mishnaic

There are two Tannaim in the sense of R. Eliezer. Or if thou wilt, I can say that the first part of the Mishnaic statement is not R. Eliezer's.

How does R. Nathan answer this argument? He agrees with the opinion of R. Joshua ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Joshua says : Until the third hour [in the day may the morning Shema' be read], for so is the custom of kings to rise at the third hour. Six hours of the night and two of the day make two watches.

for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Judah says : [One must cut] until he severs the jugular vein —

Rab Joseph said : If he acted in accordance with the view of Bet Shammai, he has done nothing at all. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : If the head and greater part of a man's body be in a Sukkah and his table inside his house, Bet Shammai pronounce it invalid, but Bet Hillel declare it valid.

Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one. It is evident that one who took a cup of wine, and thinking that it was beer, commenced saying the benediction on the supposition that it was beer, and then concluded the benediction for wine, has complied with the requirements of the law ; because even if he had said "[Blessed]... by Whose word all things exist," he would also have complied with the requirements of the law. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : [not translated.] If one has uttered the benediction "By Whose word all things exist" over any kind of liquor, he has fulfilled his obligation.

It is to be inferred that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is concerned lest a charge of presumption [be brought against a bridegroom who reads the Shema' on the first night of his marriage and therefore forbids it], whereas the Rabbis have no such concern [and permit it]. But we understood just the opposite of them ! For there is a Mishnaic teaching : In a place where they are accustomed to work on the ninth of Ab, we may work ; but in a place where they are not accustomed to work, we may not. Disciples of the wise must cease work in every place. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Everyone should regard himself as a disciple of the wise.

"Who talks after the bier of disciples of the wise" ; where is this to be found ? There is a Mishnaic teaching : ['Akabya b. Mahalalel] used to say : We may not administer the waters of a woman suspected of adultery to a female proselyte or freed woman ; but the Sages say : We may do so. And they said to him, "It happened with Karkemit, a [handmaid] freed handmaid of Jerusalem, and Shemayah and Abtalion did administer the waters to her!" 'Akabya said to them, "It was for show that they made her drink." Thereupon the Sages excommunicated him and he died under the ban, and the Bet Din stoned his coffin.

"Whoever despises the washing of the hands" ; where is this found ? There is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Judah said : God forbid that we should suppose that 'Akabya b. Mahalalel was excommunicated, for the Temple-court was not locked upon any man of Israel equal to him in knowledge, purity and fear of sin. But who was it they excommunicated? It was Eleazar b. Hanok, because he made light of the washing of the hands ; and when he died the Bet Din sent and placed a large stone upon his coffin, to teach that whoever is excommunicated and dies under the ban, the Bet Din stones his coffin.

"Who acts arrogantly towards the Most High" ; where is this to be found? There is a Mishnaic teaching : Simeon b. Shetah sent to Honi Hamme'aggel : "Thou art deserving of excommunication, and wert thou not Honi, I would pronounce the ban against thee ; but what can I do seeing that thou art petulant with the Omnipresent, and nevertheless He fulfils thy desires as a father gratifies a petulant child ; and concerning thee the Scriptures state, 'Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore thee rejoice ' (Prov. xxiii. 25)." Is there no other instance [of arrogance towards God]?

Is there none in the Mishnah ? Yes, there is ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If one has cut [a portable earthenware oven] into layers and placed sand between each layer, R. Eliezer declares it clean, but the Sages declare it unclean ; and this is what is known as "the oven of the serpent."

But Tefillah is also a matter with which the Community is engaged, and there is a Mishnaic teaching: If he was standing in the Tefillah and recollected that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt [his prayer] but shorten it. The reason is because he had already commenced it ; hence, if he had not commenced it, he should not do so !

There is a Mishnaic teaching : A man with a running issue who has experienced emission, a menstruous woman from whom the semen has escaped and a woman who during intercourse experiences the menstrual flow require immersion ; but R. Judah exempts them therefrom.

And shouldest thou say that in fact R. Judah even exempts a mere Ba'al Keri, and the point of variance [between him and the Rabbis] is the man with a running issue who experienced emission, to show thee the extreme view taken by the Rabbis, I then quote the latter part of the Mishnaic teaching : "A woman who during intercourse experiences the menstrual flow requires immersion."

