instituted

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

In earlier times, her ketubah was deposited with her family; then it was easy for him to divorce her. They then instituted that her ketubah had to be deposited with her husband; even so it was easy for him to divorce her. Then they instituted that a man should buy with his wife’s ketubah cups, plates, and bowls; that is what we did state: “He should not say to her ‘here your ketubah is lying on the table’ but all his properties are pledged for her ketubah.” Finally they instituted that a person should use his wife’s ketubah in business, then because he uses his wife’s ketubah in his business dealings he loses track of it and it becomes difficult for him to divorce her.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted that for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a compromised promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In that the son’s power is greater than the father’s, since the son collects without swearing while the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: Bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted that for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to four women when he died,” etc. Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Following Ben Nanas, if one document was produced against (the wife) buyers, they all divide evenly. Rebbi Aqiba said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Samuel, since Samuel said, sharpness of the judges? As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom they want to hand it over in possession they hand it over. And here, he says so? Not with two mortgages, what about one? He did not hear what Rebbi Abin said in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on two fields or two mortgages were written on one field, to whom the court decide they hand it over in possession. Rebbi instituted that one follows Ben Nanas in matters of annona, head taxes, and real estate taxes.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; 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.

MISHNAH: In earlier times, he could go to a court at another place and annul [the bill of divorce]; Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do that because of the public good. In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change; 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.

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.

MISHNAH: A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath. When they avoided letting her swear, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good.

MISHNAH: A widow can be paid from the orphans’ property only by an oath. When they avoided letting her swear, Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should make a vow on the instruction of the orphans for anything they would decide on and collect her ketubah, and that witnesses sign the bill of divorce because of the public good. Hillel instituted prozbol for the public good.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

There, we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

There, we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here, you say that bleaching is a change, and there you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here, you say that bleaching is a change, and there you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.

HALAKHAH: “How long does one have to make it public,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times one made it public during three holidays, and after the last holiday seven days so that one goes home during three days, comes back during three days, and makes it public during one day. After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to make it public during three days. Starting from the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbors; this is sufficient.

HALAKHAH: “How long does one have to make it public,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times one made it public during three holidays, and after the last holiday seven days so that one goes home during three days, comes back during three days, and makes it public during one day. After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to make it public during three days. Starting from the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbors; this is sufficient.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La] it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

Rebbi Abba said, in earlier times, every one was ordinating his students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua, Rebbi Joshua Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Aqiba Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. He said, Rebbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rebbi Simeon became yellow. Rebbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.

It is stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obligated. It would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

Rebbi Abin said, since the householder has many occupations they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect. [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there they instituted that the journeyman should swear and collect;] similarly they instituted for the householder that if its deadline had elapsed, he cannot swear and collect. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if there are witnesses that he claimed it in time, he swears and collects even after a year. Rebbi Yose said, he has only that single day. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night. But the other said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if he claimed from him during daytime, he has only that day; if in the night he has only that night, therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina is the one who said, if he claimed from him and he said, I gave. But if he said, I shall give, the presumption is that he gave. Rebbi Mana said, sometimes he claims after its time and it is considered as in time. How is this? He claimed from him and he said to him, did I not say to you that I gave at that date? That date becomes as if it were yesterday; one gives him one measure.

May one roll over a biblical oath on a biblical oath? Let us hear from the following: One rolls over a biblical oath on a biblical oath, an instituted oath on an instituted oath, a biblical oath on an instituted oath. An instituted oath on a biblical oath? There, one swears and pays, but here in one case he swears and collects, in the other he swears and does not pay.

May one roll over a biblical oath on a biblical oath? Let us hear from the following: One rolls over a biblical oath on a biblical oath, an instituted oath on an instituted oath, a biblical oath on an instituted oath. An instituted oath on a biblical oath? There, one swears and pays, but here in one case he swears and collects, in the other he swears and does not pay.

May one roll over a biblical oath on a biblical oath? Let us hear from the following: One rolls over a biblical oath on a biblical oath, an instituted oath on an instituted oath, a biblical oath on an instituted oath. An instituted oath on a biblical oath? There, one swears and pays, but here in one case he swears and collects, in the other he swears and does not pay.

