mishnah

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

But is this so? But did not Rava say, Scripture and Mishnah [should be studied] in the Sukkah, but reciting outside the Sukkah? There is no difficulty, One refers to reciting, one refers to examination.

Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid; [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.

Gemara: The mishnah states the law clearly. It does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the first day of the holiday, and it does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the second day of the holiday.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

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].

We can also infer this [from the Mishnah], for like it is taught, it is similar to a wayward city [which must be destroyed].

(Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.

Mishnah. A stolen or withered aravah is invalid. One from an asherah or from a condemned city is invalid. One whose tip was broken off or whose leaves were detached, or a tzaftzefah is invalid. One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in rain-watered soil, is valid.

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of the mishnah]: if on its lesser part it is valid. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the etrog is as speckled and invalid. Rava said: And if it is on its nose, even the smallest rash, the etrog is invalid.

The Master has said: An Ethiopian etrog is invalid. But has it not been taught: If it is Ethiopian it is valid, if it is like an Ethiopian, it is invalid? Abaye answered, In our Mishnah also we learned of one that is like an Ethiopian. Raba answered, There is no difficulty. The former refers to us, the latter to them.

It was stated: An etrog which has been gnawed by mice: Rav said: It is not "goodly." Is this so? Did not R. Hanina taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? But isn't our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina?

It is well that our Mishnah is not a difficulty against R. Hanina since the former might refer to the first day of the Festival, while the latter might refer to the second day; but it is still a difficulty against Rav? Rav could answer you: Mice are different, since they are repulsive

There are those who say: Rav ruled that "goodly" since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an etrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]. But is not our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina? There is no contradiction since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day.

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

And this can also be learned from a precise reading of the mishnah which teaches: One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take. If you thought this referred to the first day of the Festival, is it permitted [to travel on that day]?

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?

What might you have thought? There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].

This is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.

This is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.

I can answer: For them also it does not override [Shabbat]. Does not then a contradiction arise between those two mishnayot, since one teaches “all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount,” and the other mishnah teaches... that they brought them] to the synagogue, and we answered, that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple? No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction

Mishnah: The sukkah is for seven days. How so? Once he finished eating [his meal on the seventh day], he should not untie his sukkah, but he removes its contents from the time of minhah and onward in honor of the last day of the festival.

They had each a hole like a slender snout [one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time]. Shall we say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah and not with the Rabbis as we have learned R. Judah stated, with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days; for if it agrees with the Rabbis, could they not both pour together?

This is also reasonable to say for if [our Mishnah went according to] R. Judah, [it should have used the terms] “wide” and “short” which he used; as it has been taught, R. Judah stated: There were two vessels there, one of water and one of wine, the mouth of the wine [vessel] was broad, and that of the water was strait, so that both should empty themselves together. This is conclusive.

As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, [save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber.] But why [bring the water in a non-sanctified vessel]? Let him bring it in a sanctified one? Zeiri said: [The author of our Mishnah] is of the opinion that no fixed amount has been prescribed for the water [of libation] and that the ministering vessels sanctify their contents even if there was no intention

If it was poured away or uncovered, [he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.] But why? Let him filter it through a strainer? Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught, [Liquid that has passed through] a strainer is forbidden under the law of uncovering. R. Nehemiah said: When does this apply? Only when the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but when the receptacle underneath is covered, even although the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovering does not apply, since the venom of a serpent is like a fungus which floats on the surface and remains where it is

Mishnah: The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day.

Mishnah: They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life 1) At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat Nashim) and they would make there a great enactment. 2) And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls. 1) From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps. 2) And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.

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.

On the eve of Shabbat during the intermediate days of the festival etc. But [the sounding of the shofar] on the tenth step is not mentioned. Who is in agreement with our Mishnah? It is in agreement with that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, for it has been taught: Three blasts on the tenth step. R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, Three at the altar.

It was necessary to teach the instance of the eve Shabbat during Hol Hamoed in order to teach us that the law is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Did he say let it teach one case instead of the other? [The question in fact was] let this one and that one be taught? [The Tanna of our Mishnah] might mentioned some and omitted others. But what else did he omit to justify this omission also?

