included

Why was the Parashah of Fringes included [in the Shema']?

Mar Zotra objected : Let it be included in brief in the [shortened] Tefillah, thus: "Give us understanding, Thou Who dividest between holy and profane" ! The question [remained unanswered].

Rab Bebai b. Abbai said : The whole of the year one may say the prayer "Give us understanding" except during the rainy season, because it is necessary to add the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years." Mar Zotra objected : Let it be included in brief in the [shortened] prayer thus : "Satiate us on the pastures of Thy land, and give dew and rain" !

MISHNAH We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" and the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," and the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge." R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eliezer says : [It is to be included] in the "Thanksgiving."

R. Eliezer said : [It is to he included] in the "Thanksgiving"

How is this the factor common to them both? [That they are both brought upon] the altar is likewise a common factor ! Then the olive must also be included because it likewise has this factor of [being brought to] the altar !

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed. This is evident ! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if he paid its value but not the additional fifth ; hence he informs us that [not having paid] the additional fifth does not prevent him [from being included for Zimmun].

The attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive. This is evident ! Perhaps thou mayest argue that the attendant has no fixed place; therefore we are informed [that he is to be included].

The Samaritan may be included for Zimmun. Why should he be? He is nothing better than an 'Am ha'ares, and there is a teaching : 'Amme ha'ares are not to be included for Zimmun !

The Samaritan may be included for Zimmun. Why should he be? He is nothing better than an 'Am ha'ares, and there is a teaching : 'Amme ha'ares are not to be included for Zimmun !

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe, etc. [If he has eaten of] the untithed, it is evident [that he should not be included]! No; it was necessary to state it because of the untithed which is so designated by the Rabbis. How is this meant? As referring to that which grows in an unperforated pot.

And the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. That is evident ! With what are we here dealing ? With a proselyte who has been circumcised but not undergone immersion ; for R. Zera said in the name of R. Johanan : He is certainly not to be regarded as a proselyte until he has been circumcised and undergone immersion, and so long as he has not undergone immersion he is still a non-Jew.

Women, slaves and minors may not be included for Zimmun, R. Jose said : An infant lying in the cradle may be included for Zimmun.

Women, slaves and minors may not be included for Zimmun, R. Jose said : An infant lying in the cradle may be included for Zimmun.

But lo, there is our Mishnaic teaching : Women, slaves and minors may not be included!

R. Jose is in agreement with the statement of R. Joshua b. Levi who said : Although they declare that an infant lying in the cradle may not be included for Zimmun, yet we may consider him an addition. to make up a quorum of ten.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said : Nine [free] men and a slave may be reckoned together for a quorum. Against this is quoted : It happened that R. Eliezer went into a Synagogue and did not find ten there, so he freed his slave and with him completed the requisite number. Since he freed him he was [included], but had he not freed him, he would not ! Two had been required [to complete the quorum], so he freed one slave and fulfilled the obligation [of having ten] with the other.

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

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

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

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

But the Halakah is not in agreement with any of these teachings, but with that which Rab Nahman said : A minor who understands to Whom we say Grace is to be included for Zimmun.

How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to he included for Zimmun ?

From that time onwards it may contract defilement, but not retrospectively. Infer from this that since it has been divided, the defilement has passed from it. So here also, since the parties had included these men for Zimmun, it passes from them.

Gemara. From where do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: [If Scripture had said] "Homeborn" [it would have included] every homeborn [Jew], [but since it says] "the homeborn" it excludes women. "Every" includes minors.

But according to R. Yose, is it not written “for food”? He needs that phrase to deduce, “for food”, but not for a salve, as it has been taught, “for food”, but not for a salve. You say “for food” but not for a salve; why not say, “[for food”] but not for washing? When it says, “for you” washing is included. So how then do I understand, “for food”? “For food”, but not for a salve. But what reason did you see for including washing and excluding a salve?

What has been decided about the matter? Said R. Samuel b. Sasarṭai in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi, who said it in the name of Rab: The benediction should be inserted between "Redeemer" and "Healer" (of Israel), but R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Jannai b. Ishmael, it should be included in the benediction: "Who hearest prayer," and this is the accepted law.

What has been decided in this matter? R. Naḥman said, in such a case the prayer for rain may be inserted in the "Blessing of the Years," but R. Sheshet said, it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer," and the law is that it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer."

What has been decided in this matter? R. Naḥman said, in such a case the prayer for rain may be inserted in the "Blessing of the Years," but R. Sheshet said, it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer," and the law is that it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer."

will apply here. There the first of Nisan was mentioned to extend the prohibition to the day preceding. Here the festival is included in order to extend the prohibition to the day following. With whose view does this tally? With that of R. Jose, who said that the prohibition includes "both the preceding and the following day?" If so, why base the inclusion of the twenty-ninth of Adar on the fact that it is the day preceding the first of Nisan, on which day the Daily Offering was established, when the prohibition might have been derived from the fact that it follows upon the twenty-eighth of Adar (which was likewise proclaimed a holiday) as we read: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good news reached the Jews that they were no longer to be restrained from the study of the Torah? [It had namely happened that the wicked government issued a decree against Israel, that they should not study the Torah nor circumcize their children, and that they should profane the Sabbath, whereupon Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues took counsel with a prominent lady with whom all the noblemen of Rome associated, who advised them to make an appeal during the night; they made the appeal during the night, saying: "O Heavens! Are we not your brethren, are we not the sons of one father and one mother? Wherein do we differ from all other nations and tongues, that you issue such cruel decrees against us?", whereupon the decrees were annulled and the day was declared a holiday.] Said 'Abbayi in reply to the above: The twenty-eighth of Adar would be of no avail for the last day if it were a full month. R. 'Ashi said, the same thing would be true if Adar was deficient, for on a day following immediately upon a holiday only fasting is forbidden, while mourning is allowed, whereas the twenty-ninth of Adar, being placed between two holidays, has been made as important as if it were itself a holiday.