May one roll over a biblical oath on a biblical oath? Let us hear from the following: One rolls over a biblical oath on a biblical oath, an instituted oath on an instituted oath, a biblical oath on an instituted oath. An instituted oath on a biblical oath? There, one swears and pays, but here in one case he swears and collects, in the other he swears and does not pay.

Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel, maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day.

" They answer: Since the Rabbis instituted the prayer "Cause us, etc.," it is to be considered part of the Ge'ullah. If thou dost not admit this, how is it possible to affect the same union in the morning service ; for lo, R. Johanan has said : Before the Tefillah one says, "O Lord, open Thou my lips" (Ps. li. 17), and at its conclusion, "Let the words of my mouth... be acceptable" (ibid. xix. 15) !

In this case, since the Rabbis instituted the saying of "O Lord, open Thou my lips," it is considered part of the Tefillah ; so likewise in the evening prayer, the Rabbis having instituted the saying of "Cause us, etc.," it is considered part of the Ge'ullah.

In this case, since the Rabbis instituted the saying of "O Lord, open Thou my lips," it is considered part of the Tefillah ; so likewise in the evening prayer, the Rabbis having instituted the saying of "Cause us, etc.," it is considered part of the Ge'ullah.

Rab Ashe said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to all of them ; for, since the Rabbis instituted it in the Tefillah it is to be considered as part thereof. If thou dost not admit this, how could one unite them in the evening,

since one has to say the prayer "Cause us, O Lord our God, to lie down"! But since the Rabbis instituted that prayer, it is considered part of the Ge'ullah ; and so here also, since the Rabbis instituted "O Lord, open etc." in the Tefillah, it is to be considered part thereof.

since one has to say the prayer "Cause us, O Lord our God, to lie down"! But since the Rabbis instituted that prayer, it is considered part of the Ge'ullah ; and so here also, since the Rabbis instituted "O Lord, open etc." in the Tefillah, it is to be considered part thereof.

Raba said : Granted that Ezra instituted immersion ; did he, then, institute the pouring of water? For lo, the teacher said, "Ezra instituted immersion for those who are Ba'al Keri" ! But, said Raba, Ezra instituted immersion in forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary, and then the Rabbis came and instituted [the pouring of] nine Kabs for a healthy man when it was involuntary. After that the Amoraim came and differed as to what was to be done to a person in delicate health. Some were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary was like a healthy man when it was voluntary [and required immersion], and a delicate person when it was involuntary like a healthy person when it was involuntary [and required pouring]. Others, however, were of opinion that the healthy person when it was voluntary required forty Saot ; and the delicate person when it was voluntary, like the healthy man when it was involuntary, required nine Kabs; but a delicate person whose emission was involuntary was exempt therefrom altogether.

Raba said : Granted that Ezra instituted immersion ; did he, then, institute the pouring of water? For lo, the teacher said, "Ezra instituted immersion for those who are Ba'al Keri" ! But, said Raba, Ezra instituted immersion in forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary, and then the Rabbis came and instituted [the pouring of] nine Kabs for a healthy man when it was involuntary. After that the Amoraim came and differed as to what was to be done to a person in delicate health. Some were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary was like a healthy man when it was voluntary [and required immersion], and a delicate person when it was involuntary like a healthy person when it was involuntary [and required pouring]. Others, however, were of opinion that the healthy person when it was voluntary required forty Saot ; and the delicate person when it was voluntary, like the healthy man when it was involuntary, required nine Kabs; but a delicate person whose emission was involuntary was exempt therefrom altogether.

Raba said : Granted that Ezra instituted immersion ; did he, then, institute the pouring of water? For lo, the teacher said, "Ezra instituted immersion for those who are Ba'al Keri" ! But, said Raba, Ezra instituted immersion in forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary, and then the Rabbis came and instituted [the pouring of] nine Kabs for a healthy man when it was involuntary. After that the Amoraim came and differed as to what was to be done to a person in delicate health. Some were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary was like a healthy man when it was voluntary [and required immersion], and a delicate person when it was involuntary like a healthy person when it was involuntary [and required pouring]. Others, however, were of opinion that the healthy person when it was voluntary required forty Saot ; and the delicate person when it was voluntary, like the healthy man when it was involuntary, required nine Kabs; but a delicate person whose emission was involuntary was exempt therefrom altogether.

