jochanan

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

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

Our Rabbis have taught, There is a matter with regard to R. Jochanan ben Beruka and R. El'azar ben Chisma, viz., that they went to visit R. Joshua in Pekiin. He said to them, What news was there in the College to-day? They said to him, We are thy disciples, and of thy waters we drink. He said to them, Although it be so, it is impossible for the College to be without something new. Whose Sabbath was it? It was the sabbath of R. El'azar ben Azariah. And on what was the discourse to-day? They said to him, On the section, "Assemble." And how did he explain it? "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12); if men, they come to learn; if women, they come to hear; but little ones, wherefore do they come? in order to get a reward for those that bring them. He said to them, There was a fair jewel in your hand, and ye sought to deprive me of it.

He said to him, They voted and decided, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. He said to him, Jose, stretch out thine hands, and lose thy sight. He stretched out his hands and lost his sight. R. El'azar wept and said, "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him, and his covenant to make them know it" (Ps. xxv. 14). He said to him, Go, say to them, Ye need not have hasted to vote. For thus I have received by tradition from Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, that it is a teaching of Moses from Sinai, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. What is the reason? Those who came up from Egypt subjugated many fortified cities, while those who came up from Babylon did not subjugate many, because the first consecration was a consecration for but a short time, and not a consecration for the future permanently; and so they left it an open question, that the poor of the people might be sustained upon them in the seventh year. There is a Baraitha, that after that his mind had been appeased, he said, Let there be mercy, that the eyes of Jose may return to their place; and they returned.

Our Rabbis have taught, Who is it who is a fool? He who goes out alone at night, and he who passes the night in a cemetery, and he who tears his clothes. It has been reported that R. Hunna said, So long as they all take place at one time. R. Jochanan said, Even in the case of one of them taking place. Explain this. If he have done them in the way of folly, even though he confined himself to one, yet he is guilty; but if he have not done them in the way of folly, even though he have done them all, yet he is not guilty. Granting fully that he has done them in the way of folly, then as for him who passes the night in a cemetery, it may be said, He does it that there may rest upon him a spirit of uncleanness; and as for him who goes out alone at night it may be said that the Gandrippus has seized him; and as for him who tears his clothes it may be said that he is lost in thought. But in case men have done them all,

R. Jochanan ben Dahăbai says in the name of R. Jehudah, A man blind in one eye is exempt from appearing, for it is said, "he shall be seen," "he shall see." As he comes to see, so he comes to be seen. As he comes to see with both his eyes, so he comes to be seen with both His eyes.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And thou incitest me against him, to destroy him without a cause" (Job ii. 3). A slave, against whom men incite his master, and he allows it, is there any help for him?