R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught: R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.

And when judgment is visited on the wicked, apostates will cease, and presumptuous sinners are included with them, as it is written, “But the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed” (Isaiah 1:28).

And when the transgressors have disappeared, the horn of the righteous will be exalted, as it is written, “All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off, but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted” (Psalms 95:11). And “righteous converts” are included with the righteous, as it says, “Before the hoary head rise up, and honor the face of the elder”, and the text goes on, “And if a stranger sojourns with you” (Leviticus 19:32).

R. Joseph, when he came upon this passage, wept, "But there is that is destroyed without judgment" (Prov. xiii. 23). He said, Who is that who is taken before his time? It is possible that this may have to do with R. Baybi bar Abai. He used to visit the Angel of death. He said to his attendant, Go, bring me Mary of Magdala, the women's hairdresser. He went and brought him Mary of Magdala, who taught children. He said to him, I bid thee bring Mary of Magdala, the women's hairdresser. He said to him, If so, I will bring her back. He said to him, Since thou hast brought her, let her be included. But how didst thou get hold of her? He answered, She was holding the poker in her hand, and was stooping down

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them" (Deut. xxxi. 17). R. Bardala bar Tabyumi said that Rab said, Every one who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them; every one who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured" (Deut. xxxi. 17)

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them" (Deut. xxxi. 17). R. Bardala bar Tabyumi said that Rab said, Every one who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them; every one who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured" (Deut. xxxi. 17)

is not of them. Our Rabbis said to Rabba, Master, thou art not included in the "hiding of the face," and thou art not included in the "devouring." He said to them, How know ye how much I send out secretly to king Shabor? And still our Rabbis fixed their eyes upon him. While this was going on, there came a message from the house of king Shabor, and they spoiled him. He said, This agrees with the Baraitha, viz., Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, Every place on which wise men have fixed their eyes is the scene of a death or calamity.

is not of them. Our Rabbis said to Rabba, Master, thou art not included in the "hiding of the face," and thou art not included in the "devouring." He said to them, How know ye how much I send out secretly to king Shabor? And still our Rabbis fixed their eyes upon him. While this was going on, there came a message from the house of king Shabor, and they spoiled him. He said, This agrees with the Baraitha, viz., Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, Every place on which wise men have fixed their eyes is the scene of a death or calamity.

The second Passover admits of offerings postponed from the first; but according to him who says, The second is an independent Festival, where is your argument? But R. Papa said, that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included in the seven days of cleansing. But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For lo, R. Jochanan said elsewhere, If a man has had one emission in the night and two in the day, he must bring an additional offering; if two in the night and one in the day, he need not bring it; and if thou dost imagine that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included, then, if there were two in the night and one in the day, he must bring. But, it is answered, R. Jochanan was adopting the words of the other speaker, viz., that the night is to be included. "Adopting the words of the other speaker," say you? Of course there would then be nothing further to argue about. No; two in the day and one in the night were necessary for him. I might otherwise have taught that it would be according to the view of R. Shisha son of R. Idai; but we learn from this that it is according to R. Joseph.

The second Passover admits of offerings postponed from the first; but according to him who says, The second is an independent Festival, where is your argument? But R. Papa said, that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included in the seven days of cleansing. But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For lo, R. Jochanan said elsewhere, If a man has had one emission in the night and two in the day, he must bring an additional offering; if two in the night and one in the day, he need not bring it; and if thou dost imagine that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included, then, if there were two in the night and one in the day, he must bring. But, it is answered, R. Jochanan was adopting the words of the other speaker, viz., that the night is to be included. "Adopting the words of the other speaker," say you? Of course there would then be nothing further to argue about. No; two in the day and one in the night were necessary for him. I might otherwise have taught that it would be according to the view of R. Shisha son of R. Idai; but we learn from this that it is according to R. Joseph.

The second Passover admits of offerings postponed from the first; but according to him who says, The second is an independent Festival, where is your argument? But R. Papa said, that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included in the seven days of cleansing. But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For lo, R. Jochanan said elsewhere, If a man has had one emission in the night and two in the day, he must bring an additional offering; if two in the night and one in the day, he need not bring it; and if thou dost imagine that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included, then, if there were two in the night and one in the day, he must bring. But, it is answered, R. Jochanan was adopting the words of the other speaker, viz., that the night is to be included. "Adopting the words of the other speaker," say you? Of course there would then be nothing further to argue about. No; two in the day and one in the night were necessary for him. I might otherwise have taught that it would be according to the view of R. Shisha son of R. Idai; but we learn from this that it is according to R. Joseph.

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

What's the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? As it is written: "When he comes with his friend into a forest" (Deuteronomy 19:5)—even the blind person is included. "Without vision"—excludes him.

Rebbi Yitzchak says liabilities of kares are included [in the punishment of malkus], but why is kares singled out by [the prohibition of cohabiting] with his sister? [To teach us that liabilities of kares] are only subject to kares but not malkus.

Rebbi Yitzhak says, Liabilities of kares were included [in the Torah's prohibition of malkus], only why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister [kares b'achoso]? To punish him with kares and not malkus.

Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) says, Who is this tanna? Rabbi Yitchak who says that there is no kares by liabilities of malkus, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Yitzchak says, Liabilities of kares are included in the punishment of malkus, and why was kares bachoso singled out? To punish him with kares alone but not malkus.