minimum

It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment from place to place. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Collecting bones {is} what it means. It was stated: There is no information about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: <what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners,> what is said in the row. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis <of Caesarea> are saying, eulogies.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rebbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such”. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Rebbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rebbi Jehudah agrees. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse, and after he had intercourse. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after.

MISHNAH: 4: ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father, or your father, or my brother, or your brother,’ he cannot dissolve. ‘According to your wish,’ he does not have to dissolve. Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve, maybe she works more than the required minimum. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he shall dissolve since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.

Rebbi Huna handed a document to Rebbi Shammai. Ὸγδοή- was on an erasure, -κοντα was not on an erasure. Rebbi Ḥuna told Rebbi Shammai, find out what is the minimum with which -κοντα is used. He went out and said, τριάκοντα. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20.

HALAKHAH: “One calls in the second [witness],” etc. Rams, the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That both be equal.

Sheep, the minimum of sheep are two. Why does the verse say two? That both be equal.

The minimum of birds are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal. The minimum of trumpets are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

The minimum of birds are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal. The minimum of trumpets are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yasa. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge and may not be a witness.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about testimony,” etc. Rams, the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That they be equal.

Sheep, the minimum of sheep are two. Then why does the verse say two? That both be equal.

The minimum of birds are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

The minimum of trumpets are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal.

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men shall stand? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against a married woman. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left. Since there one speaks of men but not women nor underaged, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge; consequently a woman may not be a witness.

Also, according to thy reason, is a minor under the obligation [to say Grace] ? Nay, with what case are we here dealing ? With one who, for instance, has eaten the minimum quantity ordained by the Rabbis [as making the saying of Grace necessary] ; and thus one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to say Grace] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Rabbis.

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.

Our Rabbis have taught: When one is about to enter a privy, he should divest himself of the Tefillin at a [minimum] distance of four cubits and then enter, Rab Aha b. Rab Huna said in the name of Rab Sheshet: This teaching applies only to a regular privy, but with an occasional one, he may divest himself [of the Tefillin] and at once proceed to relieve himself; and when he comes out, he walks a distance of four cubits and relays them, because he has [by his use thereof] made it a regular privy.

There is a further teaching : When one is about to enter a regular privy, he divests himself of the Tefillin at a [minimum] distance of four cubits, leaves them on the window-sill which is near the public road, and then enters. When he comes out, he walks a distance of four cubits and relays them. These are the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel declare that he may hold them in his hand and enter. R. 'Akiba says : He holds them in his garment and enters.

the minimum quantity is wanting?"

He replied, "Dost thou think that the quantity equivalent to a large olive is necessary [to constitute the minimum] ? About the size of an average olive is sufficient ; and there was that quantity, because the olive which they brought to R. Johanan was of a large size, so that although the stone was removed, the minimum still remained."

He replied, "Dost thou think that the quantity equivalent to a large olive is necessary [to constitute the minimum] ? About the size of an average olive is sufficient ; and there was that quantity, because the olive which they brought to R. Johanan was of a large size, so that although the stone was removed, the minimum still remained."

For there is a Mishnaic teaching : The olive which they mention [as constituting the minimum] is neither small nor large but an average size, viz. : the kind called Egori. R. Abbahu said : Its name is not Egori but Ibroti; and some say Simrosi. Why is it called Egori ? Because its oil is stored up [agur] within it.

R. Jannai said in the name of Rab : Any food [whose minimum standard is the size of] an egg, the egg is superior to it [as nourishment]. When Rabin came he said : Better is a light-roasted egg than six measures of fine flour. When Rab Dimai came he said: Better is a light-roasted egg than six [measures of fine flour] and a hard-baked egg than four. Of a boiled egg [it is said], any food [whose minimum is the size of] an egg, the egg is superior to it [as nourishment] with the exception of meat.

R. Jannai said in the name of Rab : Any food [whose minimum standard is the size of] an egg, the egg is superior to it [as nourishment]. When Rabin came he said : Better is a light-roasted egg than six measures of fine flour. When Rab Dimai came he said: Better is a light-roasted egg than six [measures of fine flour] and a hard-baked egg than four. Of a boiled egg [it is said], any food [whose minimum is the size of] an egg, the egg is superior to it [as nourishment] with the exception of meat.

R. Johanan said: The statement must be reversed. Abbai said : There is certainly no necessity to reverse it ; for here they differ in the interpretation of Scripture : R. Meir holds, "And thou shalt eat" (Deut. viii. 10) — i.e. eating; "and thou shalt be satisfied" — i.e. drinking ; and "eating" means the minimum quantity of the size of an olive. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied" — i.e. eating wherein is some satisfaction; and what is that? That is the minimum quantity of the size of an egg.

R. Johanan said: The statement must be reversed. Abbai said : There is certainly no necessity to reverse it ; for here they differ in the interpretation of Scripture : R. Meir holds, "And thou shalt eat" (Deut. viii. 10) — i.e. eating; "and thou shalt be satisfied" — i.e. drinking ; and "eating" means the minimum quantity of the size of an olive. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied" — i.e. eating wherein is some satisfaction; and what is that? That is the minimum quantity of the size of an egg.

But in the other case, they differ in reasoning; R. Meir holds that his return must be equal to his defilement — as his defilement is only possible by means of something of the minimum size of an egg, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an egg. R. Judah, however, holds that his return must be equal to his prohibition — as his prohibition is with something of the minimum size of an olive, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an olive.