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "Behold, he putteth no trust in his holy ones" (Job xv. 15). If He putteth not trust in His holy ones, in whom will He put trust? One day he was walking in the way. He saw a certain man, who was gathering figs. He was leaving what were ripe, and gathering what were not ripe. He said to him, Dost thou not think that those are much better? He said to him, As regards their use, they are for a journey. The one will keep and the other will not keep. He said, This is what is written, "Behold, he putteth no trust in his holy ones." Is it so? and yet there is the case of that disciple, who was in the neighbourhood of R. Alcasnadri, and died while yet young, and he said, If this one of our Rabbis had wished, he would have been alive now; or perhaps he was one of those who are referred to in the passage "he putteth no trust in his holy ones"; but no, for he was one who kicked against his teachers.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers; and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages" (Mal. iii. 5). A slave whose master drags him to his judgment-seat and hastens to witness against him, is there any help for him? R. Jochanan ben Zakkai said, Alas for us, for Scripture weighs out for us both light and heavy.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers; and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages" (Mal. iii. 5). A slave whose master drags him to his judgment-seat and hastens to witness against him, is there any help for him? R. Jochanan ben Zakkai said, Alas for us, for Scripture weighs out for us both light and heavy.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "For God shall bring every work into judgment concerning every hidden thing" (Eccles. xii. 14). A slave, whose master punishes sins of error as though they were sins of presumption—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "concerning every hidden thing"? Rab said, This means the man who kills a louse in the presence of his neighbour, so that he is disgusted at it. But Samuel said, This means the man who spits in the presence of his neighbour, so that he is disgusted. What is the meaning of "whether it be good or whether it be evil"? The men of the house of R. Jannai say, This is he that gives a coin to a poor man publicly. For this story is told of R. Jannai himself. He saw a man who gave a coin to a poor man publicly. He said to him, It had been better that thou hadst not given it to him now, for thou hast given it to him and hast put him to shame. The men of the house of R. Shila say, This is he that gives alms to a woman secretly, because he brings her into suspicion. Rabba said, This is he that sends home to his wife meat that is not bled on the eve of the sabbath. But lo, on the other hand, Rabba himself sent such home. Ah, but it was a different matter as regards the daughter of R. Chasda, for he was certain about her, as being a woman of experience.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them" (Deut. xxxi. 21). A slave, whose master brings upon him evils and troubles—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "evils and troubles"? Rab said, Evils which become troubles counterbalancing one another, as in the case of the wasp and the scorpion. But Samuel said, This refers to him who bestows money upon the poor man in the hour of his extreme distress. Rabba said, This agrees with the proverb, Money for corn standing in the field is not found, for corn hanging up it is found.

R. Idi, father of R. Jacob bar Idi, was accustomed to spend three months on his journey and one day in the house of Rab, and our Rabbis used to call him Rab's schoolboy of a day. He became broken-hearted. He read to himself the passage, "I am as one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbour, etc." (Job xii. 4). R. Jochanan said to him, In the prayer that comes from thee do not injure our Rabbis.

R. Jochanan went into the College and expounded thus, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways" (Is. lviii. 2). And while they seek Him by day, do they not seek Him by night also? Yes, but it is to inform thee that every one who studieth in the Law even one day in the year, the Scripture reckoneth it to him, as if he studied all the year; and so in the case of punishments, as it is written, "After the number of the days that ye spied out the land" (Numb. xiv. 34). And was it that they sinned forty years? Was it not forty days that they sinned? but it was to inform thee, that every one who committeth a transgression even one day in the year, the Scripture reckoneth it to him, as if he had transgressed all the year.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

Many peace-offerings—whence does he bring them? For behold, he has them not. R. Chasda said, He supplements, and brings a large bullock. R. Shesheth said to him, Behold, they say, Men supplement beast with beast. What did he mean? If you say, He meant this, viz., Behold, they say, Men supplement beast with beast, but not money with money, then he ought to have said to him, Men do not supplement money with money. But this is what he meant, viz., Behold, they say, Men also supplement beast with beast. To whose teaching is this to be attached? For it does not accord with Hezekiah, and it does not accord with R. Jochanan. And if you say, It is Gemaric teachers who are at variance, but the Mishnic teachers are not at variance, I reply that there is a teaching which says, The first meal shall come from things not previously consecrated. In what sense is the expression "the first meal" used here? It means, The money equivalent of the first meal shall come from things not previously consecrated.

Ola said that Resh Lakish said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. R. Jochanan said, When he has finished, he cannot bring again. R. Abba said, But they do not really differ. The one is the case where he keeps silence, the other where he declares his intention. This expression, When he keeps silence—explain it. Perhaps there was not time in the day to bring them. In that case they are not brought, because there was not time in the day. But perhaps he has none to eat with him. In that case they are not brought, because he has none to eat with him. No; this is not such a case; and so far as this goes, it is necessary that he should bring them. For there is time in the day, and he has people to eat with him. Inasmuch as he did not bring them at the earlier time, learn from this that he left them behind intentionally; and this also is the purport of the story, how when Rabbin came, R. Jochanan said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. They are in appearance difficult to reconcile, but in reality not. For learn from this that the one is the case when he keeps silence, the other when he declares his intention. Learn from this that the point has been also distinctly settled. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said,

