’s dynasty in “Builder of Jerusalem”, one tells him to repeat. Rebbi Ilaï said: if he said “He Who consoles Jerusalem”, he did his duty.

“All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other.” It was stated: “One gives as heave fresh figs for dried figs; dried figs go by count. Dried figs for fresh figs by volume, but fresh figs for dry figs do not go by volume, nor dry figs for fresh figs by count. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, baskets of fresh and dried figs are all one kind and one gives heave and tithes from one for the other. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, my father used to take ten dried figs from the drying place for ninety fresh figs in the container.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, you consider the shriveled ones as if they had swelled and you take the baskets as they are. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say that swollen shrinks but shrunk does not swell; one would have to take large baskets for fresh figs.. Rebbi Aḥa said to them, that is what your teacher Rebbi Ilai thought about it.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles. A lady saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit shall be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles. A lady saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit shall be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.

Huldat hammulim is liable for mezuzah. A window, four by four {cubits} wide, in which slaves sit and make wind for their masters are liable for mezuzah. Coops one on top of the other are liable for mezuzah; one steps on the doorstep below. Rebbi Yose was sorry not to have seen the coop of Rebbi Ilai which he had made according to all rabbis.

“It happened that Rebbi Ilai went to Rebbi Eliezer in Lydda. He said to him, are you not one of those who rest on the holiday? Did they not say that it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday and go somewhere else.” As the following: Rebbi Ze`ira went to a circumcision of Rebbi Ila and did not accept any food. If it was because he never ate anything before the end of musaf prayers, or we do not know whether it was because it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday [and go somewhere else; this] we do not know.

HALAKHAH: If he said them in one breath? It was found stated, if he said them in one breath he fulfilled his obligation. But did we not state, “the order of shofar blowing is three times three each”? That he do not less. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Abba bar Ilai in the name of Rav: One has to blow the modulation continuing the straight one. Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Ḥuna: One does not have to blow the modulation continuing the straight one. What is the modulated? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, One said, [trembling]. But the other one said, three short ones. Rebbi Ḥanania was concerned about that of Rebbi Mana and ours

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

Ḥuldat hammulim is liable for mezuzah. A window, four by four {cubits} wide, in which slaves sit and make wind for their masters are liable for mezuzah. Coops one on top of the other are liable for mezuzah; one steps on the doorstep below. Rebbi Yose was sorry not to have seen the coop of Rebbi Ilai which he had made according to all rabbis.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, who stated “the one waiting for her levir”? Rebbi Aqiba! For Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law. Rebbi Ilai said to him, why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 Elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man, her levir shall come to her”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! Could he not object: Why should a bastard be relevant for jealousy? The Torah said: “He shall declare his jealousy to his wife”, even a partial wife. A woman waiting for her levir who whored, Rebbi Eleazar said she is permitted to her house, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said she is forbidden to her house. What do the rabbis say? Rebbi Mana said, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to [the levir], since we have stated: “This is the rule: He cannot stipulate about any intercourse she could have had and would not be forbidden to him.”

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: Abba Ḥalaphta, Rebbi Eleazar ben Mattia, and Ḥanina bar Ḥakhinai stood on those stones and estimated that each one on them was a load of 40 seah. From here you can estimate how big was the bunch of grapes. It is written: “Each one should lift a stone on his shoulder.” One cannot compare one who lifts from the ground to his shoulder to one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder. One cannot compare one who lifts first from the ground to his knee and then from his knee to his shoulder to one onto whom others hang [the load]. One cannot compare one onto whom others hang [the load] to [a load] carried by two. It is written: “One man per tribe.” In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who says these are expressions of additions, there were 24, sixteen for the grape bunch and eight for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, who says there are double expressions, there were twelve, eight for the grape bunch and four for figs, pomegranates, and their belongings. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael a beam; in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba a beam and beams of beams.

Everybody agrees that if [the husband] comes and protests, his protest is invalid. That is, if he protested after she remarried. If he protested before she remarried and then she remarried? Let us hear from the following: It happened that somebody brought a bill of divorce before Rebbi Ismael. He asked him, from where are you? He answered, from Kefar Simai in the region of Acco. He said to him, then you have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence;” you do not need witnesses. After [that person] left, Rebbi Ilai said to him, my teacher, is not Kefar Simai in the Land of Israel, closer to Sepphoris than to Acco? He answered, since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands. What means “since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands”? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that if [the husband] came and protested, his protest would be invalid. But does a person who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel for delivery in the Land of Israel have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence”? Therefore, there cannot be any difference whether he protested after she remarried or before she remarried and then she remarried.

