jose

Abbai said : Let not a man speak thus, so as not to open his mouth to Satan. For said R. Simeon b. Lakish, and it has been similarly taught in the name of R. Jose : A man should never open his mouth to Satan.

There is a teaching : R. Jose of Galilee says : The good impulse controls the righteous ; as it is said, "My heart is wounded within me" (Ps. cix. 22). The evil impulse controls the wicked ; as it is said, "Transgression speaketh to the wicked, in the midst of the heart, There is no fear of God before his eyes" (ibid, xxxvi. 2). Both impulses control average people ; as it is said, "Because He standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul" (Ps. cix. 31).

Our Rabbis have taught : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he should not face East or West but North or South ; if in Galilee, he should only face East or West. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction] because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple], when there is no barrier, and at the time when the Shekinah rests [upon the Sanctuary]. But the Sages prohibit it.

There is another teaching : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he must not face East or West, but North or South ; but in Galilee, North and South are prohibited, East or West is permitted. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction], because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple]. R. Judah says : It is prohibited while the Temple is standing ; but when the Temple is no longer standing it is permitted. R. 'Akiba prohibits it in all circumstances.

"Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily" (ibid. 5:5). R. Jose b. R. Hannina said : Whoever deals contemptuously with garments will in the end derive no benefit from them ; as it is said, "Now King David was old and stricken in years ; and they covered him with clothes but he could get no heat" (I Kings i. 1).

R. Jose b. Judah says : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it is stated, "For none might enter within the king's gate clothed with sackcloth" (Esther iv. 2) — and is there not here an a fortiori deduction : If it is thus with sackcloth which is not a disgusting thing in the presence of human beings, must not expectoration, which is disgusting in the presence of the supreme King of kings, be all the more prohibited !

They sent two disciples of the wise to him, R. Jose b. Kippar, and the grandson of Zechariah b. Kabutal. When he saw them, he asked, "Why have you come?" They answered, "To study Torah have we come." He issued a proclamation. "These men are the famous men of the generation and their fathers ministered in the Temple ; as we have learnt : Zechariah b. Kabutal says, 'Often have I read from the Book of Daniel before [the High Priest]'."

Our Rabbis have taught : When our Rabbis entered the vineyard of Jabneh, there were present R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose of Galilee. They all began to expound Torah in honour of the hospitality [which had been extended to them].

Our Rabbis have taught : When our Rabbis entered the vineyard of Jabneh, there were present R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose of Galilee. They all began to expound Torah in honour of the hospitality [which had been extended to them].

"Attend [hasket]" — i.e. "form classes" and occupy yourselves with Torah, because Torah is only acquired in a class. This is in accord with the statement of R. Jose b. R. Hannina who said : What means that which is written, "A sword is upon the boasters [baddim] and they shall become fools" (Jer. 1. 36)? A sword is upon the enemies of the disciples of the wise who sit separately [bad wa-bad] and study Torah. Not only so, but they become foolish ; for it is written here "And they shall become fools" and in another passage it is written, "For that we have done foolishly" (Num. xii. 11). [not translated]

R. Jose began [to speak] in honour of the hospitality and expounded : "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land" (Deut. xxiii. 8). Can we not use here an a fortiori argument? If the Egyptians are not to be abhorred, who only befriended the Israelites for their own needs — as it is said, "And if thou knowest any able men among them, then make them rulers over my cattle" (Gen. xlvii. 6) — how much more so, one who entertains a disciple of the wise in his house, giving him to eat and drink, and allowing him to enjoy his possessions!

R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose of Galilee, began [to speak] in honour of the hospitality and expounded : "And the Lord blessed Obed-Edom and all his house...because of the Ark of God" (II Sam. vi. llf.). Can we not use here an a fortiori argument? If the Ark which neither ate nor drank, but which Obed-Edom swept and besprinkled, brought him a blessing, how much more so one who entertains a disciple of the wise, giving him to eat and drink, and allowing him to enjoy his possessions !

R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: If [the roof of] a house is breached, and he placed skhakh over it, it is valid. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said to him Master, explain [your words]. Thus my father explained it: If there are four cubits it is invalid, if less than four cubits, it is valid.

