includes

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.

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.

He said to him “the days” “All the days” this includes a metzora under observation within the rule of sending out [of the camp].

It includes eating the pesah sacrifice, and it disagrees with R. Elazar b. Azariah, as it has been taught: “And they shall eat the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8): R. Elazar b. Azariah said: It says here, “On that night”, and it says elsewhere, “And I shall pass through the land of Egypt on that night” (Exodus 12:12): just as there up to midnight [is meant], so too here up to midnight [is meant].

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.

(2) Vessels finished in purity need cleansing for hallowed things, but not for a heave-offering. The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering.

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

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.

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.

Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: “If he came upon him suddenly” (Numbers 35:22) this excludes a [case when someone turns quickly] around a corner. “Without hatred” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who hates [their victim]. “He pushed him” (Numbers 35:22) [means] when he pushed his body. “Or hurled upon him” (Numbers 35:22) includes downward motion that is for a need of upward motion. “Without lying in wait (tz’diyah)” (Numbers 35:22) excludes the one who intends [to throw something] to one side (tzad) and it goes to the other side. “And if one does not lie in wait (tzadah)” (Exodus 21:13) excludes the one who intends to throw [something] two cubits and he threw [it] four cubits.

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?!

And Rabbi Meir?: "Without vision"—to exclude [the blind person]. "Without knowledge"—to exclude. Thus its an exclusion after an exclusion, and an exclusion after an exclusion only includes.

That a teacher of baraisas taught in the presence of Rebbi Yochanon, Any prohibition that includes a [remedial] positive commandment, if he fulfills the commandment he is exempt, if he nullifies the commandment is he is liable.