isda

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning [during daytime] is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown [and one cannot infer anything.]

Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even with ease.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its worship prescribed sons or daughters but he worshipped it with fathers or mothers, he is twice guilty. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed this; he thought that this was said following his teacher’s Rebbi Hila’s system and referred to Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. He told him, what do you have in your hand? It referred to the rabbis! He answered, did you need it for this?

If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?

The following is obvious: A murderer who broke vessels or otherwise caused damage is liable to pay. If he continued to break until he came to the town, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, he pays, the other said, he does not pay. If the pursuer becomes the pursued, may one save the pursuer through the person of the pursued? An adult (who became) a minor, may one save the adult through the person of the minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state: “If his head and most of his body were born, one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life for another.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is different there since you do not know who is killing whom.

Rav Ḥisda asked: What is the situation if he entered the Sanctuary thinking it was a synagogue? Rebbi Yose said, the following is what we are saying: One knew that there exists impurity in the world but he did not know whether one is liable for a sacrifice because of it, that certainly is awareness. But the following is where we hold, if it was clear to him that he was impure but he was oblivious of the Sanctuary, and he entered the Sanctuary. And so if it was clear to him that this was the Sanctuary, he was oblivious of the impurity and entered the Sanctuary.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: In any case where two [witnesses] make him liable to pay money, a single witness sets him up for an oath. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for real estate? It is a difference since one does not swear about real estate. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a fine? There is a difference since one does not swear about a fine. But do not two [witnesses] make him liable for a peruṭah? Is it so? Have we not stated: “A judicial oath is about a claim of two silver coins and the acknowledgment of one peruṭah.” Our Mishnah, when he swears by his own formulation. What (Rebbi) Samuel said, when he swears by the formulation of others. Rav Ḥisda and his group disagree. “A judicial oath”, any judicial oath. There is no difference whether he swears by his own formulation or he swears by the formulation of others, he cannot be liable except for a claim.

There, we have stated: “If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. How is this? If her ketubah was a thousand denars and he says to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received only one mina, she cannot collect without an oath.” It was stated, one who had compromised, not one who had diminished. Rav Ḥisda said, because he went two steps … Because he compromised it in court you say, he cannot collect?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. Rav Ḥisda asked: If he had worshipped it he would not have made it forbidden. Because he bartered an animal for an idol he made it forbidden? Maybe it was said about merchandise assembled before the fair. There came Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. This was said about merchandise assembled before the fair. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is forbidden to make a group visit to a fair, as we have stated: “One should not greet him at a place where it gives him prestige. If he meets him on his way, he greets him gravely.”

Rebbi Ḥanina said, (this means) [a baraita implies] that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him,” we suspect that he will live, “for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he tell him, injure that person. A Gentile against a Gentile, a Gentile against a Jew, is liable. A Jew against a Gentile is not liable. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: There it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

HALAKHAH: “One should not sit in its shadow,” etc. There they say m the name of Rav Ḥisda: Its shadow is forbidden, its half-shadow is permitted. What is its shadow and what is its half-shadow? There they say, any place where if it would fall down would touch him is its shadow, but any place where if it would fall down would not touch him is its half-shadow

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow,mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If someone died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour. If the person died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning during daytime is biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that the person was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

Huna bar Ḥiyya said, the 24 hours which were quoted refer to sacrifices but not to pure food. Rav Ḥisda objected, was it not stated: “It happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing is exact.” Are there sacrifices in Aitlo? But it must be food prepared in the purity of sacrifices! Is that not really profane food? Explain it if it was prepared in the purity of purifying water, since purifying water has more restrictive rules than sacrifices.

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

What does "he goeth on his way weeping" indicate? Said R. Judah, it indicates that the ox on his way sowing was crying hungrily, but on his way back he was already eating the young green from the furrows. What does "he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him" indicate? Said R. Ḥisda or, as some say, it was taught in a Baraita, it indicates that in that year the stalk was one span long and the ear two spans.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

'Amemar transmits the statement of R. Ḥisda as referring to the Mishnah (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain, R. Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month. Hereupon R. Ḥisda remarked: The law follows R. Gamaliel.

'Amemar transmits the statement of R. Ḥisda as referring to the Mishnah (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain, R. Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month. Hereupon R. Ḥisda remarked: The law follows R. Gamaliel.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

Said R. Ḥisda: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is a widow (without rain). Some say this is so because in that case the fields do not have to lie waste; others say, because the grain of such a year will not be subject to blast. But did not R. Ḥisda say: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is slushy (rainy)? This is no contradiction, for in the one case he has in mind a year in which there was rain previously, in the other a year in which there was no rain during the previous months.

