mentions

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: in error, a sacrifice; intentional, a sacrifice. But if he said, I was of the opinion that this oath does not exist, he is free. Ḥizqiah stated: At any place where the Torah mentions sin without attribute you include intentional equally with unintentional unless Scripture inform you that it is unintentional.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Eleazar, only if he mentioned “oath” at the start and at the end. The words of the Sages, if he mentioned “oath” at the start but not at the end. Or if he mentioned it at the end but not at the start in the opinion of the rabbis he brings a sacrifice for each single one, in Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion he brings one sacrifice for everything. If he mentions “oath” at the start but did not mention it at the end, does the oath fall on the middle ones? Come and see: If he had mentioned it at the start and the end, did he mention it for the middle ones? But you are saying that it is valid; so here it is valid.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Rab Joseph retorted : [Samuel mentions] his wife, but is it not the more necessary to mention [the case when he is with] somebody else? For on the contrary, his wife is like part of himself, whereas another is not like part of himself!

R. Hiyya taught : Bread made into Kuttah is exempt from Hallah. But there is a teaching ; It is subject to Hallah ! Yes, but there it mentions the reason, viz. : R. Judah says : The way they are made decides.

Rab Huna could tell thee: I am even in agreement with R. Meir ; for R. Meir only speaks above of a case where one mentions the name of bread, but where he does not mention the name of bread, even R. Meir admits [that the man's words do not constitute a valid benediction].

It is quite right according to him who maintains it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind" — then that is why he mentions here [in our Mishnah] nobelot without further specification and there [in the Mishnaic quotation] he calls it [nobelot] temarah. But according to him who says [nobelot temarah] means "Fruit scorched by the sun," let him teach in both passages either nobelot temarah or nobelot without further specification ! The question [remains unanswered].

Strictly speaking, even "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" does not require one ; but since it mentions the kingdom of the house of David, it is not proper to omit a reference to the [Divine] Kingship. Rab Pappa said : This is what R. Zera meant to say: It requires two references to Kingship besides the one for its own sake.

But it mentions above thanksgiving and praise ! It has been taught : For Lot and his wife we say two benedictions — for his wife one says, "Blessed be the true Judge" ; and for Lot one says, "Blessed... Who rememberest the righteous." R. Johanan said : Even at the time of His wrath, the Holy One, blessed be He, remembers the righteous ; as it is said, "And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow" (Gen. xix. 29).

Gemara. R. Hisda stated: [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]? One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.

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.

Some say that R. Abahu had a tradition for this statement; others maintain that he had a Baraita as his authority. What Baraita? The Baraita reads as follows: At what time should one begin to mention the Power of rain? R. Eliezer says: At the time one begins to wave the lulab; R. Joshua says: At the time when it is discarded. Said R. Eliezer: Inasmuch as the Four Species are used only in order to obtain the favor of God that He may give rain, one must argue that just as these four species cannot exist without water, so the world cannot exist without rain. R. Joshua replied: Is not rain during the feast of Tabernacles but the sign of divine displeasure? Said R. Eliezer, I did not say that one should pray for rain, but that one should make mention of it. For just as one mentions the resurrection of the dead throughout the year, although it is to take place at a particular time only, so one may mention also the rain during the whole year, although it is to fall only at a given time, and hence if one actually desires to mention it throughout the year, he may do so.

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

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

Said R. 'Ashi: The same view can be deduced from the text of our Mishnah, for it reads: "In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these (seven) fast days the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which shows that with respect to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike. If, however, you should say that here, too, the Mishnah mentions one difference and omits another, what will you do with the words of the Mishnah: "In what respect"? Answer: Do you think that the phrase "in what respect" is to be taken strictly? Did not the Mishnah omit mentioning the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Mishnah mentions it in the next chapter. Now that you have arrived at this point, you may just as well say that failing to mention the increase in the number of benedictions to twenty-four is no omission either, because the Mishnah speaks of it in the next chapter.

Said R. 'Ashi: The same view can be deduced from the text of our Mishnah, for it reads: "In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these (seven) fast days the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which shows that with respect to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike. If, however, you should say that here, too, the Mishnah mentions one difference and omits another, what will you do with the words of the Mishnah: "In what respect"? Answer: Do you think that the phrase "in what respect" is to be taken strictly? Did not the Mishnah omit mentioning the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Mishnah mentions it in the next chapter. Now that you have arrived at this point, you may just as well say that failing to mention the increase in the number of benedictions to twenty-four is no omission either, because the Mishnah speaks of it in the next chapter.

In a baraita it was stated If nothing is known about the character of a man or of his ancestors, and the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a praiseworthy action, as for instance, “The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah” (Zephaniah 1:1) we may know that he was a righteous man son of a righteous man; and wherever the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a reprehensible action, as for instance, “And it came to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael the son [of Netanel] son of Elishama came” (Jeremiah 41:1) we may know that he was a wicked man son of a wicked man.

In a baraita it was stated If nothing is known about the character of a man or of his ancestors, and the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a praiseworthy action, as for instance, “The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah” (Zephaniah 1:1) we may know that he was a righteous man son of a righteous man; and wherever the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a reprehensible action, as for instance, “And it came to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael the son [of Netanel] son of Elishama came” (Jeremiah 41:1) we may know that he was a wicked man son of a wicked man.

Rava says, If they [the two witnesses] saw the warner or the warner saw them, they combine. Rava says, This warner that we mentions can even be himself, and can even be a demon.