But did you not say that the earlier part of our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? Is it not possible that our Tanna agrees with R. Judah on one point though he disagrees with him on another point?

[Our Mishnah] mentioned only those which recur every year, but the eve of the Pesah which falls on the Sabbath, since it does not occur every year, it did not teach. Does then erev Shabbat during the Festival of Sukkot occur every year? Sometimes it does not happen at all, and when is this so, for instance, the first day of the Festival coincides with the eve of Shabbat?

Mishnah. On the first festival day of Sukkot there were thirteen bulls, two rams and one goat. Fourteen lambs remained for the other eight priestly watches. 1) On the first day, six [watches] offered two each and the remaining [two] one each.

Gemara. Shall we say that our mishnah represents the view of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], and not that of the other rabbis, since it has been taught: For the bull which is offered on the Eighth Day lots are cast as at first,the words of Rabbi. But the sages say: One of the two watches which did not have a third turn in the bulls offered it.

Mishnah: 1. When should one begin to mention "the Power of rain?" R. Eliezer says, on the first day of the feast of Tabernacles; R. Joshua says, on the last day of that festival. Said R. Joshua: Since rain during the festival is but a sign of divine displeasure, why should one make mention of it (in his prayer)? "Indeed," replied R. Eliezer, "I did not say that one should pray for rain but that he should merely mention it with the words, 'He causeth the wind to blow and the rain to fall in its season.'" "If so," said R. Joshua, "one ought to be mentioning it all the time."

The Tanna bases himself on a Mishnah (Berakot, 33a), which teaches: The Power of rain should be mentioned in the prayer for the resurrection of the dead; rain should be prayed for in connection with the prayer for a prosperous year; and the Habdalah should be inserted in the prayer for the granting of wisdom. In view of this Mishnah, the Tanna now informs us regarding the time at which we should begin to mention the Power of rain.

The Tanna bases himself on a Mishnah (Berakot, 33a), which teaches: The Power of rain should be mentioned in the prayer for the resurrection of the dead; rain should be prayed for in connection with the prayer for a prosperous year; and the Habdalah should be inserted in the prayer for the granting of wisdom. In view of this Mishnah, the Tanna now informs us regarding the time at which we should begin to mention the Power of rain.

The proper explanation, then, is that our Mishnah is intended as a continuation of the one in the tractate Rosh ha-Shanah, where it is taught: In the feast of Tabernacles the world is judged as to whether it should have rain. In connection with this teaching he informs us here at what time we should begin to mention the Power of rain.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

It was said above: R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua. Which R. Joshua is here meant? Is it R. Joshua (b. Hananiah) who is named above in our Mishnah? If so, you will meet with the difficulty that he said: (we begin to mention the rain) "on the last day of the festival;" or is it the R. Joshua who is named above in the Baraita? He said: (we begin to mention rain) "at the time the lulab is discarded." Moreover, when we read in our Mishnah: R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark on the concluding day of the festival, the last should mention the rain, but the first one should not, the question again arises which Ben Bathyra is there referred to? Is it R. Judah b. Bathyra? He said (in the Baraita): "We begin to mention the rain on the second day of the festival!" Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Both designations, "R. Joshua" and "Ben Bathyra," refer to R. Joshua b. Bathyra, for he was sometimes quoted by the name of his father and sometimes by his own name. What was the reason therefor?—In the first form he was quoted before he had been ordained and in the latter after his ordination.

It was said above: R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua. Which R. Joshua is here meant? Is it R. Joshua (b. Hananiah) who is named above in our Mishnah? If so, you will meet with the difficulty that he said: (we begin to mention the rain) "on the last day of the festival;" or is it the R. Joshua who is named above in the Baraita? He said: (we begin to mention rain) "at the time the lulab is discarded." Moreover, when we read in our Mishnah: R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark on the concluding day of the festival, the last should mention the rain, but the first one should not, the question again arises which Ben Bathyra is there referred to? Is it R. Judah b. Bathyra? He said (in the Baraita): "We begin to mention the rain on the second day of the festival!" Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Both designations, "R. Joshua" and "Ben Bathyra," refer to R. Joshua b. Bathyra, for he was sometimes quoted by the name of his father and sometimes by his own name. What was the reason therefor?—In the first form he was quoted before he had been ordained and in the latter after his ordination.