Abbai said : Whence do I derive my opinion ? For there is a Mishnaic teaching : If a ritually unclean person is standing under a tree and a person who is ritually clean passes by him, the latter also becomes defiled. If, however, a person ritually clean is standing under a tree and an unclean person passes by, the former remains in his state of purity; but should [the unclean person] remain standing there, then the former becomes unclean. The same law holds good with a stone which has become infected.

It has been taught : That same day 'Eduyyot was learnt, and wherever we find the phrase "on that day" it refers to that occasion. There was not a Halakah which had been left in a state of uncertainty in the House of Study which was not then made clear. Even Rabban Gamaliel did not absent himself from the House of Study. For there is a Mishnaic teaching:

He does not ? Behold there is a Mishnaic teaching : "Trust not in thyself until the day of thy death" ; and Johanan the High Priest held the Office of High Priest for eighty years and eventually became a Sadducee !

Rabbah b. Samuel objected : Let him, then, say the fourth benediction separately ! Have we not the Mishnaic teaching : R. 'Akiba says : One may say the fourth benediction by itself ; R. Eliezer says : [One can say the "Division"] in the benediction of thanksgiving?

GEMARA It is right that we silence him who says, "We give thanks, we give thanks," because he makes it appear as though there were two Powers; and likewise him who says, "For the good be Thy name remembered," the inference being that for the good [may it be remembered] but not for the bad ; and we have a Mishnaic teaching : A man is in duty bound to utter a benediction for the bad even as he utters one for the good. But why [do we silence him who says], "To a bird's nest do Thy mercies extend"?

Oil does not nourish ? Lo, there is a Mishnaic teaching : He who vows [to abstain] from food may partake of water and salt ! And we argue that water and salt are not called "food," but everything else is so called ; and we further say that this is a refutation of Rab and Samuel who maintain that

But [perhaps it is here meant that] he eats it together with bread. If so, the bread is the principal food and the oil is only accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter ! But [perhaps what is meant is] he drinks it with elaiogaron. (Rabbah b, Samuel said : Elaiogaron is the juice of beets ; oxygaron is the juice

If so, the elaiogaron is the principal thing and the oil an accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter !

in every case where men do not plant specifically to obtain that article of food, we do not pronounce the benediction over it? Lo, the caper-bush men plant for the purpose of the caper-blossom ; and we have a Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the various kinds of capers, over the leaves and young shoots one says "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but over the berries and buds "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" !

He speaks according to the view of R. 'Akiba ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Eliezer says : In the case of the caper-bush, we give tithe of the young shoots and the berries and buds ; R. 'Akiba says : We only give tithe of the berries because they are fruit.

Rabina found Mar b. Rab Ashe throwing away the berries and eating the caper-buds. He said to him : What is thy opinion — like R. 'Akiba's who takes the lenient view? Then let the master act in accord with Bet Shammai who take a still more lenient view. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the caper-bush. Bet Shammai say : It constitutes Kila'im in a vineyard ; but Bet Hillel say : It does not. Both, however, admit that it is subject to 'Orlah.

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

Abbai quoted in objection: The top-piece of a pomegranate is reckoned in but not the blossom; and since it is stated that the blossom is not reckoned in, conclude that it is not food. And we have a Mishnaic teaching with reference to 'Orlah : The skins of the pomegranate and its blossom, and the shells of nuts and the kernels are subject to 'Orlah !

Rab Nahman holds the same view as R. Jose ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Jose said : The grape-bud is forbidden because it is fruit ; but the Rabbis differ from him.

Rab Shimi of Nehardea asked : But do the Rabbis differ from him in the case of other trees? For lo, there is a Mishnaic teaching : From what time must we cease cutting down the trees in the seventh year? Bet Shammai say : All trees, as soon as they produce fruit. Bet Hillel say : Carob trees when they begin to form chains, vines when they form globules, olive-trees when they bloom, and all other trees when they produce fruit.

According to whom is this ? According to the Tanna of the following Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the honey of the date-palm, cider, the vinegar of winter-grapes and other fruit-juices which are brought as an offering, [if a non-priest in error partake thereof] R. Eliezer condemns him to pay the value plus a fifth; but R. Joshua exempts him.

