na

HALAKHAH: “Our head’s crown fell”; these are the grooms’ crowns, that is gilded woolen strips. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Of salt and sulfur. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Of salt and olives. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, even of willows. Rav Jeremiah of Šibšeb wore a crown of olive branches. Samuel heard this and said, it would have been better for him it he had been beheaded but not done this thing. That happened to him, as “an error coming from before the ruler.”

“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy. As the following: Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not elevate,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A complaint needs at least two [plaintiffs]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, how do we hold? If they elevated him on the testimony of one person, they should demote him on the testimony of one person. If they elevated him on the testimony of two persons, even if there are many [opposed] they should not demote him! Rebbi Ḥuna said, it follows the rabbis there. But following the rabbis here and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob, just as one elevates him on the testimony of two persons, one demotes him on the testimony of two persons.

Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rebbi Immi bar Pappai: Who owns the earnings of the daughter? They said to him, the diligent said, herself. Who is the diligent? Samuel! Rebbi Mattanah said, it was said in the name of Rebbi as explanation of a verse: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the earnings of the daughter. Rebbi Yudan said, the Mishnah says so: “Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected when the father died, belong to the brothers.” Anything she earned during her father’s lifetime. But what she earned after her father’s death according to everybody is hers.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and (Rebbi) Abime bar Pappai: What if there was no house? They said to him, the heirs rent a house for her. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs. As the following: A woman’s ketubah was twenty denars, and there was a house worth at most ten denars. The case came before Rebbi Ḥanina who said, either they give her a house or they give her twenty denars. Rebbi Mana said, since the house is not worth more than 20 it is as if her ketubah was only twenty. One concludes that if she says real estate and they say money, the law sides with the heirs.

“Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without their wives’ permission.” Therefore, with permission even longer. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He sent them to the Libanon, ten thousand per month.” Rebbi Abin said, the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred being fruitful and multiplying over the Temple. What is the reason? “One month they would be in Libanon, two months each in his house.” Rav said, “the one entering and the one leaving, month for month for all months of the year.”

HALAKHAH: “For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah”, etc. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three, has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated [that he is not obligated for] either šĕ‘ēr, or dress, or ‘onāh, he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rebbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male is greater than that of the female. That is what is written: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die”. He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted, since Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

HALAKHAH: “For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah”, etc. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three, has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated [that he is not obligated for] either šĕ‘ēr, or dress, or ‘onāh, he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rebbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male is greater than that of the female. That is what is written: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die”. He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted, since Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Ammi bar Pappai, who is the Tanna of “a tenth of the estate”? Rebbi Ze‘ura said to him in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A tenth of the estate following Rebbi. They asked before Rebbi: If there were ten daughters. Then if the first one took a tenth of the estate, the second took a tenth of the estate, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so on up to the tenth, there is nothing left for the son! He said to them: The first one takes a tenth of the estate and leaves; the second takes a tenth of the remainder, the third from what then is left, the fourth of what then is left, up to the tenth from what then is left. It turns out that the daughters take two thirds less a little, and the son takes one third plus a little.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I met an old man, smitten with boils, from Sepphoris. He told me, there are 24 kinds of boils; the worst one, and the one for which a woman is bad, is flowing boils. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: With the latter kind, the evil Pharao was smitten; that is what is written: “The Eternal smote Pharao and his house with great plagues,” etc. Rebbi Berekhia said: Because he dared to touch the matron’s body. There are 24 kinds of cedar, and from all of them the verse mentioned only seven. That is what is written: “I shall give in the desert cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil wood; I put in the prairie beroš, tidhar, and teaššur together. Beroš is cypress; tidhar is idra;teasššur is the box-tree. They added to them ’allonim, ‘armonim, and ’almogim. ’Allonim are oaks, ‘armonim plane trees, ’almuggim aloës.

HALAKHAH: “If the estate contained expected property,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the basic claim of the two ketubot. Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. But for the excess denar everybody agrees that it is movable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees about the basic claim of the two ketubot that it must be real estate. Where do they disagree? About the excess denar, where Rebbi Simeon says, real estate, but the rabbis say, movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: But in Syria they routinely collect from bronze and bedspreads. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only from bedspreads of that night. Rav Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The people in Arabia routinely collect from camels and spices. Similarly, only from spices of that night? Rebbi Ḥuna’s widow collected from movables following her place’s custom.

Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: Miracles happened that day. It was Sabbath eve and all the surrounding towns came together to eulogize him. They made him [Rebbi] rest in eighteen synagogues until they brought him to his resting place but the day extended for them until each one had time to get to his house, fill an amphora of water, and light the candles. When the sun set, the rooster crowed. They were anxious and said, maybe we did desecrate the Sabbath? There came a voice and said to them, every one who was not lazy for the eulogies of Rebbi shall be announced for the life of the Future World, except the fuller. When the latter heard this, he climbed on the roof, threw himself down, and died. There came a voice and said, including the fuller.

HALAKHAH: “Two robbery judges were in Jerusalem,” etc. Did not Rebbi Phineas say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: 469 synagogues were in Jerusalem and each one of them had a Book house and a study house; the Book house for Scripture and the study house for Mishnah? But these two were appointed for robberies; to teach you that if anybody has the power to intervene, if he does not exercise his power the misconduct is attributed to him. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: Naḥum the Mede also was with them. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, three robbery judges were in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: “If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other,” etc. If one borrowed a mina from the other, but the other borrowed from him 200 [zuz]. Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rab Sheshet disagree. One says, one counts one mina against the other mina, but the other says, each one collects the amount of his note. He who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, learns it from tame oxen who injured one another, where half of the excess damage is paid. He who says, each one collects the amount of his note, learns it from the Sages and Admon. Can the Sages and Admon not agree that one counts one mina against the other mina? Because we have stated: Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?” Therefore it was necessary to say, each one collects the amount of his note. If the holder of the note of 200 forgave a mina, but the holder of the note of a mina did not forgive. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, then what he forgave he cannot collect but what was not forgiven he can collect. If the note for 200 was written in a document but the loan for a mina was not written. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, the holder of the written note can collect but the recipient of the oral promise cannot collect.

Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: “For the vain did I hit your sons.”

It is written: “With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God, his fathers’ [God], etc.” Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. One of them said, with all he did to purity the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. The other said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. It is written: “They started on the first of the first month.” And it is written: “On the sixteenth of the month they finished. Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rebbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved.

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

Rebbi Mana made a vow away from his father’s wine. His father came to him and said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that I am hurt by it? He said, no. He dissolved for him. Where do we hold? If he said, my benefit [is forbidden] to my father; is that not what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One forces the son to support his father. But we must hold that he said, my father’s benefit [is forbidden] to me. Rebbi Mana made a vow and came to Rebbi Shammai, who said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that people do not want to deal with you since you are a vower? He said, no, and he dissolved for him.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed. The force of Rebbi Yose is from the following: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.” It turns out that Rebbi Jeremiah parallels Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed. The force of Rebbi Yose is from the following: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.” It turns out that Rebbi Jeremiah parallels Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila.

MISHNAH: A person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal when he found that it was stolen; if he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. This error was made by Naḥum from Media: When nezirim came from the Diaspora and found that the Temple had been destroyed, Naḥum from Media asked them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have made a vow of nazir? They said to him, no, and Naḥum from Media permitted them. When the case came before the Sages they said, anyone who made his vow before the Temple was destroyed is a nazir, after the Temple was destroyed he is not a nazir.

MISHNAH: A person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal when he found that it was stolen; if he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. This error was made by Naḥum from Media: When nezirim came from the Diaspora and found that the Temple had been destroyed, Naḥum from Media asked them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have made a vow of nazir? They said to him, no, and Naḥum from Media permitted them. When the case came before the Sages they said, anyone who made his vow before the Temple was destroyed is a nazir, after the Temple was destroyed he is not a nazir.

MISHNAH: A person vowed to be a nazir and went to bring his animal when he found that it was stolen; if he vowed before the animal was stolen he is a nazir, after the animal was stolen he is not a nazir. This error was made by Naḥum from Media: When nezirim came from the Diaspora and found that the Temple had been destroyed, Naḥum from Media asked them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have made a vow of nazir? They said to him, no, and Naḥum from Media permitted them. When the case came before the Sages they said, anyone who made his vow before the Temple was destroyed is a nazir, after the Temple was destroyed he is not a nazir.

“That was the error of Naḥum from Media.” What was his error? That he found for them an opening due to changed circumstances. “Naḥum from Media said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the prophets already had prophesied that eventually the Temple would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the distant future: “The vision he sees is for many years.”

