judahs

And after Joseph perished, the sons of Jacob took unto themselves wives. The name of Reuben's wife is 'Ada; and the name of Simeon's wife is 'Adlba'a, a Canaanite; and the name of Levi's wife is Melka, of the daughters of Aram, of the seed of the sons of Terah; and the name of Judah's wife, Betasu'el, a Canaanite; and the name of Issachar's wife, Hezaqa: and the name of Zabulon's wife, Ni'iman; and the name of Dan's wife, 'Egla; and the name of Naphtali's wife, Rasu'u, of Mesopotamia; and the name of Gad's wife, Maka; and the name of Asher's wife, 'Ijona; and the name of Joseph's wife, Asenath, the Egyptian; and the name of Benjamin's wife, 'Ijasaka.

And Jashub, king of Tapnach, also came forth first with his army before Judah, and Judah saw Jashub and his army coming toward him, and Judah's wrath was kindled, and his anger burned within him, and he approached to battle in which Judah ventured his life.

And Judah, seeing that the men of Gaash were getting too heavy for them, gave a most piercing and tremendous shriek and all the men of Gaash were terrified at the voice of Judah's cry, and men fell from the wall at his powerful shriek, and all those that were from without and within the city were greatly afraid of their lives.

And Judah shouted upon the wall, and all the men that were upon the wall were terrified, and some of them fell from the wall into the city and died, and those who were yet upon the wall, when they saw Judah's strength, they were greatly afraid and fled for their lives into the city for safety.

And some were emboldened to fight with Judah upon the wall, and they came nigh to slay him when they saw there was no sword in Judah's hand, and they thought of casting him from the wall to his brothers, and twenty men of the city came up to assist them, and they surrounded Judah and they all shouted over him, and approached him with drawn swords, and they terrified Judah, and Judah cried out to his brothers from the wall.

And after this cry he again repeated to shout, and all the men who surrounded Judah on the top of the wall were terrified, and they each threw his sword from his hand at the sound of Judah's shouting and his tremor, and fled.

And the people upon the wall seeing that twenty of their men had fallen, they still ran toward Judah with drawn swords, but they could not approach him for they were greatly terrified at Judah's strength.

And Judah's head pained him from the blow of the powerful man, and Judah had nearly died from it.

And the powerful man ran to Judah to strike him upon the head with the sword, and there was no shield in the hand of Judah; and whilst he was aiming to strike him, Naphtali hastily took his shield and put it to Judah's head, and the sword of the powerful man hit the shield of Naphtali and Judah escaped the sword.

And it was after the death of Er, Judah's first born, that Judah said unto Onan, go to thy brother's wife and marry her as the next of kin, and raise up seed to thy brother.

And Judah's anger was kindled, and he said, This man has only brought me back to destroy Egypt this day.

And when Judah heard this thing he was exceedingly wroth and his anger burned within him, and there was before him in that place a stone, the weight of which was about four hundred shekels, and Judah's anger was kindled and he took the stone in one hand and cast it to the heavens and caught it with his left hand.

And Joseph seeing and knowing that Judah's anger was stilled, he approached to speak unto Judah in the language of mildness.

And Judah's anger was kindled against Joseph when he spoke this thing, and his eyes dropped blood with anger, and he said unto his brethren, How doth this man this day seek his own destruction and that of all Egypt!

The fire-basket of a householder which was lessened by less than three handbreadths is susceptible to impurity because when it is heated from below a pot above would still boil. If [it was lessened] to a lower depth it is not susceptible to impurity. If subsequently a stone or gravel was put into it, it is still not susceptible to impurity. If it was plastered over with clay, it may contract impurity from that point and onwards. This was Rabbi Judah's reply in connection with the oven that was placed over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar.

R. Judah's question to R. Meir is a forcible one !

R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan : The Halakah is in accord with R. Judah who maintains that one may not interrupt between "I am the Lord your God" and "True and firm." R. Abbahu [also] said in the name of R. Johanan: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written,

But how [do we know that the teaching in the quoted Mishnah] is R. Jose's? Perhaps it is R. Judah's, and he means to say with reference also to the reading of the Shema' that having read it inaudibly he has complied with the requirements of the law, but ab initio he should not read it so ? Thou mayest find proof for this in the fact that he states Who reads [the Shema' without making it audible], i.e. post factum it is valid, but not ab initio !

It can be neither R. Jose's nor R. Judah's. For were it R. Judah's, if the man had said [Grace inaudibly] ab initio he would also have fulfilled his duty ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it cannot be considered that he has done so. How is it then?

It can be neither R. Jose's nor R. Judah's. For were it R. Judah's, if the man had said [Grace inaudibly] ab initio he would also have fulfilled his duty ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it cannot be considered that he has done so. How is it then?

It must be R. Judah's, and [his opinion is] post factum it is allowed, but not ab initio.

It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he permits it post factum, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, he does not allow it even post factum.

It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he permits it post factum, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, he does not allow it even post factum.

R. Judah agrees with his teacher's opinion, and there is no contradiction, one being R. Meir's view and the other R. Judah's.

perhaps it is R. Judah's view and ab initio it is not permitted, but post factum it is valid ?

Still thou canst not possibly maintain that it is in accord with R. Judah ; because from what is stated in the sequel, "R. Judah allows a minor to read [the Megillah]" it is to be inferred that the first part is not R. Judah's view !

But perhaps the whole of it is R. Judah's view, there being two kinds of "minor," and [the wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read thus : "All are fit and proper persons to read the Megillah except a deaf person, a mentally defective person and a minor. Of whom does this speak ? Of a minor who has not yet reached Initiation; but a minor who has reached Initiation is fit to read it even ab initio. These are the words of R. Judah, for R. Judah permits a minor to read."

