lev

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

“A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone”, from here that one makes markers for bones. A human, from here that one makes markers for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes markers on fixed stones. If you say on loose stones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A marker, from here the marks.

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, “them”, “these are My holidays.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29th day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the [men of the] diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says (Num. 23:44), “Moses spoke about the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

“With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind; the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obligated until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

Rav Huna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes are from their words. But following him who says tithes are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed in the Land as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed in the Land as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “For all its inhabitants.” In the time when they lived on it, not when they went from it into exile. If they lived on it but did (not) intermingle, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee was operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Lev. 23:14) “In all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rebbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South had a bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South had a bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

He wishes to tell us something incidentally : When do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. He thereby informs us that [the omission of] the sin-offering does not prevent [the priest from partaking of the Terumah]. This is in agreement with the teaching : "When the sun is down and it is clean" (Lev. xxii. 7) — i.e. the setting of the sun prevents him from partaking of the Terumah, but not [his failure to bring] his sin-offering.

The word berit "covenant" is mentioned in connection with salt and also with chastenings. With salt, as it is written, "Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant of Thy God to be lacking" (Lev. ii. 13); and with chastenings, as it is written, "These are the words of the covenant" (Deut. xxviii. 69). As with the "covenant" mentioned in connection with salt, it is salt which sweetens meat, so with the "covenant" mentioned in connection with chastenings, they are chastenings which purge all the iniquities of man.

Rab Bebai b. Abbai thought to complete the Parashot of the whole year on the eve of the Day of Atonement; but Hiyya b. Rab of Difti taught him : It is written, "Ye shall afflict your souls, in the ninth day of the month at even" (Lev, xxiii. 32). Do we fast on the ninth ?

R. Jose b. R. Hannina also said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob : What means that which is written, "Ye shall not eat with the blood" (Lev. xix, 26)? [It means], Ye shall not eat before you have prayed for your life.

And similarly said Rab Adda b. Ahabah : Whence is it that the individual does not say the "Sanctification"? As it is said, "But I will be hallowed among the children of Israel" (Lev. xxii. 32) — i.e. anything which comes under the heading of "Sanctification" cannot be without a minimum of ten.

And Raba? He can tell thee : In this latter circumstance the criterion is a fixed place ; for it is written, "He shall dwell alone ; without the camp shall his dwelling be" (Lev. xiii. 46). But here the All-merciful declared, "Therefore shall the camp be holy" (Deut. xxiii. 15), and behold that is not so.

Nay; but Eli said to them, "Call a priest that he may come and slay [the bullock]." Samuel saw them going for a priest to slay it? so he said to them, "Why go searching for a priest to slay it? I f the act of slaying is performed by a non-priest it is valid." They brought him before Eli, who asked him, "Whence hast thou this teaching?" He replied, "Is it written, 'The priest shall slay'? It is written, 'The priests shall present the blood' (Lev. i, 5). From the receiving of the blood onwards is the function of the priesthood ; hence, the act of slaying is valid if performed by a non-priest."

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

According to him who teaches "the vineyard of the fourth year" it is quite right if he argues by analogy of expression ; for there is a teaching : Rabbi says : It is stated here, "That it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof" (Lev. xix. 25), and it is stated elsewhere, "the increase of the vineyard" (Deut. xxii. 9) — as in the latter passage "increase" refers to the vineyard, so also in the former passage it refers to the vineyard ; and there thus remains over one hillul to be interpreted as meaning that a benediction is required [when partaking of fruits].

Thou mayest, however, derive [a conclusion] from the fact that [the bud] constitutes a protection of the fruit, and the All-merciful declared, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23) — the word "with" meaning to include what is attached to the fruit ; and what is that ? The protection of the fruit.

It is quoted in objection : R. Meir has declared : From the statement of Scripture, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23), do I not know that a food-bearing tree is intended ? Why, then, is there a teaching to tell us "trees for food" (ibid.)? To include a tree whose wood and fruit taste alike. And which is that? Pepper ; to teach thee that pepper is subject to 'Orlah, and to teach thee that the Land of Israel lacks nothing ; as it is said, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it" (Deut. viii. 9)!