“That was the error of Naḥum from Media.” What was his error? That he found for them an opening due to changed circumstances. “Naḥum from Media said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the prophets already had prophesied that eventually the Temple would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the distant future: “The vision he sees is for many years.”

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid. “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rebbi Yose said, after you went to court. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.” Similar to that: Etrogim were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me.

“If somebody stole a log and used it in building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, for the benefit of repenting sinners, that he has to pay its full value.” Rebbi Eleazar said, where do they disagree? If he stole it planed, but if he stole and planed it himself, he owes him money. If he stole and planed it on the spot, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody appropriates another person’s ruin and rebuilds it without prermission, one appraises it and his hand is weak. If he wants to take his logs and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It was asked in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: If somebody stores his bundle in somebody else’s ruin and wants to take it from there, does one not listen to him? He had not heard that Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of civilisation. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. We would have thought that they disagree only in the Land, but not outside the Land. Since Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, because of civilisation, this implies that there is no difference between the Land and outside the Land. If he wants to take [the value of] his logs and stones, what is the rule? One tells him, wait until he dwells in it. Samuel said, one pays him immediately.

Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not clear unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “A man to his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there: “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state there: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed” For him who says, plough it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them” in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, are you not Jewish? Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us (Ps. 129:8): “The passers-by did not say, the blessing of the Eternal be on you,” these are the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; not only do you not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed” For him who says, plough it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them” in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, are you not Jewish? Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us (Ps. 129:8): “The passers-by did not say, the blessing of the Eternal be on you,” these are the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; not only do you not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said: If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he went and said to him, your wife said, accept the bill of divorce for me, even after the bill came into her hand it is not a valid bill of divorce, since he thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya objected: But did we not state that if a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand? Then even if the bill came into her hand it should not be a valid bill! For she thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that practice is that “accept” and “obtain” mean “bring”. But did we not state: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” Then it should not be a valid bill even if the bill of divorce reaches her hand. For she thinks that maybe she is divorced by the acceptance of the agent, but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that a minor cannot appoint an agent.

Rebbi Mana said, not only a neck-iron of mortal danger but also a neck-iron of money. For every neck-iron is a mortal danger. Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jacob the Armenian: That which is a problem for Rebbi Simeon is obvious for Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina, as we have stated there: “One may have use for the hair of a woman who was executed but an animal which was executed is forbidden for all use.” Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, if she said, my bonnet should be given to my daughter.

A person gave money for a ship when the canal dried up. The case came before Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: There is the ship, bring the canal! Abba bar Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba was praying that the canal should dry up and he could recover his money. He said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Abba are of the same opinion as Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If she cut off, she hindered. If her hand (?) was cut off, it is not as if she hindered.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified.

So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi and Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rebbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.” In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, did lend his name only to Jewish divorce.

“If he allots her to his son;” but he may not allot her to his grandson. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: In matters of inheritance you recognize the grandson like a son but here you do not recognize the grandson like a son? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if anybody explains this matter, I shall pour him spiced wine. Rebbi Naḥum answered: In matters of inheritance where the brother can take the place of a son and all others can take the place of the son, the grandson takes the place of a son. But here, where neither the brother nor any other relative can take the place of a son, the grandson cannot take the place of a son. The rabbis of Caesarea answered: In matters of impurity you consider a brother like a son and all [near] relatives like a son but not a grandson like a son. They said, there went the spiced wine.

Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Jonathan were sitting together. There came a man and kissed Rebbi Jonathan’s foot. Rebbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him. He said to him, why did you not force him? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? One said, Rebbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all my traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father.

“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A stipulation produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwrtiting is invalid, for I am saying that he has trained in writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: A stipulation is only valid if it is in the possession of the creditor but written by the debtor. But did we not state: “That our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Therefore, it might be found paid. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it was a testamentary gift., since people are not likely to impair their testamentary gifts.

“He told him, deliver my wheat, for I want to sell it.” How did he acquire? Rav Naḥman bar Jacob was of the opinion that he had to deliver (to the other person) [by law. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: His money acquired for him by biblical law.]

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years grain cutting, three years grape harvesting, three years olive harvesting. Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, three years from day to day. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disgree about Elijah’s years.

Rav said, there can be no claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, nor one made from one country to another. Samuel said, there can be a claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, and a claim of undisturbed possession made from one country to another. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac said, a verse supports what Samuel said: “The king gave her an adjutant,” etc.