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

R. Judah 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.

'Amemar transmits the statement of R. Ḥisda as referring to the Mishnah (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain, R. Gamaliel says, on the seventh of that month. Hereupon R. Ḥisda remarked: The law follows R. Gamaliel.

in a Mishnah (Nedarim, 62b): If one sets the rainfall as the time limit to a vow, he must keep his vow until the appearance of the second rainfall. R. Zebid said: It is of importance with reference to olives, for we read (Peah, 8.1): From what time on is everybody free to take the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field? From the time the Gropers have gone. Fallen single grapes and small bunches of grapes may be taken from the time the poor have searched the place more than once. Olives may be taken after the second rainfall.

The statement that fasting by hours counts holds good only when the person in question did not taste any food during the whole day. Said Abbayi to him. Is not such a fast a complete one?! The statement of R. Ḥisda refers to one who only late in the day made up his mind to fast until evening. R. Ḥisda further said: A fast upon which the sun did not set does not deserve the name of fast. An objection was raised thereto from the Mishnah (below, p. 105): "The 'priests of the guard' fast, but not to the end of the day!" Answer. There they do it merely for the purpose of undergoing some suffering.

Said Rafrem b. Papa in the name of R. Ḥisda: On every fast which was decreed for the sake of mourning, like the Ninth of Ab and the fast of a mourner, both warm and cold baths are forbidden; but on fasts which were decreed merely to prevent indulgence in pleasure, like the communal fast, warm, but not cold, baths are forbidden. Said R. 'Idi b. 'Abin, we indeed, read in the Mishnah: "the bath-houses must be closed." Said 'Abbayi to him: Suppose the Mishnah had meant to forbid also cold baths, how should it then have expressed itself? Should it have read: "the rivers must be stopped"? Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, my father (in making his statement) felt this difficulty: Inasmuch as the Mishnah had said that bathing is forbidden, what was the idea of adding that the bath-houses must be closed? Does this not indicate that only warm baths are forbidden, while cold baths are allowed? It stands proved.

Said Rafrem b. Papa in the name of R. Ḥisda: On every fast which was decreed for the sake of mourning, like the Ninth of Ab and the fast of a mourner, both warm and cold baths are forbidden; but on fasts which were decreed merely to prevent indulgence in pleasure, like the communal fast, warm, but not cold, baths are forbidden. Said R. 'Idi b. 'Abin, we indeed, read in the Mishnah: "the bath-houses must be closed." Said 'Abbayi to him: Suppose the Mishnah had meant to forbid also cold baths, how should it then have expressed itself? Should it have read: "the rivers must be stopped"? Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, my father (in making his statement) felt this difficulty: Inasmuch as the Mishnah had said that bathing is forbidden, what was the idea of adding that the bath-houses must be closed? Does this not indicate that only warm baths are forbidden, while cold baths are allowed? It stands proved.

Said Rafrem b. Papa in the name of R. Ḥisda: On every fast which was decreed for the sake of mourning, like the Ninth of Ab and the fast of a mourner, both warm and cold baths are forbidden; but on fasts which were decreed merely to prevent indulgence in pleasure, like the communal fast, warm, but not cold, baths are forbidden. Said R. 'Idi b. 'Abin, we indeed, read in the Mishnah: "the bath-houses must be closed." Said 'Abbayi to him: Suppose the Mishnah had meant to forbid also cold baths, how should it then have expressed itself? Should it have read: "the rivers must be stopped"? Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, my father (in making his statement) felt this difficulty: Inasmuch as the Mishnah had said that bathing is forbidden, what was the idea of adding that the bath-houses must be closed? Does this not indicate that only warm baths are forbidden, while cold baths are allowed? It stands proved.