R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Shimon forbid it

For any altar which does not have the ascent, the horn, the base and a square shape is invalid for the service. R. Jose b. Judah adds, Also the circuit

Until what time should the prayer for rain be continued? R. Judah says, until the end of Passover; R. Jose says, until the month of Nisan is passed, as it is said (Joel, 2.23): "And He causeth to come down for you the rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in the first month."

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

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

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

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

Whose opinion is represented in the following Baraita (Tos., ibid.): R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if rain falls seven days without interruption, I consider it either as the combined first and second or as the combined second and third rainfalls? It is the opinion of R. Jose.

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

Our Rabbis have taught: Not every one who wants to act as a distinguished individual may do so, but students may; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Jose says, everybody is entitled thereto and deserves to be well thought of, for so acting brings him no distinction, but rather causes him suffering.

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

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

In what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

8. Wherever the "Scroll of Fasts" records a day as one on which mourning is forbidden, it is not allowed to mourn even on the preceding day; on the day following, however, it is allowed; R. Jose says, it is forbidden both on the preceding and on the following day. Wherever a day is recorded in the "Scroll of Fasts" as one on which fasting is forbidden, fasting is allowed both on the preceding and on the following day; R. Jose says, it is forbidden on the preceding, but allowed on the following day.

8. Wherever the "Scroll of Fasts" records a day as one on which mourning is forbidden, it is not allowed to mourn even on the preceding day; on the day following, however, it is allowed; R. Jose says, it is forbidden both on the preceding and on the following day. Wherever a day is recorded in the "Scroll of Fasts" as one on which fasting is forbidden, fasting is allowed both on the preceding and on the following day; R. Jose says, it is forbidden on the preceding, but allowed on the following day.

9. Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, in order not to cause a sudden rise in market prices; thus the first three fasts should be in the order of Monday, Thursday, and Monday, while the second three may be in the order of Thursday, Monday and Thursday; R. Jose says, just as the first three fasts are not to begin on a Thursday, so also should the second three and the last seven not begin on that day.

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

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, etc. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim, but if the fasts began, etc. What constitutes a beginning? R. Aḥa said, three fasts, R. Jose said, even one fast. R. Judah said in the name of Rab, this view (that one should not fast to the end of the day) is the view of R. Meir, who offered it in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, but the other Sages say, one must fast to the end of the day. Mar Zuṭra lectured in the name of R. Huna that the law is, one must fast to the end of the day.

6. It happened that certain elders as they travelled from Jerusalem to their home cities ordered a fast because there was seen in Ashkelon a blast injuring a quantity of grain sufficient to fill an oven (with bread made thereof). They further decreed a fast, because wolves had devoured two children beyond the Jordan; R. Jose said, it was not because the wolves had devoured children, but because they (the wolves) had appeared there.

7. On the following occasions the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy, or is threatened with a flood, and when a ship is foundering on the sea; R. Jose says, in this case the alarm may be sounded only as a signal for help, but not as a form of supplication; Simeon the Temanite said (the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath) also on account of an epidemic, but the other Sages did not agree with him.

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

On the following occasions the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath, etc. Our Rabbis have taught: When a city is surrounded by enemy troops, or is threatened with a flood; when a ship is foundering on the sea; when a person is pursued by Gentiles or by wild beasts or by bandits, the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath. For any of these things individuals may volunteer to afflict themselves by fasting; R. Jose said, an individual is not allowed to afflict himself by fasting, for he might become dependent upon the public [by reason of incapacity for work] and find no mercy on their part. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, what is R. Jose's (Scriptural) reason? It is written (Gen., 2. 7): "And man became a living soul;" the Torah means to say, keep alive the soul which I gave you.