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where it has been redeemed but not according to the Halakah. With "the second tithe," for instance, where he redeemed it with uncoined silver, whereas the All-merciful declared, "Thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand" (Deut. xiv. 25) — i.e. money which has a stamp upon it. With "food belonging to the Sanctuary" for which [for instance] he had given a piece of land in exchange but he had not redeemed with money ; whereas the All-merciful declared, "He shall add the fifth part of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him" (Lev. xxvii. 19).

But how could he act thus ? For lo, Rab Judah declared : Whoever frees his slave transgresses a command of the Torah ; as it is said, "Of them shall ye take your bondmen forever" (Lev. xxv. 46) ! For the purpose of fulfilling a religious duty it is different. But it is fulfilling a religious duty through the means of a transgression ! The fulfilling of a religious duty which affects the many is different.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : I know neither Zilai nor Ziwai nor Zohamai ; but I know the following teaching : Rab Judah said in the name of Rab (another version : it is taught in a Baraita) : "Sanctify yourselves" (Lev. xi. 44) — i.e. the washing before the meal ; "and be ye holy" (ibid.) — i.e. the washing after the meal ; "for holy" (ibid.) — i.e. the oil ; "I am the Lord your God" — i.e. the Grace.

Rab Joseph said : Who dreams of a goat, the year will be blessed for him; of goats, years will be blessed for him ; as it is said, "And there will be goat's milk enough for thy food" (Prov. xxvii. 27). Who dreams of the myrtle, his business undertakings will prosper ; and if he has no business undertakings, an inheritance will fall to his lot from some other place. 'Ulla said (another version : It was taught in a Baraita) : This only applies when he sees [the myrtle] on its stem. Who dreams of a citron, will be honoured before his Maker; as it is said, "The fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Lev. xxiii. 40). Who dreams of a palm-branch has but one heart for his Father in Heaven.

But is it of any avail to pray [during the first forty days that it should be a male child]? For lo, R. Isaac b. R. Ammi has said : If it is the man who first emits seed his wife bears a daughter ; but if the woman first emits seed she gives birth to a son ; as it is said, "If a woman emits seed and bare a male child" (Lev. xii. 2)! With what are we here dealing ? For instance, if they both emit seed simultaneously.

With greatness we begin with the most important — for it is written, "And Moses spoke unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meal-offering that remaineth" etc. (Lev, x. 12). With a curse we begin with the least important — first the serpent was cursed, then Eve and then Adam!

R. Papa said: The date (for the second rainfall) is of importance as regards walking through private property, for we read (Baba Ḳamma, 81a): One may walk through private property until the second rainfall. R. Naḥman b. Isaac said: It is of importance with regard to the removal of the fruits of the Sabbatical year, for we read (Shebi'it, 9.7): Until what time are we allowed to use or destroy the straw and stubble of the Sabbatical year? Until the second rainfall, as it is written (Lev., 25.7): "And for thy cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food." This means to say that as long as the beasts find food in the field, you may feed your domestic animals from what there is in the house, but when there is nothing left in the field for the beasts, you must also stop feeding the cattle from what is in the house.

R. Ḳeṭina said: Rain is withheld only on account of the neglect of the Torah, as it is said (Eccl., 10.18): "By slothfulness the rafters sink in," that is to say on account of the indolence of the Israelites, who neglect the study of the Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, becomes impoverished; for mak means poor, as it is said (Lev., 27.8): "But if he be poorer than thy estimation," while meḳāreh denotes the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said (Ps., 104.3): "Who layest the beams of Thine upper chambers in the waters." R. Joseph said: I derive it from this verse (Job, 37.21): "And now men see not the light which is bright in the skies, but the wind passeth and cleanseth them," for or (light) means the Torah, as it is said (Prov., 6.23): "For the commandment is a lamp and the law is light."

R. Aḳiba happened to come to Ginzak (Gazaka), where he was asked the following questions: Does fasting by hours count or not? When may the wine-vessels of idolaters be used? In what garments did Moses officiate during the seven days of consecration (Lev., 8. 33)? He had no answer and went to the Bet ha-Midrash for information, where he was told: The law is that fasting by hours counts; wine-vessels of idolaters may be used after twelve months; Moses officiated during the seven days of consecration in a white frock. R. Kahana's version is: In a white frock without border.

