lakish

R. Levi b. Hamma said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: A man should always oppose [yargiz] the good impulse to the evil impulse ; as it is said : "Tremble [rigzu] and sin not" (ibid. iv. 5). If he conquer it, well and good ; but if not, let him occupy himself with Torah ; as it is said, "Commune with your own heart" (ibid.). Should this gain him the victory, well and good; but if not, let him read the Shema' ; as it is said, "Upon your bed." If he conquer it, well and good ; but if not, let him reflect upon the day of death; as it is said, "And be still. Selah."

R. Levi b. Hamma also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : What means that which is written, "And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them" (Exod. xxiv. 12)? "Tables of stone," i.e. the Decalogue: "law," i.e. the Pentateuch; "commandment," i.e. the Mishnah ; "which I have written," i.e. the Prophets and Hagiographa; "that thou mayest teach them," i.e. the Gemara. The verse teaches that all of them were given to Moses on Sinai.

R. Simeon b, Lakish said : Whoever occupies himself with Torah, sufferings depart from him ; as it is said, "And the sons of Reshef fly upwards ['uf]." 'Uf means nothing else than Torah; as it is said, "Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? It is gone." And Reshef means nothing else than "sufferings"; as it is said, "The wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the fiery bolt."

concerning "the tooth and eye. " Should the tooth or eye of a slave be injured, which is only one of the members of a man's body, he thereby obtains his freedom, how much more so with the sufferings which afflict the whole body of a man ! This is in accord with the statement of R. Simeon b. Lakish who said:

Further said R. Johanan in the name of R. Jose : One chastisement in the heart of a man is better than many lashes ; as it is said, "And she shall run after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them, and she shall seek them, but shall not find them ; then shall she say [in her heart], I will go and return to my first husband ; for then was it better with me than now " (Hos. ii. 9). R. Simeon b. Lakish said : It is better than a hundred lashes ; as it is said, "A rebuke entereth deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred stripes into a fool" (Prov. xvii. 10).

R. Simeon b. Lakish said : Whoever has a Synagogue in his town, and does not enter it to pray, is called "an evil neighbour"; as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, As for all Mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit" (Jer. xii. 14). More than that, he causes exile to come upon himself and his sons ; as it is said, "Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck up the house of Judah from among them" (ibid.).

"And they despoiled Egypt" (Exod. xii. 36). R. Ammi said : This teaches that they made it like a fort without provisions, R. Simeon b. Lakish said : They made it like a pond without fish.

What means kir? R. Simeon b. Lakish said: [He prayed] from the chambers [kirot] of his heart; as it is said, "My bowels, my bowels! I writhe in pain! the chambers of my heart, etc." (Jer. iv. 19).

"A holy man." R. Jose b. R. Hannina said : He is holy, but not his servant : as it is said, "Gehazi came near to thrust her away" (ibid. v. 27). R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He seized her by the breast.

But R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : It is "Who formest light." When Rab Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine], he said : The statement of R. Zerika was not explicitly made but was inferred ; for what R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish was : This teaches that the benedictions do not invalidate one another.

But R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : It is "Who formest light." When Rab Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine], he said : The statement of R. Zerika was not explicitly made but was inferred ; for what R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish was : This teaches that the benedictions do not invalidate one another.

Abbai said : A man ought not to speak thus ; for R. Simeon b. Lakish said, and it has been similarly taught in the name of R. Jose : A man should not open his mouth to Satan.

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai : It is forbidden that a man's mouth be filled with laughter in this world ; because it is written, "Then will our mouth be filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing" (Ps. cxxvi. 2). When ? At the time when "They will say among the nations. The Lord hath done great things with these" (ibid.). It was said of R. Simeon b. Lakish that never again was his mouth full of laughter in this world after hearing this teaching from his master R. Johanan.

"But Zion said. The Lord hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me" (Is. xlix. 14). But a woman forsaken is the same as a woman forgotten ! R. Simeon b. Lakish said : The community of Israel spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the universe ! Should a man marry a woman after his first wife, he remembers the deeds of the first ; but Thou hast forsaken me and forgotten me!"

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

R. Abbahu ate so many of them that a fly would glide down his face. R. Ammi and R. Assi ate so many of them that their hair fell out. R. Simeon b. Lakish ate so many of them that he began to rave. R. Johanan reported this to the household of the Prince, and R. Judah the Prince sent officials after him and brought him to his house.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

What is the length of time for food to be digested ? R. Johanan said : As long as he is not hungry. R. Simeon b. Lakish said : As long as he is thirsty on account of the food he has eaten.

Rab Jemar b. Shelamya said to Mar Zotra (another version : Rab Jemar b. Shezbi to Mar Zotra) : Did R. Simeon b. Lakish say that? For lo, R. Ammi declared in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : What is the length of time for food to be digested ? Sufficient time for a person to walk four Mil !

Rab Jemar b. Shelamya said to Mar Zotra (another version : Rab Jemar b. Shezbi to Mar Zotra) : Did R. Simeon b. Lakish say that? For lo, R. Ammi declared in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : What is the length of time for food to be digested ? Sufficient time for a person to walk four Mil !

As he sought to draw it off, his teeth were extended on both sides, so that it was impossible to extricate himself. That is what is written, "Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked" (Ps. iii. 8) ; and it is in accord with the statement of R. Simeon b. Lakish who said: What means that which is written, "Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked"? Read not "Thou hast broken" [shibbarta] but "Thou hast prolonged" [shirbabta].

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.

Why should we not wipe with the right hand but only with the left? Raba said : Because the Torah was given with the right hand ; as it is said, "At His right hand was a fiery law unto them" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said : Because it is near the mouths. R. Simeon b. Lakish said : Because he binds the Tefillin with it. Rab Nahman b. Isaac said: Because he points to the accents of the Torah with it.

Another explanation of "Attend [hasket] and hear, O Israel" (Deut. xxvii. 9) — i.e. submit to blows [kattetu] on behalf of the words of Torah ; according to the statement of R. Simeon b. Lakish who said : Whence is it learnt that the words of Torah endure only with him who would suffer death on its behalf? As it is said, "This is the law : when a man dieth in a tent" (Num. xix. 14).

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.

What is meant by "hotzlot"? R. Abdimi b. Hamduri said marzublei. What is marzublei? R. Abba said, Bags filled with foliage. R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Real mats

And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha,

And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha,

A minor who is not dependent on his mother etc. What is meant by a minor who is not dependent on his mother? The school of R. Yannai said, Any child who when he relieves himself, his mother does not need to clean him. Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish said: He who wakes up and does not call his mother. But do not older ones also call their mother? Rather he who awakes from his sleep and does not call "Mother! Mother."

Rather, R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav, which has its Torah origin when performed in the provinces, we perform it for seven days in memory of the Temple; in the case of the rite of the aravah, which has no Torah origin for its performance in the Provinces, we do not perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Temple. Resh Lakish said:

Immediately the children [throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs]. R. Yohanan said: The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, and permitted on the eighth; the Sukkah is forbidden even on the eighth And Resh Lakish said: The etrog is permitted even on the seventh day.

Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Yohanan: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Does not this equally apply to adults also? No; specifically to children.

There are others who say that R. Yohanan raised the objection against Resh Lakish: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Children only, not adults! No; the same law applies to adults as well, and the reason that it mentions children is that it states what was customary.

The following dispute is based on the same principles] as the one between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. For it was stated: If one set apart seven etrogs for the seven days: Rav said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it immediately. R. Assi said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it the next day. What do they argue about? One Master holds that it is set apart for its mitzvah while the other holds that it is set apart for the whole day.

There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”

evil all the day” (Genesis 6:5). R. Shimon b. Lakish stated: The Evil Inclination of a person grows in strength from day to day and seeks to kill him, as it is said, “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32); and were it not that the Holy One, blessed be He, is his help he would not be able to withstand it, as it is said, “The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor suffer him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:33).

Now if you assume that Kitron is Tzippori, why did Zevulun complain of his portion, seeing that Tzippori is an even better place? And if you were to say that it is not “flowing with milk and honey,” Resh Lakish has said: I myself have seen the flowing of milk and honey around Tzippori, and it is sixteen miles by sixteen miles.

Resh Lakish began his discourse on this section with the following text: “As a roaring lion and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” (Proverbs 4:7). “A roaring lion”: this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written, “A lion is gone up from his thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7). “A ravenous bear”: this is Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear,” (Daniel 7:5), and R. Joseph taught: These are the Persians, who eat and drink like bears, and are coated with flesh like bears, and are hairy like bears, and have no rest like bears. “

For Resh Lakish has said: The Holy One, blessed be He, does not strike Israel unless He has created for them a healing beforehand, as it says. "When I have healed Israel, then is the iniquity of Ephraim uncovered" (Hosea 7:1). Not so, however, with the other nations: He smites them first, and then creates for them a healing, as it says: "The Lord will smite Egypt, smiting and healing" (Isaiah 19:22).

“If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver”: Resh Lakish said: It was well known to Him at whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay shekels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore He anticipated his shekels with those of Israel.

How much [was it stretched]? — R. Jeremiah said: It was two cubits long and he made it twelve cubits — Some say, sixteen, and some again twenty-four. In a Baraitha it was stated, sixty. so too you find with the arm of the daughter of Pharaoh, and so you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written, You have broken [shibarta] the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8) and Resh Lakish said: Do not read shibarta but shirbavta. Rabbah b. Ofran said in the name of R. Elazar who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, [that the sceptre was stretched] two hundred [cubits].

Resh Lakish eulogized a certain rabbinical student who was frequently in the Land of Israel and who used to repeat halakhoth before twenty-four rows [of disciples]. He said: Alas! The Land of Israel has lost a great man.

We have learned in another place: Whoever makes use of a crown, passes away [from the world] and Resh Lakish taught: This applies to one who accepts service from one who can repeat halakhoth, the crown of Torah. And Ulla said

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says:... Ezra established for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah. ... What is the reason? Abaye, or you may also say Resh Lakish said: So that the year may end along with its curses.

Resh Lakish said, Every one who turneth aside the judgment of the stranger is as though he turned aside the judgment of God; for it is written "ומטי the stranger" (ibid.), and the word is מטי.

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. Simeon ben Jochai says, One does not say, Investigate a camel, investigate a pig, but investigate a lamb. And what kind of person is this? This is the pupil of a wise man, who has separated himself from the Law. R. Jehudah ben Lakish said, Every pupil of a wise man, who has separated himself from the Law, to him does the passage refer, which says, "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8), and that which says, "What unrighteousness have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?" (Jer. ii. 5) There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with his unmarried sister, the other with another man's wife. And, if you like, I will say that both of them have to do with another man's wife, and yet there is no difficulty. The one is

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. ii. 4). The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to your words a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house: and the heavens are the upper story, as it is said, "It is he that buildeth in the heavens his upper stories, and hath founded his vault upon the earth" (Amos ix. 6). The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to your words a man makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne: and the heavens are a throne, as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" (Is. lxvi. 1). But wise men say, The one and the other were created together, as it is said, "Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together" (Is. xlviii. 13). And the others—what do they say of the word "together"? for they cannot be separated the one from the other. The passages are difficult to reconcile. Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.

R. Jehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, "Behold, unto the Lord thy God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens" (Deut. x. 14). Resh Lakish said, There are seven, and these be they, Vilon, Rakia', Sh'chakim, Z'bul, Ma'on, Makhon, Araboth. Vilon serves no purpose whatever save this, that it enters in in the morning, and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of Creation, as it is said, "That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Is. xl. 22). Rakia' is that in which are set sun and moon, stars and constellations, as it is said, "and God set them in the firmament (Rakia') of the heaven." Sh'chakim is that in which the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous, as it is said, "Yet he commanded the clouds (Sh'chakim) above and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down manna upon them to eat, etc." (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24) Z'bul is that in which is the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple, and the altar is built there, and Michael the great prince stands and offers upon it an offering, as it is said, "I have surely built thee an house of habitation (Z'bul), a place for thee to dwell in for ever" (1 Kings viii. 13). And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "Look down from heaven and behold from the habitation (Z'bul) of thy holiness and thy glory" (Is. lxiii. 15). Ma'on is that in which are companies of ministering angels, who utter His song in the night and are silent in the day for the sake of the glory of Israel, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives His merciful command and by night His song is with me" (Ps. xlii. 8).

Resh Lakish said, Every one who studies in the Law by night,—the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him the thread of grace by day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command." And what is the reason that by day the Lord gives his merciful command? Because of what follows, viz., "and by night his song is with me." And there are some who say that Resh Lakish said, Everyone who studieth in the Law in this world which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches over him the thread of grace for the future world which is like the day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me."

Resh Lakish said, Every one who studies in the Law by night,—the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him the thread of grace by day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command." And what is the reason that by day the Lord gives his merciful command? Because of what follows, viz., "and by night his song is with me." And there are some who say that Resh Lakish said, Everyone who studieth in the Law in this world which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches over him the thread of grace for the future world which is like the day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me."

Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage "I will sing unto the LORD, for he is highly exalted" (Exod. xv. 1)? It means a song to Him who takes His place proudly above the high, as the Mishnah teacher said, The king among living creatures is a lion, the king among domestic beasts is an ox, the king among birds is an eagle, but man takes his place proudly above them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, takes His place proudly above them all, and above the whole world in its entirety.

A certain passage says, "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, etc." (Ezek. i. 10) and it is written, "And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14). And lo, the ox is not reckoned in. Resh Lakish said, Ezekiel besought the Merciful One with regard to him, and He changed him into a cherub. He addressed Him thus, Lord of the Universe, shall an accuser become an advocate? What is the meaning of cherub? R. Abohu said, It is equivalent to a growing child. For so in Babylon a young child is called Rabya. R. Papa said to Abohu, But, as it is written, "The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14), this shews that the face of a cherub is the same thing as the face of a man. There are large faces and there are small faces.

Resh Lakish said, R. Meir was reading the Scriptures. He came upon this passage and expounded thus, "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge" (Prov. xxii. 17). It is not said, unto their knowledge, but "unto my knowledge." R. Chănina said, From this passage we learn it, "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house, etc." (Ps. xlv. 10) It would appear that the passages are difficult to reconcile. But no, there is no difficulty. The one is the case of an adult, the other of a young person.

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

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded the saying, Every one who gazes upon three things, his eyes grow weak, viz., upon the bow, and the prince, and the priests: upon the bow, for it is written, "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was ... the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD;" (Ezek. i. 28) upon the prince, for it is written, "And thou shalt put of thine honour upon him" (Numb. xxvii. 20). He that gazeth upon the priests—this has to do with the time that the House of the Sanctuary was in existence, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel in the Ineffable Name.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded this question, viz., What is the meaning of that which is written, "Trust ye not in an evil one, put ye not confidence in a guide?" (Mic. vii. 5) It means, if the evil imagination say to thee, Do thou sin and the Lord will forgive, be not persuaded, as it is said, "Thou shalt not trust in an evil one," and "an evil one" is nothing but the evil imagination, as it is said, "for that the imagination of man's heart is evil," (Gen. viii. 21) and there is no "guide" but the Lord, as it is said, "Thou art the guide of my youth" (Jer. iii. 4). Perhaps thou wilt say, Who witnesseth against me? The stones of a man's house and the timbers of his house, these witness against him, as it is said, "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it" (Hab. ii. 11). And wise men say, The spirit of a man witnesseth against him, as it is said, "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Mic. vii. 5). What is this that lieth in a man's bosom? One says, This is his spirit; R. Zarika says, The two angels of the ministry which lead him, these witness against him, as it is said, "For he shall give his angels charge of thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Ps. xci. 11). And wise men say, A man's limbs testify against him, as it is said, "Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and I am God" (Is. xliii. 12).

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.

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

In Judea, yes; but in Galilee, no. What is the reason? Resh Lakish said, Because there is a strip of Cuthites making a separation between them. But, says some one, let us bring it in a box, a chest, or a balloon. Nay, what Mishnic authority is there for so doing? It is the teaching of Rabbi. For he said, A tent projected is not a real tent. And there is a Baraitha, That which enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, a chest, or a balloon, Rabbi declares unclean, but R. Jose bar Jehudah clean. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread. For R. Eliezer said, They teach in a Baraitha, Hallowed things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. But against this view of R. Eliezer is another Baraitha, viz., the ashes of the heifer are not preserved by a line of thread. What? are they not? Then hallowed things are preserved. No, says another, but the water destined to receive the ashes, but not yet consecrated, is preserved by a line of thread. And yet Ola said, Learned and observant men purify in Galilee. Yes, but they leave the hallowed things alone, and when Elijah returns, then he will cleanse them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. Abohu said that R. Eliezer said, As to the disciples of the wise, the flame of Gehenna has no power over them. For this is shewn by an a fortiori argument drawn from the salamander. And what is the salamander? It is a creature of fire. He that anoints himself with its blood, flame has no power over him. How much more the disciples of the wise, whose whole body is fire, as it is written, "Is not my word like as fire, saith the LORD?" (Jer. xxiii. 29) Resh Lakish said, The flame of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors of Israel. How much less over the altar of gold! As in the case of the altar of gold, upon which is only about the thickness of a denarius of gold, for ever so many years the flame has had no power over it, how much less can it have power over the transgressors of Israel, who are full of the commandments as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written, "Thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate" (Cant. iv. 3). Read not, "thy temples" but, the vain fellows that are in thee.

What is the source? R' Yehoshua ben Levi said (in the name of R' Raish Lakish) And you shall do to him as HE plotted, [meaning] to him, and not to his offspring. [So] then revoke just his priesthood and not his offspring's, [but] the laws of false witnesses requires the same punishment, and it is missing here.

The [false witnesses that succeed in] getting a person stoned to death are not stoned [after the miscarriage of justice is carried out], surely the [false witnesses] then that do not succeed should not be stoned. Rather we follow the first opinion [of R' Lakish]

We testify that this person is subject to exile... What is the source? R' Lakish said It says, he flees to a city, [the murderer], and not the witness.

That should be proof. The one that intentionally acted is not exiled because we do not give atonement. The accidental murderer we exile for the sake of atonement. Rather we follow R' Lakish

Rather Reish Lakish said, is is derived from false witnesses. Just as false witnesses is a sin without action, so too here a sin without action is liable to lashes. What [is the connection] to false witnesses, that does not require a warning?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish began a sermon on this section from here: "'If he didn't lie in wait, and God guided his hand' [and he ends up killing accidentally] (Exodus 21:13). 'As the ancient proverb says, "from the wicked comes wickedness"' (1 Samuel 24:14). What is this verse referring to? With two people that killed someone—one killed accidentally, and one killed intentionally—but for neither of them were there any witnesses,