It cannot be R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, post factum it should be allowed, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, even post factum it should be invalid. Whose view is it then ?

It cannot be R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, post factum it should be allowed, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, even post factum it should be invalid. Whose view is it then ?

R. Judah's and even ab initio it is permissible. What, however, of the following ? There is a teaching : A man must not say Grace after meals in his heart ; but if he has done so, he has complied with the requirements of the law. Whose view is that ?

It is not R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he would allow that to act thus ab initio likewise complies with the requirements of the law ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it is not valid.

It is not R. Judah's, nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he would allow that to act thus ab initio likewise complies with the requirements of the law ; if R. Jose's, even post factum it is not valid.

It is certainly R. Judah's view, and even ab initio it is valid. Nor is there any contradiction ; the latter being R. Judah's own opinion, the other that of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : He who reads the Shema' must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear O Israel." R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart," i.e. the words depend upon the Kawwanah of the heart.

It is certainly R. Judah's view, and even ab initio it is valid. Nor is there any contradiction ; the latter being R. Judah's own opinion, the other that of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : He who reads the Shema' must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear O Israel." R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart," i.e. the words depend upon the Kawwanah of the heart.

Since thou hast reached so far, thou mayest even suppose that R. Judah agrees with his teacher's opinion ; and there is no contradiction, one being R. Judah's view, the other R. Meir's.

Rab Hisda said in the name of Rab Shela: The Halakah is in accord with R. Judah's view which he reported in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, and the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah.

It is necessary [to state it in this way] ; for if he had informed us only that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah, I might have supposed [the Shema' need not be read audibly] ab initio ; therefore he tells us that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah's view which he reported in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah.

And if he had informed us only that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah's view which he reported in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, I might have supposed that it is essential [for the Shema' to be read audibly ab initio] and there was no rectification [if this had not been done]. Therefore he informs us that the Halakah is in accord with R. Judah.

Raba said to him : Should one ask thee whose teaching this is, it is R. Judah's; for he stated with reference to the woman suspected of adultery : One writes the curses but not the words of the command, because in this connection it is written, "And the priests shall write these curses in a scroll" (Num. v. 23), but here [in connection with Tefillin] it is written, "And thou shalt write them," i.e. even the words of the command.

Dost thou suppose that R. Judah's reason is because the text states, "[And the priest] shall write"? His reason is because the text states, "[And the priest shall write] these curses," i.e. the curses shall be written, but not the words of the command.

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

Thou sayest "the fourth hour"; but perhaps it means the sixth hour ! When the Bible states "In the heat of the day" (Gen. xviii. 1) it means the sixth hour. How, then, am I to understand "As the sun waxed hot, it melted" ? That refers to the fourth hour. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It can be neither R. Judah's nor the Rabbis'. If it were R. Judah's, up to [and including] the fourth hour is still morning ; and if it were the Rabbis', up to midday is still morning !

Thou sayest "the fourth hour"; but perhaps it means the sixth hour ! When the Bible states "In the heat of the day" (Gen. xviii. 1) it means the sixth hour. How, then, am I to understand "As the sun waxed hot, it melted" ? That refers to the fourth hour. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It can be neither R. Judah's nor the Rabbis'. If it were R. Judah's, up to [and including] the fourth hour is still morning ; and if it were the Rabbis', up to midday is still morning !

If thou wilt I can say it is R. Judah's view or the Rabbis'. If thou wilt I can say it is the view of the Rabbis — because the Scriptures state, "Morning by morning" (Exod. l.c.), thus dividing the morning into two parts. If thou wilt I can say it is R. Judah's view — because one word for "morning" is superfluous, the intention being to anticipate [the time for gathering] by one hour Everybody agrees "As the sun waxed hot, it melted" means in the fourth hour. How is this proved?

If thou wilt I can say it is R. Judah's view or the Rabbis'. If thou wilt I can say it is the view of the Rabbis — because the Scriptures state, "Morning by morning" (Exod. l.c.), thus dividing the morning into two parts. If thou wilt I can say it is R. Judah's view — because one word for "morning" is superfluous, the intention being to anticipate [the time for gathering] by one hour Everybody agrees "As the sun waxed hot, it melted" means in the fourth hour. How is this proved?

But R. Judah declares : "...Who createst divers kinds of herbs." R. Zera (another version : R. Hinnana b. Pappa) said : The Halakah is not in accord with R. Judah. R. Zera (another version: R. Hinnana b. Pappa) also said: What is R. Judah's reason? The Scriptures state, "Blessed be the Lord day by day" (Ps. Ixviii. 20) — are we to bless Him by day and not by night ! Nay, it means to tell thee : Day by day give Him the appropriate blessing ; so here also, for every species of food give Him an appropriate benediction.

[R. Judah's statement refers] to the remainder.

What is R. Judah's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: In prescribing the order of sacrifices for the second day, scripture says (Num., 29.18): "and their drink-offerings" (ונסכיהם), in the order for the sixth day (ib., 29.31), the expression is: "and its drink-offerings" (ונסכיה), while in the order for the seventh day (ib., 29.33) we read: "After their ordinance" (כמשפטם), thus obtaining the letters mem, yod, mem, which put together read mayim (מים = water). Here we have a biblical allusion to the institution of water libation.

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

R. Judah said, he does not have to recite the Zikronot and the Shofarot, etc. Said R. 'Adda of Joppa: What is R. Judah's reason? He is of the opinion that Zikronot and Shofarot

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.