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

Our Rabbis have taught: "I will give your rains in their season" (Lev., 26. 4) means that the soil will be neither soaked nor thirsty, for whenever the rain is excessive it washes away the soil, so that it yields no fruit. Another interpretation

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

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

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

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Temple Services. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary with a view to the bringing of the blood. For there is a Baraitha, "and they shall present" (Lev. i. 5). This is the receiving of the blood. And the Merciful One expressed it by a word which denotes "bringing," as it is written, "And the priest shall present the whole and shall burn it upon the altar" (Lev. i. 13). But the Mishnah teacher said, This refers to the bringing of limbs to the steps, and the object of the passage is to shew that the bringing did not take it out of the genus receiving.

Temple Services. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary with a view to the bringing of the blood. For there is a Baraitha, "and they shall present" (Lev. i. 5). This is the receiving of the blood. And the Merciful One expressed it by a word which denotes "bringing," as it is written, "And the priest shall present the whole and shall burn it upon the altar" (Lev. i. 13). But the Mishnah teacher said, This refers to the bringing of limbs to the steps, and the object of the passage is to shew that the bringing did not take it out of the genus receiving.

Things clean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to calculate a religious bath, the size of which is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "and he shall wash his flesh in water" (Lev. xv. 5, 6 sqq.), i.e., in the waters of a religious bath all his flesh, water into which his whole body shall enter. And what amount must they reach? Cubit upon cubit to the height of three cubits, and wise men have calculated the waters of a religious bath to be forty seahs.

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.

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.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

They asked Ben Zoma, Quid de castratione canis? He said to them, "Neither shall ye do thus in your land" (Lev. xxii. 24), meaning, All the things that are done in your land ye shall not do.

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.

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.

A member of the house of R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught thus, Holy Writ says, "And ye shall make proclamation," "and when ye reap" (Lev. xxiii. 21, 22). What is this Feast in which thou makest proclamation and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Feast of 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? And although this has been said already by R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, nevertheless what R. Eliezer ben Jacob said was necessary. If I had only the words of R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, I should say, As on the subsequent days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the doing of work is prohibited, so on the subsequent days of the Feast of Pentecost also the doing of work is prohibited.

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.

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.

They made him as one unclean through touching a dead animal. But regard it thus. Such an unclean thing will not make a man unclean by touching him. Perhaps it will not, you will say. But then to what purpose is the Baraitha, viz., He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Or was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man? If so, this would require the purifications of the third and seventh days. To what purpose is the Baraitha, He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Dipping, yes; but the purifications of the third and seventh days, no. But was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man on his seventh day? But lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., They absolutely refrain from making any new ordinance in the case of the heifer. But Abai said, They do not say that a spade makes unclean when used as a seat, according to the teaching, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel" (Lev. xv. 6). I might have thought, If he were to turn a two gallon measure upside down, and sit upon it, or a peck measure, and sit upon it, he would be unclean. But no; I should have been wrong, for the teaching says, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel, upon which there sitteth—" (ibid.), shall be unclean. But it must mean, that which is intended for sitting, and the other is excepted, for if he sit upon it, he will be told, Stand up and let us do our work.

The unclean in the fourth degree in the case of hallowed things is disqualified. There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose said, How is it in the case of the unclean in the fourth degree that in the matter of the hallowed things he is disqualified? But this depends on a logical argument. For look you, He who has entered on the last stage of his atonement, while he is free as regards heave-offering, is disqualified as regards hallowed things. Is it not just, seeing that a man who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards heave-offering, that he should become disqualified as regards hallowed things, if unclean in the fourth degree? But we have learned from the Law that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards hallowed things. And that he who is unclean in the fourth degree is so, we have learned, as above, by an a fortiori argument. Whence do we learn from the Law that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards hallowed things? Because it is written, "And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten" (Lev. vii. 19). Are we not here treating of the touching of a thing of secondary uncleanness? And the Merciful One says, It "shall not be eaten." That which is unclean in the fourth degree is proved to be disqualified by the a fortiori argument, as we have said.

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.