Abbai said to him : Art thou not of the opinion [that it is permitted to compound a remedy on the Sabbath] ? Lo, there is a Mishnaic teaching : All foods may be eaten as a remedy, and likewise all liquids may be drunk ! What is there for thee to say? The man intended it as a food [and therefore it may be prepared on the Sabbath] ; so here also [in the case of the Shattit] the man intended it as a food.

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.

Where there is a priest present, there is no difference of opinion that what is of greater value is to be preferred, the disagreement arising where there is no priest. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : Wherever there is a priest present, the Terumah is to be taken from the best, but where there is no priest, it is to be taken from that which is most durable ; R. Judah says : It is only to be taken from the best.

GEMARA Who is it that teaches that the main feature about the tree is the earth? Rab Nahman b. Isaac said: It is R. Judah ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching: If the water-supply dried up or the tree was cut down, one brings [the first-fruits to Jerusalem] but does not make the declaration. R. Judah says: He both brings [the first-fruits] and makes the declaration.

Nay, everybody agrees that nobelot without further qualification means "Fruit scorched by the sun"; where they differ is with reference to nobelot temarah. For there is a Mishnaic teaching: Those fruits with which, in case of doubt as to the tithe, the law deals leniently are: Shitin, Rimin, 'Uzradin, Benot Shuah, Benot Shikmah, Gofnin, Nispah and Nobelot Temarah.

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

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

"Wheat" — for there is a Mishnaic teaching : Whoever enters a plague-infected house with his garments upon his shoulders, his sandals and rings in his hand, he and they immediately become unclean. If he was clothed in his garments, his sandals upon his feet and his rings upon his finger, he immediately becomes un-clean, but they remain undefiled until he tarries there a sufficient time to eat a peras of wheaten-bread, but not barley-bread, reclining and eating it with a relish.

"Barley" — for there is a Mishnaic teaching : The bone [of a dead person or animal] the size of barley defiles by touch and carrying, but does not defile in a tent.

"Vine" — it requires a fourth [of a Log] of wine for a Nazirite. "Fig-tree" — to carry as much as a dried fig [from a private to a public court or vice versa] constitutes a breach of the Sabbath. "Pomegranate" — as we have the Mishnaic teaching : The vessels of house-owners

We have a Mishnaic teaching : Everything that requires a benediction after it requires one before it ; but there are things which require a benediction before but not after. This is quite right for Rab Isaac b. Abdemi, since it is to exclude vegetables, and for R.Isaac to exclude water ; but for Rab Pappa what is it to exclude ?

There is, however, the Mishnaic teaching : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun — three, yes ; two, no !

One who has eaten Demai, etc. But he had no right [to eat it] ! If he so choose, he can renounce his possessions and become a poor man, and then he would have the right [to eat it] ; for we have a Mishnaic teaching : We may feed the poor and soldiers on Demai. But Rab Huna has said : It has been taught : Bet Shammai declare that we may not feed the poor and soldiers on Demai.

But lo, there is our Mishnaic teaching : Women, slaves and minors may not be included!

That is to say, R. Meir considers it to be the size of an olive and R. Judah the size of an egg. But we have been told the reverse ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : And so, he who went from Jerusalem and recalled that he had with him holy flesh , if he has passed Sofim, he burns it where he is ; but if not, he turns back and burns it before the Temple with some of the wood piled on the altar.

But there is our Mishnaic teaching : With three and himself, he says "Bless ye"!

Raba said : Whence do I state this? For we have the Mishnaic teaching : A [defiled] couch, half of which has been stolen or lost or has been divided between brothers or partners, becomes clean; but if it is restored, it can from that time onwards contract defilement.

The teaching above refers to old wine ; according to the Mishnaic teaching : [If one says] "I vow to abstain from wine because it is injurious to the bowels," and they tell him "But is not old wine beneficial for the bowels ?" and he remains silent, then he is forbidden to drink new wine but is permitted to drink of the old. Draw that inference.

We are dealing here with a vessel whose exterior has been defiled by liquid, that is to say whose interior is ritually clean but the exterior unclean ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If a vessel's exterior has been defiled by liquid, the exterior is unclean

"So the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife" — a disciple with whom his master is the first and second time angry but he remains silent [under the rebuke] is worthy to distinguish between suits involving money and suits involving life. For there is a Mishnaic teaching: R. Ishmael says : Who wishes to grow wise should study money-suits, for there is no branch of Torah more [complex] than these ; they are like a well.