R. Jose b. 'Abin used to attend the lectures of R. Jose of Yodḳart, later he left him and went over to R. 'Ashi.

R. Jose b. 'Abin used to attend the lectures of R. Jose of Yodḳart, later he left him and went over to R. 'Ashi.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

One day he heard R. 'Ashi teaching in the name of Samuel: He that takes a fish out of the water on Sabbath is guilty of having desecrated the Sabbath (by killing) as soon as a piece (of the fish's body) as large as a sela' has become dry. To this statement R. Jose remarked that the dry spot must be between the fins. Said R. 'Ashi: Are you not aware of the fact that what you remarked was said by Jose b. 'Abin? "I am Jose b. 'Abin", he replied. "But were you not studying under R. Jose of Yodḳart?" "Yes, I was." "Why did you leave him and come here?" "How should a man who has no pity for his son and his daughter have any for me?" replied R. Jose b. 'Abin.

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

To what circumstance did he refer? He referred to the following event: One day R. Jose of Yodḳart had employed some laborers in the field. It became dark before R. Jose brought them something to eat. The laborers therefore complained to R. Jose's son that they were hungry. A fig-tree happened to be in the neighborhood, so the son of R. Jose turned to that tree saying, "Fig-tree, fig-tree! bring forth thy fruit, in order that the laborers of my father may eat." The tree immediately brought forth fruit and the laborers ate. In the meantime his father (R. Jose) arrived and, addressing the laborers, said, "Do not bear me a grudge, the reason I came late is because I was occupied by a matter of charity, and it is only now that I was able to come." They replied: "May the Merciful satisfy thy hunger as thy son has satisfied ours!" Said R. Jose, "What do you mean by that?" They told him what had happened, whereupon R. Jose said, "My son! Thou hast troubled thy Creator to make the fig-tree yield fruit before its time, so mayest thou be gathered in before thy time."

What was the incident with his daughter? It was the following: R. Jose of Yodḳart had a beautiful daughter. One day he noticed a man making a hole in the fence and gazing at her. R. Jose asked him why he did that, whereupon the man said, "If I had not the good fortune to marry her, may I not have at least the privilege of looking at her?" R. Jose then said: "Daughter, daughter! Thou art a cause of trouble to humanity, return to thy dust, in order that the people should not stumble on thy account".

What was the incident with his daughter? It was the following: R. Jose of Yodḳart had a beautiful daughter. One day he noticed a man making a hole in the fence and gazing at her. R. Jose asked him why he did that, whereupon the man said, "If I had not the good fortune to marry her, may I not have at least the privilege of looking at her?" R. Jose then said: "Daughter, daughter! Thou art a cause of trouble to humanity, return to thy dust, in order that the people should not stumble on thy account".

What was the incident with his daughter? It was the following: R. Jose of Yodḳart had a beautiful daughter. One day he noticed a man making a hole in the fence and gazing at her. R. Jose asked him why he did that, whereupon the man said, "If I had not the good fortune to marry her, may I not have at least the privilege of looking at her?" R. Jose then said: "Daughter, daughter! Thou art a cause of trouble to humanity, return to thy dust, in order that the people should not stumble on thy account".

The same R. Jose had a she-ass which he used to hire out. Those who hired her would place the hire upon her back, and she would walk home. If the amount was too much or too little, the ass would not move from the spot. One day a pair of sandals was forgotten on the ass, and she refused to proceed until the shoes were taken off.

If the people begin to fast and then the rain begins to fall, if this happens before sunrise, etc. Our Rabbis have taught: If while the people are fasting rain falls, if it is before sunrise, they need not finish the fast, but if it is after sunrise, they must finish the fast. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, if it rains before noon they need not finish, but if it rains after noon they must finish; R. Jose said, if it rains before three o'clock in the afternoon, they need not finish, if after three, they must finish; for thus we find that Ahab fasted after three, as it is said (I Kings, 21.29): "Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before Me? Because he humbleth himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house."

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

This procedure was adhered to only during the morning and Musaf prayers, but in the afternoon prayer everybody recited (the whole text) for himself by heart, etc. The question was asked: How is this passage to be understood? Does it mean to say that in the morning and Musaf prayers the portion is read from the book (Scroll) and in the afternoon by heart, as one reads the Shema', or that in the morning prayer it is read from the Scroll and in the Musaf and afternoon prayers by heart, as one reads the Shema'? Come and hear the reply: It is taught in a Baraita: During the morning and Musaf prayers the people assemble in the synagogue and read from the Torah in the same way as they do during the entire year, but during the afternoon prayer one individual recites the whole portion by heart. Said R. Jose: Is an individual ever allowed to recite the Torah for the congregation by heart? You must therefore say that all the congregants read it individually (for themselves) by heart, as one reads the Shema'.