Said R. Ḥisda: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is a widow (without rain). Some say this is so because in that case the fields do not have to lie waste; others say, because the grain of such a year will not be subject to blast. But did not R. Ḥisda say: Auspicious is the year whose Ṭēbēt is slushy (rainy)? This is no contradiction, for in the one case he has in mind a year in which there was rain previously, in the other a year in which there was no rain during the previous months.

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

R. Ḥisda said: Rain is withheld only on account of the neglect to give the heave-offering and the tithes, as it is said, "Drought and heat consume the snow waters." How do you derive your statement? Answer: A disciple of the school of R. Ishmael said: On account of the things which I have commanded you for the summer and which you did not carry out, you will be deprived of the snow waters in the winter.

Said R. Ḥisda:

The statement that fasting by hours counts holds good only when the person in question did not taste any food during the whole day. Said Abbayi to him. Is not such a fast a complete one?! The statement of R. Ḥisda refers to one who only late in the day made up his mind to fast until evening. R. Ḥisda further said: A fast upon which the sun did not set does not deserve the name of fast. An objection was raised thereto from the Mishnah (below, p. 105): "The 'priests of the guard' fast, but not to the end of the day!" Answer. There they do it merely for the purpose of undergoing some suffering.

The statement that fasting by hours counts holds good only when the person in question did not taste any food during the whole day. Said Abbayi to him. Is not such a fast a complete one?! The statement of R. Ḥisda refers to one who only late in the day made up his mind to fast until evening. R. Ḥisda further said: A fast upon which the sun did not set does not deserve the name of fast. An objection was raised thereto from the Mishnah (below, p. 105): "The 'priests of the guard' fast, but not to the end of the day!" Answer. There they do it merely for the purpose of undergoing some suffering.

R. Joshua, son of R. 'Idi, happened to come to R. 'Ashi, where meat of a three-year-old calf was prepared in his honor. They asked him to eat, but he replied, I am keeping a fast. They said to him: Can you not postpone it and make it up another time? Do you not agree with the statement which R. Judah transmitted in the name of Rab, namely, that one may postpone his fast and make it up at another time? "It is a fast on account of a bad dream," he replied, and Raba b. Maḥseya said in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who reported it in the name of Rab: Fasting is good for a bad dream even as fire is for consuming flax. R. Ḥisda said: But the fast must take place on the same day, to which R. Joseph added: Even if that day is the Sabbath.

It is right to forbid all the other actions, because they give pleasure, but why should work be forbidden which causes pain? Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Scripture says (Joel, 1. 14): "Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly," which indicates that just as on days of a solemn assembly work is forbidden, so also on fast days. If this is the reason, then, just as on days of solemn assembly work must be stopped on the evening before, so it should be stopped on the evening before fast days! Said R. Zera, to me the matter was thus explained by R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba: Since Scripture says (ibidem): "Gather the elders," the fast must be similar to the gathering of the elders, hence just as the gathering of the elders takes place during the day, so the fast is obligatory only during the day. Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, this statement supports that of R. Huna, who said: The fast-meeting takes place in the morning. What do they do the whole day? Said 'Abbayi: From morning to midday they consider communal affairs, from midday to evening, one quarter of the day is spent in reading the portions from the Pentateuch and the Prophets and the other quarter in praying and asking for mercy, for it is said (Nehem., 9. 3): "And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God a fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and prostrated themselves before the Lord their God."

Said Rafrem b. Papa in the name of R. Ḥisda: On every fast which was decreed for the sake of mourning, like the Ninth of Ab and the fast of a mourner, both warm and cold baths are forbidden; but on fasts which were decreed merely to prevent indulgence in pleasure, like the communal fast, warm, but not cold, baths are forbidden. Said R. 'Idi b. 'Abin, we indeed, read in the Mishnah: "the bath-houses must be closed." Said 'Abbayi to him: Suppose the Mishnah had meant to forbid also cold baths, how should it then have expressed itself? Should it have read: "the rivers must be stopped"? Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, my father (in making his statement) felt this difficulty: Inasmuch as the Mishnah had said that bathing is forbidden, what was the idea of adding that the bath-houses must be closed? Does this not indicate that only warm baths are forbidden, while cold baths are allowed? It stands proved.