HALAKHAH: “Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership,” etc. But it needs proof of undisturbed possession. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to anothet, ‘this field’, etc.” As the following. Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands it over to Simeon. Reuben went and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to him. Rav said, when you gave it to him, you gave it on the basis of a court decree. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “One who sells a house,” etc. Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if it is four by four [cubits] and ten [handbreadths] high, and only if it is roofed and waterproofed. Rebbi Ze‘ira told them, did Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explain all this to you?

“When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift gives everything.” What is the difference between a seller and the giver of a gift? Rebbi Abba bar Ṭebelai in the name of Rav: Because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because buyers care about minutiae. What is the difference between these opinions? A dedication to the Temple. He who says, because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous, also the person vowing to the Temple usually is magnanimous. But he who says, because buyers care about minutiae, what does he say about a dedication to the Temple? Let us hear from the following: “Brothers who divided [an inheritance], if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of the property of a convert aquired it; if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything. Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple, only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an old sycamore tree.” Because they nurse from Temple property. Because he reserved access to himself? If he had not reserved access for himself, would they not feed from Temple property?

The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rebbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” So is the Mishnah: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. This implies that he does not want them. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua made conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. And he mentions a vineyard field, as Rebbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be ploughed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be ploughed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, for he does not want it; and if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

“One does not intercalate a year unless it be missing most of a month. How much is most of a month? 16 days. Rebbi Jehudah says two thirds of a month, 21 days.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only that the ˋOmer should be brought at the end of Nisan of equinoxes. Rebbi Yose said, before Passover. Rav Mattaniah said, only that lulav be taken at the end of Tishre of equinoxes.

It is written: With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God, to act, and to teach law and justice in Israel. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. One said, with all he did for the purity of the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. One said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. It is written: They started on the first of the first month, and on the eighth day they entered the Eternal’s Hall and sanctified the Eternal’s House for three days; on the sixteenth of the month they finished. Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rebbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved in vermilion.

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says, them, them; not these are My holidays? Before its time, the 29 day; after its lengthening, the 32 day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says, the Children of Israel. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

Ḥeṣron had three sons, as it is written: The sons of Ḥeṣron Yeraḥmeël, and Ram, and Kelubai. Yerahmeël should have been first, but he married a Gentile woman to crown himself with her, as it is written: Yerahmeël had anotherwife; her name was Crown, she is the mother of Onam, for she brought deep sorrow to his house. And Ram fathered Amminadav, Amminadav fathered Naḥshon, Naḥshon fathered Salma, Salmon fathered Boaz, and Boaz married Ruth.

Ḥeṣron had three sons, as it is written: The sons of Ḥeṣron Yeraḥmeël, and Ram, and Kelubai. Yerahmeël should have been first, but he married a Gentile woman to crown himself with her, as it is written: Yerahmeël had anotherwife; her name was Crown, she is the mother of Onam, for she brought deep sorrow to his house. And Ram fathered Amminadav, Amminadav fathered Naḥshon, Naḥshon fathered Salma, Salmon fathered Boaz, and Boaz married Ruth.

He was with David at Efes Dammim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the red field. But Rebbi Samuel said, from there the money stopped. The Philistines assembled, etc. Rebbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan said, they were lentils but a kernel was as good as a barley grain. Rebbi Levi said, this describes the Philistines who came straight as barley and went away low as lentils, as one verse says, there was a field full of barley, and one said, full of lentils. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, it was one year but concerning two fields, one of barley and one of lentils. It was obvious to him that he might destroy it and pay for the damage. Perhaps it was obvious to him that he might destroy it and not pay for the damage? Which one might he destroy and for which one would he have to pay? For the one of lentils or the one of barley? For the one of lentils grows human food, the one of barley animal feed. The one of lentils will not be obligated for ḥallah, barley will be obligated for ḥallah. The ˋomer comes from barley; ˋomer cannot be brought from lentils. But the rabbis said, it was one field and two years. Does one infer from last year, or does one not infer from one year to the next? They stood up in the property and saved it. One verse says, they saved it, and one says, he saved it. This shows that he returned it to its owner and it was dear to him as if it had been a field of saffron.

HALAKHAH: “Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Karmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Jehudah was caught. Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: By the testimony of two witnesses? You started erring. At that moment did Joshua have a vision by the holy spirit how he distributes the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: Joshua threw lots for them. This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, honor the Eternal,the God of Israel, … Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact. What means אָמְנָה? Truth. I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel. He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? he answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. From where that his confession atoned for him? It is said, the sons of Zeraḥ: Zimri and Ethan, etc. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where?

How far did the merit of the forefathers extend? Rebbi Tanḥuma said in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, (Bar) [Rebbi] Naḥman said it in the name of Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, up to Joaḥaz. The Eternal was compassionate about them and had mercy for them etc., up to now. Up to that moment, the merit of the forefathers existed. Samuel said, up to Hosea’s [time]. But now, I shall uncover her scandalous behavior before the eyes of her lovers, and no man may save her from My hand. Man can only mean Abraham, as you say, but now return theman’s wife, for he is a prophet. Man can only mean Isaac, as you say, who is this man coming in the field towards us? Man can only mean Jacob, as you say, but Jacob was a simple man. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to Elijah: It was when the time of the afternoon service came that Elijah the prophet approached and said, O Eternal, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, today it shall be proclaimed that You are God in Israel and I am Your servant etc. Rebbi Yudan said, up to Hezekias, to increase dominion and peace without end. Rebbi Aḥa said, the merit of the forefathers extends forever: For the Eternal is a Merciful Power, etc., up to and He shall not forget your forefather’s covenant. This teaches that the covenant was sealed with the tribes. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanan in the name of Rebbi Berekhiah: The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: If you see that the merit of the fathers reels, and the merit of the mothers trembles, go and cling to grace.For mountains may reel, and hills tremble; for mountains may reel, this is the fathers’ merit, and hills tremble, this is the mothers’ merit. After that, but My Grace will not leave you and My Covenant of Peace will not reel, says the One Who has mercy on you, the Eternal.

“The Epicurean.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar, one said, like him who said “this book”, and one said, like him who said “these rabbis”. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Naḥman, one said, [it is comparable] to a stone cupola. If one stone is weakened, all are weakened. The other said, [it is comparable] to a house full of chaff. Even if one removes it from there one finds that it weakened the walls.

They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo, even their names flew away from their papyrus rolls. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even one of their needles that was in the hand of an Israel as a loan was swallowed up with them, for it is written: They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit. Who prayed for them? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Moses prayed for them, Reuben shall live and not die. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Hannah prayed for them. This is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Rebbi Yose: Koraḥ’s (opinion) [band] was continuously sinking until Hannah stood up and said, the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and lifts.

You find [written] when Naˋaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, came to him with his horses and his chariot. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is written with his horse. He wanted to give him gold and silver, stolas and garments, precious stones and pearls, but he did not accept. That is what is written: He insisted that he take, but he refused. Geḥazi came and said, by the living Eternal, if I would run after him and take anything from him. “A defect” is written. He went, met him, took what he took, and hid it in his upper storey. He came to Elisha, who asked him, from where to where, Geḥazi? You refused the reward of the just! He answered, your servant did not go here or there. But he said, did not my thoughts go when a man turned from his carriage towards you; is it time to take silver and gold; is it time to take precious stones and pearls? Therefore, Naˋaman’s skin disease shall cling to you. It is written: Four men afflicted with skin disease were at the door of the gate. Who were they? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: They were Geḥazi and his three sons.

You find [written] when Naˋaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, came to him with his horses and his chariot. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is written with his horse. He wanted to give him gold and silver, stolas and garments, precious stones and pearls, but he did not accept. That is what is written: He insisted that he take, but he refused. Geḥazi came and said, by the living Eternal, if I would run after him and take anything from him. “A defect” is written. He went, met him, took what he took, and hid it in his upper storey. He came to Elisha, who asked him, from where to where, Geḥazi? You refused the reward of the just! He answered, your servant did not go here or there. But he said, did not my thoughts go when a man turned from his carriage towards you; is it time to take silver and gold; is it time to take precious stones and pearls? Therefore, Naˋaman’s skin disease shall cling to you. It is written: Four men afflicted with skin disease were at the door of the gate. Who were they? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: They were Geḥazi and his three sons.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rebbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rebbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written, who can withstand His cold? He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written, nothing is hidden from His heat.

Ḥizqiah said: he who swears that two are two is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Menahem in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who saw rain falling and said Κύριε πόλυ βρέξον is flogged for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written: For the vain did I hit your sons.