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.

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.

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 what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

In what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.

The question was raised: What does this Mishnah teach? Does it mean to say that on Thursdays we leave the doors slightly open all day, or that we may keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath? Come and hear: A Baraita states: on Mondays toward evening we leave the doors slightly open, but on Thursdays we keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath; if the shop has two doors, one only should be opened and the other closed; if the owner had a stand before the door, he may open and close the latter as he pleases.

Mishnah: 1. What is the order of procedure on the (last seven) fast days? The ark is carried out into the open place of the town and wood-ashes are strewn upon it, upon the head of the Nasi, and the head of the Ab Bet Din, and every one present takes some of it and puts upon his own head. The Elder among them addresses them in words of exhortation, saying: Brethren: Of the people of Nineveh it is not said: And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting, but (Jonah, 3. 10): "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way," and in the Prophets it is said (Joel, 2. 13): "And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and repenteth Him of the evil."

Gemara: What is the order of procedure on the fast days? The ark is carried out, etc. Does this order of procedure apply also to the first six fasts? This would contradict a Baraita which reads: On the first three and the second three fast days the people go to the synagogue and pray in the same way as they do during the whole year, but on the seven last fast days the ark is carried into the open place of the town and ashes are strewn on it (on the head of the Nasi, and on the head of the Ab Bet Din, and everyone else takes ashes and puts on his head; R. Nathan said, it was wood-ashes that were used)! Said R. Papa: Our Mishnah also has reference to the last seven fasts only.

When they stand up for prayer, they place before the ark an old and experienced man, etc. The Rabbis have taught: When they stand up for prayer, even if there is among them an elder and a scholar, they send to the ark only one who is experienced; R. Judah said, they send up one who toils without success, who has his labor invested in the field, and whose house is empty; an elderly person whose youth was spent decently, who is modest and agreeable to the people, who knows how to chant and has a sweet voice; one who is well versed in the Scriptures, the Mishnah, the Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot and in all the prayers. The Rabbis (after this description) fixed their eyes upon R. Isaac of the school of R. 'Ami.

He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, namely, the eighteen that are read every day, to which he adds six more. You say six, are they not seven, as we read in the Mishnah: "The seventh he closes thus"? Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Do you know what "seventh" means? It means the seventh of the longer benedictions, as it is stated in a Baraita: The reader must prolong the benediction: "Redeemer of Israel" and, in closing it, he is to say: "He who answered Abraham our ancestor on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel"; the congregation responds: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Blow, ye priests, blow! He who answered our fathers on the Red Sea, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who rememberest things forgotten!" The congregation answers: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same order was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in one case he would say "blow!" and in the other "sound the alarm!" However, the rule (of responding Amen) applies only to services in the country, but in the Sanctuary it was not so, because it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary. Whence do we know that they did not respond Amen in the Sanctuary? It is said (Nehem., 9. 5): "Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting; and let them say: 'Blessed be Thy glorious Name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise.'" One might think that after all the benedictions there was one doxology, Scripture therefore says: "exalted above all blessing," which means to say: Give praise after each blessing (benediction). What then was said in the Sanctuary? The reader said: "Blessed is the Lord, Our God, the God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel," to which the congregation responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Blow, ye priests, blow!" whereupon the reader again said: "He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou who rememberest things forgotten," to which they responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same procedure was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in connection with the one he would say "blow!" and with the other, "sound the alarm!" until he had finished them all. This procedure was introduced also by R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and by R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin, but when the matter came before the other Sages they said, this was customary only before the Eastern Gates and on the Temple Mount.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

Mishnah: 1. The order of these fasts, as given above, applies only to (a drought) during the first season, but if the sprouts show signs of decay, the alarm must be sounded at once. And if there was absence of rain for forty days between the first and second rainfall, the alarm is likewise sounded at once, because this is a calamity of drought.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