Come and hear: "R. 'Abba the Priest said in the name of R. Jose the Priest, it happened that when the sons of R. Jose b. R. Ḥanina died, he bathed in cold water during all the seven days of mourning!" Answer: There the deaths followed closely one after the other, for we read in a Baraita: If several deaths follow closely upon one another, the mourner may, if his hair becomes too thick, make it thinner with a clipper and he may wash his garments in water. Said R. Ḥisda: He may cut the hair with a clipper, but not with scissors; he may wash his garments in water, but not with natron or aloe. R. Ḥisda further said, this Baraita proves that a mourner is not allowed to wash his garments.

Come and hear: "R. 'Abba the Priest said in the name of R. Jose the Priest, it happened that when the sons of R. Jose b. R. Ḥanina died, he bathed in cold water during all the seven days of mourning!" Answer: There the deaths followed closely one after the other, for we read in a Baraita: If several deaths follow closely upon one another, the mourner may, if his hair becomes too thick, make it thinner with a clipper and he may wash his garments in water. Said R. Ḥisda: He may cut the hair with a clipper, but not with scissors; he may wash his garments in water, but not with natron or aloe. R. Ḥisda further said, this Baraita proves that a mourner is not allowed to wash his garments.

Because it is something that can be classed with the enjoyment of meat and wine. An objection was raised against Raba. We read: "A maiden that has reached maturity should not neglect herself during the days of her mourning for her father." This statement indicates that a maiden who did not reach maturity is in duty bound to neglect herself. Now, in what respect is she supposed to neglect herself? By abstaining from warm baths? And is not a mature maiden allowed to neglect herself in this way? Did not R. Ḥisda say, a mourner is not allowed to put even a finger into warm water? You must therefore admit that the prohibition of self-neglect refers only to bathing in cold water (which proves that to other mourners cold bathing, too, is forbidden)! Answer: No, by neglect is meant only painting the eyelids and fixing the hair.

Some give the passage in the following version: Raba said, a mourner is not allowed to bathe either in warm or in cold water during the seven days. Why should bathing be different from the enjoyment of meat and wine? In the case of meat and wine, indulgence is permitted because it is done merely to lessen the mourner's suffering, while bathing is a matter of (avoidable) pleasure. Is not Raba's statement supported by the following passage: "A maiden that has reached maturity should not neglect herself during the days of her mourning for her father?" This wording certainly indicates that a maiden who did not yet reach maturity is in duty bound to neglect herself. Now, what is meant by neglect? Does it mean abstaining from bathing in warm water? Is a maiden of maturity, then, not allowed so to neglect herself? Did not R. Ḥisda say, a mourner is not allowed to put even a finger into warm water? You must therefore admit that the prohibition of neglect refers only to bathing in cold water! Answer: No, by neglect is meant painting her eyelids and fixing her hair.

It was said above: "Who labors without success and whose house is empty." Are not both the same thing? Said R. Ḥisda, the latter phrase means one whose house is free of sin.

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda discoursed: What message did the Synhedrin of the Hewn-Stone-Hall send to Ḥoni the Circle-drawer? (They expounded to him the verses) (Job, 22. 28-30): "Thou shalt also decree a thing and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'; for the humble person He saveth. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent, yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands."—"Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee," that is, thou hast decreed here below and the Holy One, blessed be He, established thy decree there above.—"And light shall shine upon thy ways," that is, a generation that was in gloom, thou hast brightened by thy prayer—"When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'", that is, a generation that was cast down, thou hast lifted up by thy prayer. "For the humble person He saveth," that is, a generation whose eyes drooped down, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "He shall deliver even him that is not innocent," that is, a generation that is not innocent, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "Yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands," that is, through the work of thy clean hands.

Said R. Zeriḳa to R. Safra: Come and see the difference between the imperious men of Palestine and the pious men of Babylonia. The pious men of Babylonia (namely R. Huna and R. Ḥisda), when there was need of rain, would say: "Come let us meet together in prayer; peradventure the Holy One, blessed be He, will accept our prayer and rain will come;" but as to the imperious men of Palestine, there is, for example, R. Jonah, the father of R. Mani, who, when they needed rain, would go into the house and say: "Get me my haversack and I will go and buy grain for a zuz," whereupon he would go to some cave-like, hidden place, cover himself in sackcloth and pray until rain came. When he came back he was asked, "Did you bring anything?" "No," he answered, "I thought that after this rainfall there would be relief everywhere."

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).

On the first of Ṭebet there were no Ma'amad services, etc. Said Mar Ḳashshisha, son of R. Ḥisda, to R. 'Ashi: