include

Thou mayest, however, derive [a conclusion] from the fact that [the bud] constitutes a protection of the fruit, and the All-merciful declared, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23) — the word "with" meaning to include what is attached to the fruit ; and what is that ? The protection of the fruit.

It is quoted in objection : R. Meir has declared : From the statement of Scripture, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23), do I not know that a food-bearing tree is intended ? Why, then, is there a teaching to tell us "trees for food" (ibid.)? To include a tree whose wood and fruit taste alike. And which is that? Pepper ; to teach thee that pepper is subject to 'Orlah, and to teach thee that the Land of Israel lacks nothing ; as it is said, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it" (Deut. viii. 9)!

Come and hear: Women may arrange Zimmun for themselves and slaves for themselves; but women, slaves and minors may not include each other should they desire Zimmun. And although a hundred women are like two men, yet it teaches "Women arrange Zimmun for themselves and slaves for themselves" !

If so, I will quote the sequel : "Women and slaves may not include each other, should they desire Zimmun" — why not ? Are they not many persons !

It is to be concluded that it was Rab who said above, "If they wish to arrange Zimmun, they may not" ; for Rab Dimai b. Joseph said in the name of Rab : If three ate together, and one of them went out into the street, they call to him [that they desire to include him for Zimmun, and should he consent, even in his absence] they may reckon him in for Zimmun. The reason [why they can have Zimmun without him is] that they called to him ; hence if they did not call to him, they are not [to have Zimmun].

It was stated above : "Rab Dimai b. Joseph said in the name of Rab : If three ate together and one of them went into the street, they call to him and include him for Zimmun." Abbai said : That is only if they called to him and he makes the responses.

Mar Zotra said : This teaching only applies to three ; but with ten [they cannot include him] unless he comes back.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

R. Johanan said : A minor who develops puberty prematurely may be included for Zimmun. There is a teaching to the same effect : A minor who shows signs of puberty is to be included, but if he does not show such signs he is not to be included ; we are, however, not to be very particular with a minor. But this is self-contradictory ! Thou sayest : If he shows signs of puberty he is [to be included], but if not, he is not ; and then it continues, "We are, however, not to be very particular with a minor" ! What does this mean to include? Surely

it is to include the boy who develops puberty prematurely.

Our Rabbis have taught : The following is the order of the Grace after meals : The first benediction is "Who feedest" ; the second, the benediction of "the land"; the third, "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" ; the fourth, "Who art kind and dealest kindly." On the Sabbath, one begins and ends with consolation and refers to the sanctity of the day in the middle. R. Eliezer says: If he wishes to include [the reference to the Sabbath] in the "consolation," he may do so ; in the benediction of "the land," he may do so ; in the benediction instituted by the Sages in Jabneh, he may do so. The Sages, however, say : He should only include it in the "consolation."

Our Rabbis have taught : The following is the order of the Grace after meals : The first benediction is "Who feedest" ; the second, the benediction of "the land"; the third, "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" ; the fourth, "Who art kind and dealest kindly." On the Sabbath, one begins and ends with consolation and refers to the sanctity of the day in the middle. R. Eliezer says: If he wishes to include [the reference to the Sabbath] in the "consolation," he may do so ; in the benediction of "the land," he may do so ; in the benediction instituted by the Sages in Jabneh, he may do so. The Sages, however, say : He should only include it in the "consolation."

Whoever concludes the benediction of "the land" with the words "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] Who givest lands as a heritage," or the benediction "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" with the words "Who savest Israel" is a boor. And whoever does not include a reference to the Covenant and the Torah in the benediction of "the land" and a reference to the kingdom of the house of David in the benediction "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" has not complied with the requirements of the law.

This only refers to the case where the original parties did not at the outset include these [three men] in their own place for Zimmun ; but if they had done so, then the necessity for Zimmun has passed from these men.

But how do we know that the height of the interior space exclusive of the skhakh, must be ten [handbreadths]. Say that it might include the skhakh!

R. Assi said to R. Ashi: In truth, a man occupies a cubitspace, but R. Yohanan does not include the space occupied by the men.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does ‘any sukkah whatsoever’ include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic] is ganbak.

The tanna of ganbak regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include rakbash which are not permanent.

While the tanna of rakbash regards the rakbash sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the ganbak sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].

He deduces it from the word ‘tent’ [common to this and to] the Tabernacle. It is written here (Numbers 19:14), "This is the law, when a man dies in a tent," and it is written there (Exodus 40:19), "And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle" Just as there [‘tent’ means one] made by the hands of man, so here [it means one made] by the hands of man. And the rabbis? The word ‘tent’ occurs many times, to include [all tents].