“Mr. X and all his names.” Think of it, if his name was Reuben and he went away under the name of Simeon. But: “I am X and every other name which I have.” “In addition, they said if he had two wives, one in Judea and one in Galilee, and he is known by two names, one in Judea and one in Galilee. He used [his name] in Judea to divorce the one in Galilee and [his name] in Galilee to divorce the one in Judea. Neither one is divorced.” This baraita if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Galilee or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Judea. But if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Judea, or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Galilee, she is divorced. Rebbi Ilai said, according to the rules he has to say: “I am X with every other name which I have in Galilee.” If he was at another place, he can divorce either one he wishes. Rebbi Yose said, one says that if he did it. But to start out he has to follow Rebbi Ilai. Rebbi Abin said, if he is known by (another) name at another place, he has to mention all three.

“Mr. X and all his names.” Think of it, if his name was Reuben and he went away under the name of Simeon. But: “I am X and every other name which I have.” “In addition, they said if he had two wives, one in Judea and one in Galilee, and he is known by two names, one in Judea and one in Galilee. He used [his name] in Judea to divorce the one in Galilee and [his name] in Galilee to divorce the one in Judea. Neither one is divorced.” This baraita if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Galilee or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Judea. But if he was in Judea and wrote to divorce in Judea, or in Galilee and wrote to divorce in Galilee, she is divorced. Rebbi Ilai said, according to the rules he has to say: “I am X with every other name which I have in Galilee.” If he was at another place, he can divorce either one he wishes. Rebbi Yose said, one says that if he did it. But to start out he has to follow Rebbi Ilai. Rebbi Abin said, if he is known by (another) name at another place, he has to mention all three.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

For example Doso, Dodo’s brother, divorced his wife. The case came before the rabbis who said that she should pay the fee. But did we not state: “the husband pays the fee”? Rebbi Ilai in the name of Samuel: If she forgives him her ketubah.

There, we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Bibon bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

How close is “near”? Rav said, four cubits. Rebbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory, here in practice. “Rebbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.” Samuel agrees with Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [states]: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced”, support is on him.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

Rebbi Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Not on this was it said but on the following, “one who makes an Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are sabbatical.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. And what Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai that they should not accept in their hands wine as wages but money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Ilai said, this baraita deals with idolatrous produce. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in matters of libation wine they fined him a fine.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain was from beginning to end a series of miracles since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said: and olive oil one hin. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, the kettle swallows, wood absorbs! From it the Tabernacle and all its vessels were anointed, the altar and all its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels, the wash basin and its base. From it Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction; from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing; a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: Do anoint him, for this one is it, this one needs anointing, but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is there for the future, as it was said: a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.

R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: If [the roof of] a house is breached, and he placed skhakh over it, it is valid. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said to him Master, explain [your words]. Thus my father explained it: If there are four cubits it is invalid, if less than four cubits, it is valid.

R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: abruma is permitted R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said to him, Master, explain [your words]. Thus said my father, Those from such and such a place are forbidden, and from such and such a place are permitted.

Abaye said to him But what about that which has been taught, "A man may sleep casually while wearing his , but not set regular, let us be concerned lest he fall fast asleep? R. Joseph b. R. Ila'i said: his refers to a person who entrusts his sleep to others.

Our rabbis have taught: It once happened that R. Ila'i went to greet R. Eliezer his master in Lod on a Festival. He said to him, Ila'i, aren't you one of those that stay in place on the Festival, for R. Eliezer used to say, I praise the lazy who do not go out of their houses on the Festival since it is written, "And you shall rejoice, you and your household" (Deuteronomy 14:26).

Our rabbis have taught: It once happened that R. Ila'i went to greet R. Eliezer his master in Lod on a Festival. He said to him, Ila'i, aren't you one of those that stay in place on the Festival, for R. Eliezer used to say, I praise the lazy who do not go out of their houses on the Festival since it is written, "And you shall rejoice, you and your household" (Deuteronomy 14:26).

Our rabbis have taught: It happened that R. Eliezer spent Shabbat in the Upper Galilee in the sukkah of R. Yohanan son of R. Ila'i in Caesarea or, as some say, in Caesarion and when the sun reached the Sukkah he said to him: Can I spread a cloth over it?’ He said to him, "There was no tribe in Israel which did not produce a judge."

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: R. Judah b. R. 'Il'ai had the following custom: On the eve of the ninth of Ab he would order to be brought to him dry bread with salt; then he would sit down