But in the other case, they differ in reasoning; R. Meir holds that his return must be equal to his defilement — as his defilement is only possible by means of something of the minimum size of an egg, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an egg. R. Judah, however, holds that his return must be equal to his prohibition — as his prohibition is with something of the minimum size of an olive, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an olive.

But in the other case, they differ in reasoning; R. Meir holds that his return must be equal to his defilement — as his defilement is only possible by means of something of the minimum size of an egg, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an egg. R. Judah, however, holds that his return must be equal to his prohibition — as his prohibition is with something of the minimum size of an olive, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an olive.

But in the other case, they differ in reasoning; R. Meir holds that his return must be equal to his defilement — as his defilement is only possible by means of something of the minimum size of an egg, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an egg. R. Judah, however, holds that his return must be equal to his prohibition — as his prohibition is with something of the minimum size of an olive, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an olive.

It is understandable that R. Yoshia disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Chanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof];

It is understandable that R. Yoshia disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Chanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof];

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

[A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and he built a platform inside of it against the middle wall, along its entire length, and it contains [the minimum area of] a valid sukkah: It is valid.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

But are not the laws relating to minimum measures from the Torah since it is written, "A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive-trees and honey, (Deuteronomy 8:8) And R. Hanin stated that all this verse was said in allusion to the prescribed minimum measures.

But are not the laws relating to minimum measures from the Torah since it is written, "A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive-trees and honey, (Deuteronomy 8:8) And R. Hanin stated that all this verse was said in allusion to the prescribed minimum measures.

‘Vines’ [are an allusion to] the quarter of a log of wine [which is the minimum prohibited] to a Nazirite.

‘Fig-trees’ allude to the size of a dry fig [which is the minimum measurement for transgressing the law against] carrying out [food] on Shabbat.

"A land of olive-oil" [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minimum] standards [for mandated and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean all minimum measures? But aren't there those which we have just mentioned? Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minimum] measures are the bulk of an olive....

"A land of olive-oil" [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minimum] standards [for mandated and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean all minimum measures? But aren't there those which we have just mentioned? Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minimum] measures are the bulk of an olive....

"A land of olive-oil" [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minimum] standards [for mandated and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean all minimum measures? But aren't there those which we have just mentioned? Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minimum] measures are the bulk of an olive....

‘Honey’ alludes to the size of a large date, [which is the minimum size forbidden] on Yom Kippur.

Therefor [the minimum measures] are clearly from the Torah. Do you then imagine that measures were actually written in the Torah? Rather, they are traditions and the verse is merely a support.

two [walls at least] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished [the prescribed minimum of] the third, reducing it to only one handbreadth.

R. Shimon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative’. The word Sukkoth is read three times, which equals six [references]. Deduct one Scriptural reference for the law itself and four remain; three walls at least of prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished the [prescribed minimum of the] fourth and reduced it to a handbreadth.

R. Huna replied: A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Ammi b. Tavyomi: Matting of rushes or straw, its remnants, even if diminished from the minimum measure, may not be used for skhakh.

What does he inform us? — He informs us this: That the minimum extent of a small sukkah is seven [handbreadths].

He answered, he reason there is not because the measures are equal, but because there is not the [minimum] size of a sukkah remaining.

And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness].

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah, one wall of which continues with them. What might one have said? That it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].

Come and hear, "The minimum size of an Etrog: Rabbi Meir says, 'Like a walnut;' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Like an egg.'" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it is not fully ripened [and is not considered a complete Etrog].

Here [ie. in the Mishnah], we are dealing with a worshipped tree [from the days] of Moses, for [it must be burnt, and therefore it is treated as ashes, and so] its size is crushed [to below the minimum size of a Lulav. The worshipped tree of Rava is a tree worshipped after the days of Moses, which does not need to be burnt].

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

Come and hear: [We have learned: the [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four Is this not including the leaves? No, excluding the leaves.

The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

If from an asherah or from a condemned city, it is invalid. What is the reason? Since it is condemned to be burned, [it is considered as though] its minimum size is destroyed. If from orlah, it is invalid.

Split, pierced: Ulla b. Hanina taught: If it is completely perforated [it is invalid even if the hole is] of the smallest size; if it is not completely perforated [the hole must be of the minimum size] of an issar.

The minimum size of an etrog: Rafram b. Papa said: As is the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded pebbles. For it has been taught, It is permitted on Shabbat to carry three rounded smooth pebbles into [a field] lavatory. And what must be their size? R. Meir ruled, The size of a nut, R. Judah ruled, That of an egg.

R. Ami said: The aravah must have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and one does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav. Since the Master said: It must be taken separately only is it not obvious that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav?

What is its minimum measure? R. Nahman said: Three fresh twigs with leaves. But R. Sheshet said: Even one leaf and one twig. One leaf and one twig! Could you really think such a thing? Rather say: Even one leaf on one twig.

GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it has been taught: R. Judah ruled, The minimum number of blasts is seven, and the maximum sixteen. What is the basis of their dispute? R. Judah holds that tekiah, teruah and tekia are counted as one, whereas the Rabbis hold that the tekiah and the teruah are separate and distinct notes.

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.

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? etc.: Rav Bibi said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, The dispute only concerns wheat kernels, but with regard to flour everyone agrees that the minimum is a k'zias [an olive's volume]. But Rebbi Yirmiya said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, just as there is a dispute by this [wheat], so is there a dispute by this [flour].