Raba said : Granted that Ezra instituted immersion ; did he, then, institute the pouring of water? For lo, the teacher said, "Ezra instituted immersion for those who are Ba'al Keri" ! But, said Raba, Ezra instituted immersion in forty Saot for a healthy person whose emission was voluntary, and then the Rabbis came and instituted [the pouring of] nine Kabs for a healthy man when it was involuntary. After that the Amoraim came and differed as to what was to be done to a person in delicate health. Some were of opinion that the delicate person whose emission was voluntary was like a healthy man when it was voluntary [and required immersion], and a delicate person when it was involuntary like a healthy person when it was involuntary [and required pouring]. Others, however, were of opinion that the healthy person when it was voluntary required forty Saot ; and the delicate person when it was voluntary, like the healthy man when it was involuntary, required nine Kabs; but a delicate person whose emission was involuntary was exempt therefrom altogether.

It has been reported : R. Jose b. R. Hannina said : The Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot. R. Joshua b. Levi said: The Tefillot were instituted to correspond with the continual sacrifices.

It has been reported : R. Jose b. R. Hannina said : The Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot. R. Joshua b. Levi said: The Tefillot were instituted to correspond with the continual sacrifices.

There is a teaching in agreement with both of them. There is a teaching in agreement with R. Jose b. R. Hannina: Abraham instituted the morning Tefillah; as it is said, "And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood" (Gen. xix. 27) — "standing" means prayer; as it is said, "Then stood up Phineas and prayed" (Ps. cvi. 30).

Isaac instituted the afternoon Tefillah; as it is said, "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at eventide" (Gen. xxiv. 63) — "meditation" [sihah] means prayer; as it is said, "A prayer of the afflicted when he fainteth, and poureth out his complaint [sihah] before the Lord" (Ps, cii. 1).

Jacob instituted the evening Tefillah ; as it is said, "And he lighted [paga'] upon the place, and tarried there all night" (Gen. xxviii. 11) — "alighting" means prayer; as it is said, "Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession [paga'] to Me" (Jer. vii. 16).

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

R. Levi said : The benediction relating to the Minim was subsequently instituted at Jabneh. Corresponding to what was it instituted?

R. Levi said : The benediction relating to the Minim was subsequently instituted at Jabneh. Corresponding to what was it instituted?

But do we act the whole of the year in accordance with R. 'Akiba's view that we should do so now [at the conclusion of the Sabbath and Festivals] ? On what ground do we not follow R. 'Akiba's view during the whole year ? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen ; and so here also, seven were instituted, not eight.

But do we act the whole of the year in accordance with R. 'Akiba's view that we should do so now [at the conclusion of the Sabbath and Festivals] ? On what ground do we not follow R. 'Akiba's view during the whole year ? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen ; and so here also, seven were instituted, not eight.

Rab Shamman b. Abba said to R. Johanan, "It is a fact that the men of the Great Assembly instituted for Israel benedictions and prayers, Sanctifications and Divisions ; let us see where it was arranged [for the Habdalah to be said]."

It has been similarly reported : R. Hiyya. b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : The men of the Great Assembly instituted for Israel benedictions and prayers, Sanctifications and Divisions. At first they fixed [the Habdalah] in the Tefillah; when the people became prosperous, they arranged for it to be said over the cup of wine ; when they again became poor, they fixed it in the Tefillah ; and they said : He who pronounces the "Division" in the Tefillah must do it again over the cup of wine.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac replied : We draw an a fortiori conclusion from the Tefillah : If of the Tefillah where [the Habdalah] was originally instituted they say : He who pronounced the "Division" in the Tefillah must do so again over the cup of wine, how much more so must one who says the Habdalah over the cup of wine, where it was not originally instituted, [say it in the Tefillah] !

Rab Nahman b. Isaac replied : We draw an a fortiori conclusion from the Tefillah : If of the Tefillah where [the Habdalah] was originally instituted they say : He who pronounced the "Division" in the Tefillah must do so again over the cup of wine, how much more so must one who says the Habdalah over the cup of wine, where it was not originally instituted, [say it in the Tefillah] !