The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said: Nor may a get be written upon it’ What is the reason for R. Yose the Galilean? As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A scroll. I know only [that] a scroll [is valid], how do I know to include any other material? Scripture says, "And he wrote to her"

And what does R. Eliezer do with "All that are homeborn"? It is needed [to include] a convert who had converted in the meantime or a minor who had reached majority age in the meantime. And the Rabbis [how do they derive this]? Since they said that one may make a Sukkah during the Intermediate Days of the Festival no [special] verse is needed.

And now that you say that Sukkah is a traditional law, what is the verse for? To include converts. Lest I would have said "the homeborn in Israel," the Torah said, but not converts, therefore it informs us that it is not so.

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

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?

I include washing since it is a requirement common to all men and exclude a salve since it is not common to all men.

"Until this very day" (Leviticus 23:14) [which means] until the very day itself, and he is of the opinion that the expression ‘until’ is meant to include.

But why have you seen fit to include the last night of the Festival and to exclude the first night? I include the last night since it is preceded by rejoicing and exclude the first night which is not preceded by rejoicing.

But why have you seen fit to include the last night of the Festival and to exclude the first night? I include the last night since it is preceded by rejoicing and exclude the first night which is not preceded by rejoicing.

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

The watch of priests whose period of service was fixed etc., and all other congregational sacrifices. What does [this] come to include? It includes the bull brought as a result of a transgression caused by the forgetfulness of the congregation and the he-goats brought as atonement for idolatry.

And it offered them all. What does this include? It includes the sacrifices offered when the altar was not otherwise occupied.

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

Is not the foregoing Baraita contradictory? First it says: If the beasts appear in the towns it is a visitation, making no distinction between day and night, later again it says that it is a visitation only when they appear by day and not when they appear by night. It is no contradiction, and the meaning is this: If the beasts appear in the town by day, it is a visitation, if by night, it is not. "If the beast saw two people and ran after them it is a visitation." This would imply that if the beast remained standing in its place it is not a visitation, and yet in the following clause it is taught that "if the beast fled it is not a visitation," which implies that if it remained standing in its place, it is a visitation! This too is no contradiction, because in the one case the reference is to a beast standing in a field that is near reedland, in the other, to one standing in a field that is not near reedland. "If it tore two persons and devoured only one of them, it is a visitation." But just above it was said that even if it only ran after them it is a visitation! Answer. This sentence refers to a beast standing in the very midst of the reeds. "If it climbed upon the roof and took a child out of a cradle, it is a visitation." Is this not a matter of course? Said R. Papa, the statement is needed in order to include the case of a beast taking a child out of a cradle standing in a hunter's cave.

On the day before the ninth of Ab one should not partake of two courses, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this provision applies only to the time after twelve o'clock noon, but not to the time prior to this hour. Some report that R. Judah said in the name of Rab: This provision applies only to the last meal before the fast, but if it is not the last meal before the fast, one may eat of two courses. Both these statements were made to indicate leniency and both are needed for the purpose, for had it been said only that the provision applies to the last meal, one might have understood it to include a meal taken (as the last) in the morning, therefore we are told that it applies only to a meal taken after noon; if, on the other hand, it had been said only that the provision applies to a meal taken after noon, I might have understood it to include even a meal which is not the last, therefore we are informed that it applies only to the last meal before the fast.

On the day before the ninth of Ab one should not partake of two courses, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this provision applies only to the time after twelve o'clock noon, but not to the time prior to this hour. Some report that R. Judah said in the name of Rab: This provision applies only to the last meal before the fast, but if it is not the last meal before the fast, one may eat of two courses. Both these statements were made to indicate leniency and both are needed for the purpose, for had it been said only that the provision applies to the last meal, one might have understood it to include a meal taken (as the last) in the morning, therefore we are told that it applies only to a meal taken after noon; if, on the other hand, it had been said only that the provision applies to a meal taken after noon, I might have understood it to include even a meal which is not the last, therefore we are informed that it applies only to the last meal before the fast.

R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: The verse says, “As the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies” (Esther 9:22). “The days” [would have been enough.] “As the days” comes to include the eleventh and the twelfth.

R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use this “from his issue” to include a zav who has had two observations, and the other “from his issue” to exclude a zav who has had two observations?

This is the general principle: Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. To include the arrangement of the cup and the removal of the cups, and like R. Yose,

And any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night. What does this come to include?

R. Ashi said: But we have not taught this way: This is the general rule: wherever there is a musaf but not a festival four read: What does this come to include? Does it not include a public fast and the ninth of Av?

R. Ashi said: But we have not taught this way: This is the general rule: wherever there is a musaf but not a festival four read: What does this come to include? Does it not include a public fast and the ninth of Av?