Ola said that Resh Lakish said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. R. Jochanan said, When he has finished, he cannot bring again. R. Abba said, But they do not really differ. The one is the case where he keeps silence, the other where he declares his intention. This expression, When he keeps silence—explain it. Perhaps there was not time in the day to bring them. In that case they are not brought, because there was not time in the day. But perhaps he has none to eat with him. In that case they are not brought, because he has none to eat with him. No; this is not such a case; and so far as this goes, it is necessary that he should bring them. For there is time in the day, and he has people to eat with him. Inasmuch as he did not bring them at the earlier time, learn from this that he left them behind intentionally; and this also is the purport of the story, how when Rabbin came, R. Jochanan said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. They are in appearance difficult to reconcile, but in reality not. For learn from this that the one is the case when he keeps silence, the other when he declares his intention. Learn from this that the point has been also distinctly settled. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said,

Ola said that Resh Lakish said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. R. Jochanan said, When he has finished, he cannot bring again. R. Abba said, But they do not really differ. The one is the case where he keeps silence, the other where he declares his intention. This expression, When he keeps silence—explain it. Perhaps there was not time in the day to bring them. In that case they are not brought, because there was not time in the day. But perhaps he has none to eat with him. In that case they are not brought, because he has none to eat with him. No; this is not such a case; and so far as this goes, it is necessary that he should bring them. For there is time in the day, and he has people to eat with him. Inasmuch as he did not bring them at the earlier time, learn from this that he left them behind intentionally; and this also is the purport of the story, how when Rabbin came, R. Jochanan said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. They are in appearance difficult to reconcile, but in reality not. For learn from this that the one is the case when he keeps silence, the other when he declares his intention. Learn from this that the point has been also distinctly settled. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said,

Whence do you gather this? R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Ishmael, The same word, Restraint, is used of the seventh day of Passover, and of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. What is true of the former as regards postponement of payments, the same is true of the latter. The word is used in an unrestricted way. For if it were not used in an unrestricted way, the force of the argument drawn from it might have been broken by saying, Whereas the seventh day of Passover is not separated from those that precede it, you may say that the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from those that precede it. Assuredly, it is used in a wholly unrestricted sense. What does restraint really mean? That one is restrained from acts of work. But we have the passage, "Thou shalt do no work" (Deut. xvi. 8). Why then has the Merciful One written me Restraint? But learn from it that it was to give the unrestricted sense of the word. And a Baraitha brings out the same thing thus. For there is a Baraitha, "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 41). One might have thought from this passage that one was to go on sacrificing all seven days. No, for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it," and thou art not to sacrifice all seven days. If so, why have we seven stated as the number of the days of the Feast? For postponements of payments; and whence do you gather that if a man has not observed the Feast on the first high holiday of the Feast, he is to go and sacrifice during any part of its extent, even including the last high holiday? Because the teaching says, "Ye shall keep it in the seventh month" (Lev. xxiii. 41). If it had merely said, In the seventh month, one might have thought that one was to go and sacrifice the whole month. No; for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it" and thou art not to sacrifice further.

And what about postponed offerings? R. Jochanan says, Postponed offerings are from the first day; but R. Oshaia says, Postponed offerings are on any one day for another. What practical difference is there between them? R. Zera said, If a man is lame on the first day and cured on the second day, here is a difference between them. R. Jochanan said, Postponed offerings are from the first day. Inasmuch as he was not fit on the first day, he is not fit on the second day; but R. Oshaia said, Postponed offerings are one day for another; although he was not fit on the first day, he was fit on the second.

And what about postponed offerings? R. Jochanan says, Postponed offerings are from the first day; but R. Oshaia says, Postponed offerings are on any one day for another. What practical difference is there between them? R. Zera said, If a man is lame on the first day and cured on the second day, here is a difference between them. R. Jochanan said, Postponed offerings are from the first day. Inasmuch as he was not fit on the first day, he is not fit on the second day; but R. Oshaia said, Postponed offerings are one day for another; although he was not fit on the first day, he was fit on the second.