"Do we, then, act in accordance with R. 'Akiba the whole year, that we should now agree and act in accord with his view? Why do we not act in agreement with R. 'Akiba the whole year? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen; and so here also, seven benedictions were instituted, not eight."

"Do we, then, act in accordance with R. 'Akiba the whole year, that we should now agree and act in accord with his view? Why do we not act in agreement with R. 'Akiba the whole year? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen; and so here also, seven benedictions were instituted, not eight."

Rab Joseph said : I know neither the one nor the other ; but from Rab and Samuel I know that they instituted a "pearl" for us in Babylon :

R. Hannina waited until he had finished. When he had finished, he said to him, "Hast thou exhausted all the praises of thy Lord? What is the use of all those [adjectives]? The three which we do say, if Moses our teacher had not used them in the Torah and the men of the Great Assembly come and instituted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to say ; and thou dost go on saying all those!" A parable : [It may be likened] to a human king who possessed a million golden denarii, and people kept praising him as the possessor of [a million denarii of] silver; is it not an insult to him ?

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

Rab Nahman said : Moses instituted for Israel the benediction "Who feedest" at the time the manna descended for them. Joshua instituted for them the benediction of "the land" when they entered the land [of Canaan]. David and Solomon instituted [what follows] until "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem." David instituted "[Have mercy, O Lord our God] upon Israel Thy people, upon Jerusalem Thy city," and Solomon instituted "and upon the great and holy House." The benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh in connection with the slain of Bethar ; for Rab Mattena said : On the day the slain of Bethar were allowed burial, there was instituted in Jabneh the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" — "Who art kind," because the bodies did not decompose ; "and dealest kindly," because they were allowed burial.

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."

Rabbi says : "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless" refers to the benediction "Who feedest," but the benediction of Zimmun is derived from "Magnify the Lord with me" (Ps. xxxiv. 4) ; "for the land" — to the benediction of "the land" ; "the good"— to "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem," for so it states "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon"; the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh. I have here only the Grace after meals ; whence do we derive the Grace before meals ? There is a teaching to state, "Which He hath given thee" — ie. as soon as He hath given thee.

This was necessary [only in case] it is rebuilt at night, or [on the fifteenth] close to sunset. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: R. Yohanan b. Zakkai instituted this in accordance with a principle of R. Judah who holds that from the Torah the whole day is forbidden, since it is written,

It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.

It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.

It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.

9) The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another. 10) When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.

R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered: They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.

Our rabbis have taught: Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of the Women] while the men were outside, but this would cause levity, it was instituted that the women should sit outside and the men inside. But they would still come to levity. It was instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.

Our rabbis have taught: Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of the Women] while the men were outside, but this would cause levity, it was instituted that the women should sit outside and the men inside. But they would still come to levity. It was instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.

Amemar instituted in Nehardea to go back and repeat the previous portions.

2. This is the order of the Ma'amadot [It is said (Num., 28.2): "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in its due season." Now, how can the offering of a person be presented, if he does not stand by it? The Early Prophets have therefore instituted twenty-four divisions. (Corresponding to each division there was present in Jerusalem a post of priests, Levites and Israelites.) When the turn of a division came to go up to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites (as well as the lay representatives of the Israelites) of that division went up to Jerusalem, while the bulk of the Israelites belonging to that division assembled in the synagogues of their respective towns and read the chapter on Creation (Gen., 1. 1-31; 2. 1-3)]:

This is the order of the Ma'amadot. It is said: Command the children of Israel, etc. What does he mean to say? He means to say this: This is the order of the Ma'amadot; but why have the Ma'amadot been instituted? Because it is written: "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season." Now, how could the offering of a person be presented, if that person did not stand by it? The Early Prophets have therefore instituted twenty-four divisions.

This is the order of the Ma'amadot. It is said: Command the children of Israel, etc. What does he mean to say? He means to say this: This is the order of the Ma'amadot; but why have the Ma'amadot been instituted? Because it is written: "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season." Now, how could the offering of a person be presented, if that person did not stand by it? The Early Prophets have therefore instituted twenty-four divisions.

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

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

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

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