But then the words “this is the general rule” are difficult! No. They include Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival.

Shmuel said: Ten priests are mentioned in the section [dealing with sanctifications], one for the actual priest required, and the rest constitute a limitation after a limitation, and a limitation after a limitation has the results in an addition, to include, namely, nine Israelites and one priest.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

And the lame man and the blind man and the sick man and the old man. Our Rabbis have taught, The expression "steps" excludes people with wooden legs. Another explanation is, The expression "steps" excludes the lame man, and the sick man, and the blind man, and the old man, and the one who is not able to go up on his feet. And the one who is not able to go up on his feet, what is this expression to include? Rabba said, It is to include

And the lame man and the blind man and the sick man and the old man. Our Rabbis have taught, The expression "steps" excludes people with wooden legs. Another explanation is, The expression "steps" excludes the lame man, and the sick man, and the blind man, and the old man, and the one who is not able to go up on his feet. And the one who is not able to go up on his feet, what is this expression to include? Rabba said, It is to include

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings. Our Rabbis have taught thus, "And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast" (Deut. xvi. 14). This means to include in the word joy all kinds of joy. Hence wise men have said, Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the priests by the eating of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and by the firstborn, and by the wave breast and heave shoulder. I should have thought that they might have done it also with birds and meal-offerings. The teaching says, And thou shalt rejoice in thy Feast, meaning

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

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.

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.

because he does not include it among the orders? No; for perhaps this is the reason that he does not include it among the orders, that, if it were likened to heave-offering, behold, we have been already taught about heave-offering, and if it were likened to common food, behold, we have been already taught about common food, for there is a Baraitha, viz., common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, behold, it is nevertheless as common food. R. El'azar in the name of R. Zadok says, Behold it is as heave-offering.

because he does not include it among the orders? No; for perhaps this is the reason that he does not include it among the orders, that, if it were likened to heave-offering, behold, we have been already taught about heave-offering, and if it were likened to common food, behold, we have been already taught about common food, for there is a Baraitha, viz., common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, behold, it is nevertheless as common food. R. El'azar in the name of R. Zadok says, Behold it is as heave-offering.

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

A beraisa taught this as well, "He shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness", this comes to include the case of two [witnesses] that witness [a murder], one from this window and one from this window without then seeing one another, that they do not combine. And not only that, but furthermore, [the case of] one [witness] after the other from the same window do not combine.

He challenged him "This is the general rule: anything that is within a downward movement, [that person] is sent to exile. Anything not in a downward movement [that person who initiated the act] is not exiled." And what does this "anything not in a downward movement include?" Does it not include this case?! [where the rung is downward and you are moving up, where, according to this general rule, that person would not be culpable for the rung falling]. But according to your reasoning, [the rule that] anything that is in the way of descent includes what?!

He challenged him "This is the general rule: anything that is within a downward movement, [that person] is sent to exile. Anything not in a downward movement [that person who initiated the act] is not exiled." And what does this "anything not in a downward movement include?" Does it not include this case?! [where the rung is downward and you are moving up, where, according to this general rule, that person would not be culpable for the rung falling]. But according to your reasoning, [the rule that] anything that is in the way of descent includes what?!

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

"But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."

"But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

Gemara: Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: "'Without vision' (Numbers 35:23)—to exclude the blind person—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: '"Without vision" (Numbers 35:23)—to include the blind person.'"

And similarly by an exile [because] when [the Torah] said [a second time] "he shall return" it was to include the murderer.

And they are all more stringent then Ollah, as they include two eatings. [1)the alter 2)people]

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught in a baraisa (Leviticus 21,5) "Do not make a bald spot", I might think may mean that even one who made four or five bald spots is only liable once, the Torah therefore says, "A bald spot" to make one liable for each and every bald spot. Why does the Torah say "On the head"? Because it says (Deuteronomy 14,1) "You shall not cut yourselves nor make any baldness between your eyes the dead", I may think that this would mean that one is only liable for between the eyes, from where do I know to include the rest of the head? The Torah therefore says "On the head" to include the entire head.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught in a baraisa (Leviticus 21,5) "Do not make a bald spot", I might think may mean that even one who made four or five bald spots is only liable once, the Torah therefore says, "A bald spot" to make one liable for each and every bald spot. Why does the Torah say "On the head"? Because it says (Deuteronomy 14,1) "You shall not cut yourselves nor make any baldness between your eyes the dead", I may think that this would mean that one is only liable for between the eyes, from where do I know to include the rest of the head? The Torah therefore says "On the head" to include the entire head.

Rav Sheises said, it is not a contradiction. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-one lashes [which would be rounded down to thirty-nine - only one set]. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-two lashes [which would include three of the second set as well].