Between both of them it will never move from between them. If the one forcing the oath forces the oath lying, at the end it will come over him. If the one swearing swears lying, at the end it will come over him. What is the reason? I shall take it out, oracle of the Eternal Sabaot, and it will come into the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely in My Name, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, destructive angels have no joints. What is the reason? From roving about the Earth and walking there. But here, it will destroy its wood and its stones. Come and see, things which the fire will not burn, a vain oath will destroy. Rebbi Jonah said, about falsehood. Rebbi Yose said, even on truth. Ḥaggai was preaching following Rebbi Yose. There was a case about a woman who went to knead dough with another and had two denarii bound into the seam of her head cover. These fell out and were rolled into a loaf. She went back to he house, wanted them and did not find them. She returned to her and said to her, give me the two denarii which fell from me in your house. She told her, I do not know. If she would know of it, she should bury her son. She buried him. When they returned from his grave, she heard a voice saying, if she had not known about them she would not have buried him. She said, if this woman knows about them, she should bury her other son. She buried him. They came to console her and cut one loaf and found two denarii rolled into the loaf. This says, whether innocent or guilty, never swear an oath.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages], thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking, as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be, the numerical value of יהיה is 30. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes! That is the commandment of phylacteries; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit.

Rebbi Huna said, (this means) [a baraita implies] that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness, as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? Therefore the betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked Rebbi Eleazar, should she parade before him that he may live? He said to them, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said to them, he should die but not this. How was it? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter love a woman in the days of Rebbi Eleazar and (became dangerously sick) [and he permitted him]? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one, here and here about a married woman. Explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance (and did not listen to him) [and did not want to marry.] Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him.

It was stated: One does not buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzzot. “It happened that a Gentile in Sidon was selling phylacteries, Torah scrolls, and mezuzzot. The case came before the Sages who ruled that one might buy from him.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This was a convert who returned to his origin.

HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine. The bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia], Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned], Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine.”

Bar Yudani had uncovered spice wine. He went and asked the rabbis who forbade it. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet, are not under the rules of being uncovered. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: About one which consists of one to three parts ground [spices].

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: At every occasion where dibbur is said, there is a new biblical commandment. But is it not written, God spoke (etc., repetition) [to Noah(and his sons with him as follows)? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced limb of a living animal. But is it not written, Abram fell on his face and God spoke to him as follows? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced circumcision. But is it not written, a word the Eternal sent to Jacob? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced … But is it not written, God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am the Eternal? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced Sanctification of the Name. But is it not written, the Eternal spoke to Joshua as follows? What new biblical commandment is there? If you want to say the six cities of refuge, were they not already given to Moses at Sinai? But even to him was spoken what was not said to Moses: He shall flee to one of these cities and stand at the gate etc., and they shall give him a place that he stay with them.] What means that he stay with them? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Shila: If he is a scholar, they make him a house of assembly.

It is written: His bow was sitting immobile. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: his bow was spanned and relaxed. Rebbi Abun said, his semen spread out and came out from under his fingernails, the arms of his hands were excited. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Mattanah, he lifted his eyes, saw the picture of his father, and cooled down immediately, from the hands of the noble Jacob. Rebbi Abin said, he also saw the picture of Rachel, from there the shepherd, the rock of Israel.

“The Prince.” I could think a tribal chieftain like Naḥshon; the verse says, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; and further it says, that he may learn to fear the Eternal, his God. “His God, [his God]” for an equal cut. Since “his God” mentioned there refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal] his God, so also “his God” mentioned here refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal] his God.

How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months, etc.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw”, etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meïr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor lasts longer than two weeks.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman learned from Rebbi Eleazar the kinds of pure blood. Does this mean, not the impure kinds? But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman? But one who learns one kind, learns at the same time the other kind. Isaac bar Jonathan and Rav Huna were sitting together when a woman came and asked them. Isaac bar Jonathan said to her, did you see it more smoky than that? Rav Huna said to him, so says Rav: Instruct according to what comes before you! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: A number of chests full of problems came before Rebbi Ḥanina and about what came before him, he did pronounce.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman learned from Rebbi Eleazar the kinds of pure blood. Does this mean, not the impure kinds? But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman? But one who learns one kind, learns at the same time the other kind. Isaac bar Jonathan and Rav Huna were sitting together when a woman came and asked them. Isaac bar Jonathan said to her, did you see it more smoky than that? Rav Huna said to him, so says Rav: Instruct according to what comes before you! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: A number of chests full of problems came before Rebbi Ḥanina and about what came before him, he did pronounce.