On the twentieth, by the family of Pahath-Moab from the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Pahath-Moab of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the twentieth of Elul, by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Adin of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Judah; R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Five calamities befell our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz, etc. Whence is it known that on that day the tables of the Law were broken (by Moses)? It is stated in a Baraita: On the sixth of the month (of Siwan) the Ten Commandments were given to Israel; R. Jose said on the seventh thereof. He who says that it was on the sixth is of the opinion that the giving of the Commandments took place on the sixth, and the ascendance (of Moses to Mount Sinai) on the seventh; while he who says that it was on the seventh is of the opinion that both events took place on the seventh. Now, Scripture says (Exod., 24. 18): "And Moses was on the mount forty days and forty nights." Further it is written (ibid., 32. 19): "And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands and broke them beneath the mount."

(On the ninth of Ab) the second Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said, fortunate events are assigned to a lucky day, but calamities are assigned to an unlucky day. It was reported that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was on the ninth of Ab which happened to be on a Sunday, while the year was one following immediately upon a sabbatical year; further it was in the week in which the division of priests from the house of Jehojarib was on duty; the Levites were standing on their platform. [What song did they intone? They sang the verse (Ps., 94. 23): "And He hath brought upon them their own iniquity, and will cut them off in their own evil;" but before they were able to add the words: "The Lord our God will cut them off," the heathen came in and subdued them.] All this happened also in the second Temple.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

Our Rabbis have taught: One is not allowed to eat meat or to drink wine at any meal that is intended to be the last before the ninth of Ab; nor is it allowed to bathe after this meal. If it is not the last before the ninth of Ab, meat and wine are allowed, and one may still bathe after the meal. R. Ishmael b. R. Jose said in the name of his father, as long as one is allowed to eat (any kind of food), he is allowed also to bathe.

And just because he finds a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah, he ascribe the baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah?

Against the proof of R. Jose b. Durmaskith it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers. Against the proof of Shmuel there is no refutation. Ravina said: This is what people say, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.

R. Yose further said: It happened with R. Jose b. Ulam from Tziporri that a disqualification occurred to the high priest and they appointed him in his place, and the case eventually came before the Sages and they said: The first returns to his service. The second is not qualified to act either as a high priest or as an ordinary priest:

Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently. Or if you like, I can say that the latter is from R. Elazar b. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Yose says: “That has [no] wall” (Leviticus 25:30) even though it does not have one now, but it had in previous times.

The Rabbis, however, hold that he does derive benefit, like R. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Jose said: ... All my life I was troubled by this verse, “And you shall grope at noonday as the blind gropes in darkness” (Deuteronomy 28:29). Now why should a blind person care whether it is dark or light?

And he also opened his mouth and expounded the passage, "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails planted are the words of the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd" (Eccles. xii. 11). Wherefore are the words of the Law likened to goads? It is to tell thee, that as a goad is what keeps the heifer in her furrows, so as to produce sustenance for the world, so the words of the Law keep the learners of them from the ways of death for the ways of life. If you say, that as a goad is what moves, so the words of the Law will move; no, for the teaching says "nails." If you say, that as a nail is a thing which diminishes and does not add, so the words of the Law diminish and do not add; no, for the teaching says "planted." As planting is a thing which is fruitful and multiplies, so too the words of the Law are fruitful and multiply. "Masters of assemblies." These are the disciples of wise men, who sit by companies and study in the Law, some declaring unclean and others declaring clean, some binding and others loosing, some disqualifying and others pronouncing ceremonially pure. Perhaps a man may say, How under those circumstances am I to learn the Law? The teaching says, All of them "are given from one shepherd." One God gave them, one pastor uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all that is made, blessed be He, for it is written, "and God spake all these words" (Ex. xx. 1). Also do thou make thine ear as the upper millstone, and procure for thyself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who declare unclean and the words of those who declare clean, the words of those who bind and the words of those who loose, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who pronounce ceremonially pure. On the same occasion he said to them, It is not an orphan generation in the midst of which El'azar ben Azariah lives. And why did they not tell him without hesitation? It was on account of the matter that occurred. For there is a Baraitha, A matter occurred with regard to R. Jose, son of a Damascene woman, viz., that he went to visit R. El'azar in Lod. He said to him, What was there new in the College to day?