But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For surely Hezekiah said, A Nazirite, if again polluted on the eighth day, must bring an additional offering, but if in the previous night, he need not bring it; but R. Jochanan said, Nay, in the latter case also he must bring it. R. Jeremiah said, A case of defilement is a different matter, for payments postponed from it are made at a second Passover. R. Papa objects to this and says, It will be all right according to him who says,

But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For surely Hezekiah said, A Nazirite, if again polluted on the eighth day, must bring an additional offering, but if in the previous night, he need not bring it; but R. Jochanan said, Nay, in the latter case also he must bring it. R. Jeremiah said, A case of defilement is a different matter, for payments postponed from it are made at a second Passover. R. Papa objects to this and says, It will be all right according to him who says,

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

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

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

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

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

"Neither is there any peace to him that goeth out or to him that cometh in" (Zech. viii. 10). Rab says, It means when a man leaves off from speaking Halachah to speak Bible only, he has no more peace; but Samuel said, This is he who deserts the Talmud for Mishnah. But R. Jochanan said, Even if he go from one Talmud to the other.

There is a Baraitha, viz., Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai said, What answer did the Bath-Kol make to that wicked man at the time when he said, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High" (Is. xiv. 14)? The Bath-Kol went forth and said to him, Thou wicked man, son of a wicked man, grandson of Nimrod the wicked, who led all the world to rebel against Him in his kingdom, how many are the years of a man? Seventy years, as it is said, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by reason of strength fourscore years" (Ps. xc. 10). And is it not from the earth to the firmament a journey of five hundred years? And the thickness of the firmament is itself equal to a journey of five hundred years, and so too the interspaces of the firmaments. Above there are the holy living creatures. The feet of the living creatures are of corresponding measure to all the things mentioned above, the ankles of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the legs of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the knees of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the thighs of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the bodies of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the necks of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the heads of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the horns of the living creatures are of corresponding measure. Above them is the throne of glory. The feet of the throne of glory are of corresponding measure. The throne of glory is of corresponding measure. The King, the Living and Eternal God, high, and lifted up, sitteth upon them. And thou didst say, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the uttermost parts of the pit" (Is. xiv. 15).

R. Jochanan said to R. El'azar, Come, I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Jochanan's soul had passed away. R. Asi said to him, Come, and I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, If I had been worthy, I should have received full instruction from R. Jochanan thy teacher. R. Joseph was giving full instruction in the subject of the Chariot. The wise men of Pumbeditha were teaching the subject of Creation. They said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, Instruct me fully in the subject of Creation. After they had instructed him fully, they said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, There is a Baraitha with reference to these things which says, "Honey and milk are under thy tongue" (Cant. iv. 11). Let words sweeter than honey and milk be under thy tongue. R. Abohu said, It is drawn from this passage, viz., "things to be concealed under thy clothes" (Prov. xxvii. 26), that is to say, things which are the secrets of the world shall be under thy clothes. They said to him, We have worked in them as far as the words, "And he said unto me, Son of man" (Ezek. ii. 1). He said to them, But this is the subject of the Chariot. Some one puts a difficulty. How far does the subject of the Chariot reach? Rab says, It reaches to the last occurrence of the expression, "I saw" (Ezek. i. 27). R. Isaac says, It reaches to the Chashmal. We instruct fully to the words, "and I saw;" thenceforward we only impart the heads of the divisions. There are others who say, As far as, "and I saw," we impart the heads of the divisions; thenceforward, if the man be wise and of ready intelligence, Yes; if not, No. And how are we to expound in Chashmal? For there is the story of the child, who was studying in Chashmal, and there came out a fire and consumed him. The case of the child is different, for he had not reached the fitting age.