It happened that certain elders, as they travelled from Jerusalem to their home cities, etc. The question was raised: Does the Mishnah mean a quantity of grain sufficient to fill an oven, or a quantity of grain sufficient to fill an oven with bread? Come and hear: A Baraita teaches, "A quantity sufficient to close the opening of an oven" (which can refer only to loaves of bread). The question still remains whether this means as many loaves as would cover the opening (on top) of the oven or a row of loaves reaching up to the opening of the oven? This remains undecided.

were confined to the Section Neziḳin (Damages), while our studies embrace much more; when R. Judah reached in his studies the Mishnah (Ṭeharot, II, 1): 'If a woman was pressing vegetables in a pot,' or, as some say, the Mishnah ('Uḳḳaẓin, II, 1): 'Olives which have been pressed with their leaves are clean,' he would say: 'I see here problems as difficult as the discussions of Rab and Samuel,' while we to-day teach the tractate 'Uḳḳaẓin in thirteen different recensions. [And yet when R. Judah took off one of his shoes rain fell, while we cry (for rain) the whole day and nobody heeds us! Should it be because of our conduct—if there is anybody who has noticed anything wrong, let him testify against me.] However, what can the leaders do when the generation does not appear good enough in the eyes of God!"

were confined to the Section Neziḳin (Damages), while our studies embrace much more; when R. Judah reached in his studies the Mishnah (Ṭeharot, II, 1): 'If a woman was pressing vegetables in a pot,' or, as some say, the Mishnah ('Uḳḳaẓin, II, 1): 'Olives which have been pressed with their leaves are clean,' he would say: 'I see here problems as difficult as the discussions of Rab and Samuel,' while we to-day teach the tractate 'Uḳḳaẓin in thirteen different recensions. [And yet when R. Judah took off one of his shoes rain fell, while we cry (for rain) the whole day and nobody heeds us! Should it be because of our conduct—if there is anybody who has noticed anything wrong, let him testify against me.] However, what can the leaders do when the generation does not appear good enough in the eyes of God!"

R. Ḥanina b. Dosa once travelled on the road, when it began to rain. Said he: "Master of the world! The whole world is at ease, but Ḥanina alone is in distress!" The rain stopped. When he came home, he said again: "Master of the world! The whole world is in distress, while Ḥanina alone is at ease!" The rain came again. Said R. Joseph, what good did the prayer of the high priest do if R. Ḥanina could make it to naught? For we read in a Mishnah that the high priest used to recite a short prayer in the outer hall. What was the prayer? R. 'Abin b. R. 'Adda and Raba b. R. 'Adda said, both in the name of R. Judah, the prayer ran thus: "May it be Thy will, Lord our God, that this year be one of heat and rain." Is a hot year of any benefit? On the contrary, it is a calamity! But the prayer read thus: "If the year is to be hot, let it also be blessed with ample rain, and may the prayers of travellers find no hearing before Thee." R. Aḥa the son of Raba reported in the name of R. Judah the following conclusion (of the prayer): "May the rulership never depart from the house of Judah and may Thy people Israel never be in need of supporting one another or of assistance from other people."

R. Judah Nesiah (Patriarch) ordered a fast, and rain came after sunrise. He then thought to finish the fast, but R. 'Ami said to him, in our Mishnah we read about "forenoon" and "afternoon."

Mishnah: 1. At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands (in blessing the people) four times during the day—namely, during the morning, the Musaf, the Minḥah, and the Ne'ilah prayers:—on public fast days, on the fast days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement.

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

Why does the Mishnah not say also that on the first of Nisan there was no Ma'amad service, because on that day there was the recital of Hallel, a Musaf and a wood offering? Said Raba, this omission proves that the recital of Hallel on New Moon is not a biblical ordinance, for thus said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: On eighteen days of the year the whole Hallel is recited, namely, on the eight days of the Feast of Booths, the eight days of Ḥanukkah, the first day of Passover, and on Pentecost; in the Diaspora, however, Hallel is recited on twenty-one days: nine days of the Feast of Booths, eight days of Ḥanukkah, the (first) two Days of Passover, and the two days of Pentecost.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.