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.

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.

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

And what is the reason that R. Ishmael is represented as expressing an opinion agreeing with the house of Shammai? viz., "If thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering, how should there be anything which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end did need to be flayed and divided?" But then R. Jose the Galilaean said, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." At the first it did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end it did need to be flayed and divided. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was not subject to flaying or dividing, inasmuch as the regulations for flaying and dividing were only from the time of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and henceforward. Strike out R. Ishmael.

And what is the reason that R. Ishmael is represented as expressing an opinion agreeing with the house of Shammai? viz., "If thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering, how should there be anything which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end did need to be flayed and divided?" But then R. Jose the Galilaean said, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." At the first it did not need to be flayed and divided, but in the end it did need to be flayed and divided. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was not subject to flaying or dividing, inasmuch as the regulations for flaying and dividing were only from the time of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and henceforward. Strike out R. Ishmael.

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.

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

What are we to say of the word "heavens"? R. Jose bar Chănina said, It means the place where there is water. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah it is explained as equivalent to fire and water, thus teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mingled them one with the other, and made from them the firmament.

There is a Baraitha of R. Jose, which says, Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars, as it is said, "Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble" (Job ix. 6). The pillars stand upon the waters, as it is said, "To him that spread forth the earth upon the waters;" (Ps. cxxxvi. 6) the waters upon the mountains, as it is said, "the waters stood above the mountains" (Ps. civ. 6); the mountains upon the wind, as it is said, "For lo he that formeth the mountains and createth wind;" (Amos iv. 13) the wind upon the storm, as it is said, "Storm making the substance of the wind;" (Ps. cxlviii. 8) the storm is suspended upon the arm of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut. xxxiii. 27). And wise men say, It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is said, "He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel" (Deut. xxxii. 8). And there are some who say, Seven pillars, as it is said, "she hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov. ix. 1). R. El'azar ben Shammua' says, Upon one pillar, and its name is The Righteous, as it is said, "but the righteous is the foundation of the world" (Prov. x. 25).

Fiery beings who speak. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that it means, At times they are silent and at times they speak; at the time that the utterance goeth forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and at the time that the utterance goeth not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. "And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezek. i. 14). What is the meaning of "ran and returned?" R. Jehudah said, As the light which goeth forth from the mouth of the furnace. What is the meaning of "as the appearance of a flash of lightning?" R. Jose bar Chănina said, Like the flame that goeth forth from between the potsherds. "And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire infolding itself, and a brightness round about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezek. i. 4). Whither did it go? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore was all this done? That the peoples of the world might not say, The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hand of a mean people. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What forced me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me.

There is a certain passage which says, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10), and there is a certain passage which says, "Is there any number of his armies?" (Job xxv. 3) There is no difficulty. The one was at the time when the Holy House was standing, and the other was at the time when the Holy House was not standing. As though it were possible to say that the family of the Most High was diminished. There is a Baraitha, Rabbi says in the name of Abba Jose ben Dosai, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him," this is the number of one troop, but of His troops there is no number. And R. Jeremiah bar Abba said, Thousand thousands ministered unto him at the fiery stream, as it is said, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10). Whence does it come forth? From the perspiration of the living creatures. And upon what is it poured? R. Zot'ra bar Tobiah said that Rab said, Upon the heads of wicked men in Gehenna, as it is said, "Behold the tempest of the LORD, even his fury, is gone forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the wicked" (Jer. xxiii. 19). And R. Acha bar Jacob said, Upon those who were held back, as it is said, "Who were held back before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream" (Job xxii. 16). There is a Baraitha to the effect that R. Simeon the Holy said, These are nine hundred and seventy-four generations, which were held back from being created

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

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.

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.

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.

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.