R. Jochanan said to R. El'azar, Come, I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Jochanan's soul had passed away. R. Asi said to him, Come, and I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, If I had been worthy, I should have received full instruction from R. Jochanan thy teacher. R. Joseph was giving full instruction in the subject of the Chariot. The wise men of Pumbeditha were teaching the subject of Creation. They said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, Instruct me fully in the subject of Creation. After they had instructed him fully, they said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, There is a Baraitha with reference to these things which says, "Honey and milk are under thy tongue" (Cant. iv. 11). Let words sweeter than honey and milk be under thy tongue. R. Abohu said, It is drawn from this passage, viz., "things to be concealed under thy clothes" (Prov. xxvii. 26), that is to say, things which are the secrets of the world shall be under thy clothes. They said to him, We have worked in them as far as the words, "And he said unto me, Son of man" (Ezek. ii. 1). He said to them, But this is the subject of the Chariot. Some one puts a difficulty. How far does the subject of the Chariot reach? Rab says, It reaches to the last occurrence of the expression, "I saw" (Ezek. i. 27). R. Isaac says, It reaches to the Chashmal. We instruct fully to the words, "and I saw;" thenceforward we only impart the heads of the divisions. There are others who say, As far as, "and I saw," we impart the heads of the divisions; thenceforward, if the man be wise and of ready intelligence, Yes; if not, No. And how are we to expound in Chashmal? For there is the story of the child, who was studying in Chashmal, and there came out a fire and consumed him. The case of the child is different, for he had not reached the fitting age.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

Our Rabbis have taught thus: There is a matter concerning Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. El'azar ben Arakh was behind him, as driver. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, teach me a section on the subject of the Chariot. [Jochanan] said to him, Have I not taught you thus, nor the Chariot with one, but if a man do so, he must be a wise man and one who has much knowledge of his own? [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. [Jochanan] said to him, Say on. Immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. [El'azar] said to him, Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? [Jochanan] said to him, Is it possible that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the Chariot and that the Shechinah is with us, and that the ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride upon the ass? Immediately R. El'azar ben Arakh entered upon the subject of the Chariot and expounded, and there came down fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees which were in the field. They all opened their mouths and uttered a song. What was the song which they uttered? "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps ... fruitful trees and all cedars ... praise ye the Lord" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14). An angel answered from the fire and said, This is the subject of the Chariot. R. Jochanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath given to Abraham our father a son who knoweth to do wisely and to search and expound in the subject of the Chariot. There is one who expoundeth well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but doth not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins hath come forth El'azar ben Arakh.

And when these things were told to R. Joshua, he and R. Jose, the priest, were travelling on the road. They said, Let us also expound on the subject of the Chariot. R. Joshua opened his mouth and expounded. And it was the day of the summer solstice. The heavens were wrapped in clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, and the ministering angels were assembling and coming to hearken, as the children of men assemble and come to look on at the festivities of bridegroom and bride. R. Jose the priest went forward and uttered these words before Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, and he said, Blessed are ye, and blessed is she that bare you. Blessed are mine eyes, that they have thus seen. And also in my dream I and ye were resting upon Mount Sinai, and a Bath-kol was sent to us from heaven which said, Come up hither, come up hither. Large banqueting chambers are prepared and fair coverlets are spread for you, you and your disciples and your disciples' disciples, as fitted to attain to the third degree of blessedness.

Is it so? And yet there is a Baraitha to this effect. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, These are the three consecutive expositions. R. Joshua explained things before his master R. Jochanan ben Zakkai; R. Akiba explained things before his master R. Joshua; Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai explained before his master R. Akiba. But behold, R. El'azar ben Arakh was not thought worthy of a place with the three. No, for the principle is, He who teaches and before whom others teach is considered worthy, while he who teaches and before whom others do not teach is not considered worthy. But what do you say then to the case of Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai? For others did not teach before him, and yet he was considered worthy. Yes, for he taught at least in the presence of one who taught others.

When Acher died, they said, Let him not be brought into judgment, but let him not be admitted to the world to come. Let him not be brought into judgment, because he studied the Law; but let him not be admitted to the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said, It were good to bring him to judgment, but also to admit him to the world to come. Would that I might die, that I might cause smoke to go up from his grave. When R. Meir died, smoke went up from the grave of Acher. R. Jochanan said, A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we found not a way to deliver him. If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me. He also said, Would that I might die, and extinguish the smoke from his grave. When R. Jochanan died, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. The public mourner uttered this expression over him, Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher.

When Acher died, they said, Let him not be brought into judgment, but let him not be admitted to the world to come. Let him not be brought into judgment, because he studied the Law; but let him not be admitted to the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said, It were good to bring him to judgment, but also to admit him to the world to come. Would that I might die, that I might cause smoke to go up from his grave. When R. Meir died, smoke went up from the grave of Acher. R. Jochanan said, A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we found not a way to deliver him. If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me. He also said, Would that I might die, and extinguish the smoke from his grave. When R. Jochanan died, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. The public mourner uttered this expression over him, Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher.

And R. Meir thus explained the Law from the mouth of Acher, viz., And behold Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, What is the meaning of the passage, "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, when he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal. ii. 7). It means, if the teacher be like the messenger of the Lord of hosts, let them seek the Law at his mouth, and if not, let them not seek the Law at his mouth.

What did he expound? Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). He is clearly marked among His ten thousand. And R. Abohu said, "The chiefest among ten thousand" (Cant. v. 10). He is a sign among His ten thousand. And Resh Lakish said, "The LORD of hosts is His name" (Is. xlviii. 2). He is LORD amid His host. And R. Chia bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, "The LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the LORD passed by" (1 Kings xix. 11, 12).

What did he expound? Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). He is clearly marked among His ten thousand. And R. Abohu said, "The chiefest among ten thousand" (Cant. v. 10). He is a sign among His ten thousand. And Resh Lakish said, "The LORD of hosts is His name" (Is. xlviii. 2). He is LORD amid His host. And R. Chia bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, "The LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the LORD passed by" (1 Kings xix. 11, 12).

R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer say, both of them, There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace upon the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king's pleasure, to remember the dunghill which had been there.

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

(7) The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering; the garments of those that eat heave-offering are defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things; the garments of those that partake of hallowed things are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering.

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

It is all right as regards R. El'azar son of R. Zadok. For we may observe that each woman says, My neighbour is wife of a common person, and she turns her attention from her. It is all right as regards R. Jonathan ben Amram also. For we may observe that inasmuch as a man pays great attention to his Sabbath clothes, he has taken his thoughts from the others. But as to R. Jonathan ben El'azar, we may observe that a man will pay attention to the hands of his neighbour. R. Jochanan said, It may be presumed that no man attends to what is in the hand of his neighbour? Does he not?

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

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

and not to the hand of his companion; but R. Jochanan said, Whether it be his own hand or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean. Whence did he learn this? From the fact that it has been taught in the latter portion of the Mishnah, for the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of heave-offering.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., In the case of the tax-collectors who have gone into the midst of the house, the house is wholly unclean. There is no difficulty. The one is when there is a stranger with them, the other, when there is not a stranger with them. For there is a canonical Mishnah, If there is a stranger with them, they are believed, when they say, We did not enter, but they are not believed, when they say, We entered but we did not touch (Tahăroth, vii. 6). But, it is asked, What does this mean, "if there is a stranger with them"? Behold, R. Jochanan and R. El'azar reply. The one says, When a stranger stands beside them; and the other says, When the government official stands beside them. What is the difference between them? There is this difference between them. A stranger is not of importance.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

For the merciful One calls it wood, as it is written, "The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the LORD" (Ezek. xli. 22). He began with "altar," and he ended with "table." R. Jochanan and Resh Lakish say both of them, At the time that the Holy House was set up, an altar made atonement for a man; now a man's table makes atonement for him.