"Speak now [na'] in the ears of the people" etc. (Exod. xi. 2). In the school of R. Jannai they said : The word [na'] always expresses a request. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "I request thee. Go and say to the Israelites : I beg of you to ask of the Egyptians vessels of silver and vessels of gold, so that the righteous one shall not say,

"Speak now [na'] in the ears of the people" etc. (Exod. xi. 2). In the school of R. Jannai they said : The word [na'] always expresses a request. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "I request thee. Go and say to the Israelites : I beg of you to ask of the Egyptians vessels of silver and vessels of gold, so that the righteous one shall not say,

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.

And He causeth to come down for you, etc. (Joel 2.23): Said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac: The former rain does not fall in Nisan, but in Marḥeshwan! For a Baraita reads (Sifrē, Deut., §42): The former rain falls in Marḥeshwan and the latter rain in Nisan! "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "this verse (Joel, 2.23) has proven true (only) in the days of Joel the son of Petuel, for it is written (Joel, 1.4): 'That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten,' etc. Now there is a tradition that in that year Adar had passed without rainfall, and the first rain did not appear until the first of Nisan. The Prophet then said to the Israelites: Go out and sow! But they replied: Should one who has a Ḳab of wheat or two Ḳabs of barley, eat it and live, or sow it and die? The prophet said: Nevertheless go out and sow! They then went out and sowed. Thereupon a miracle happened, that all the grain which was hidden (by mice) in the walls and in crevices (by ants) and in the holes of ants, appeared before their eyes. Again they went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth (of Nisan); on the fifth there was the second rainfall and on the sixteenth they offered the 'Omer. Thus, produce that used to ripen in six months ripened in eleven days, and the 'Omer which was usually offered from the crop that grew six months was now offered from one that grew in eleven days! With reference to that generation the Psalmist says (Ps., 126.5-6): 'They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Though he goeth on his way weeping, bearing forth the seed; he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.'"

R. Naḥman asked R. Isaac, what is the meaning of the verse (II Kings, 8.1): "For God hath called for a famine and it shall also come upon the land seven years?" What did the people eat during those seven years? "Thus said R. Johanan," R. Isaac replied, "the first year they ate what there was in the house, the second year they ate what was in the field, the third they ate the meat of clean animals, the fourth that of unclean animals, the fifth that of abominations and reptiles, the sixth the flesh of their sons and daughters, the seventh that of their own arms, so as to fulfil what is said (Is., 9.19): 'They shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.'"

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (Hos., 11.9): "The Holy One in the midst of thee, and I will not enter into the city?" Surely it can not mean, because the Holy One is in the midst of thee, I shall not enter into the city?! "Thus said R. Johanan," R. Isaac replied, "the Holy One, blessed be He, meant to say: I will not enter into the heavenly Jerusalem until I can enter into the earthly Jerusalem." But is there a heavenly Jerusalem? Yes, for it is written (Ps., 122.3): "Jerusalem, that art builded as a city that is compact together."

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (Jer. 10.8): "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the vanities by which they are instructed are but a stock"? "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "there is one thing that sweeps the wicked into Gehenna, and that is idolatry; for Scripture has here: 'the vanities by which they are instructed are but a stock,' and elsewhere (ib., 10, 15): 'They are vanity, a work of delusion.'"

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (ibid., 2.13): "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters?" Only two did they commit? Did they not commit also twenty-two other evils? Or did He remit twenty two? "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "(they committed) one that

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (I Sam., 8.1): "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old"? Did Samuel become old at all? Indeed, Samuel only reached the age of 52, for it is said (Mo'ed Ḳaṭan, 28a) that if one dies at the age of 52, he has attained to the age reached by Samuel the Ramathite. "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "Samuel grew old prematurely, for it is said (ibid., 15.11): 'It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night,' saying: Master of the world! Thou hast declared me equal to both Moses and Aaron, for it is written (Ps., 99.6): 'Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.' Now just as their work was not destroyed during their life-time, so should my work not be destroyed during my life-time. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to Himself, what shall I do? Shall I cause Saul to die? Samuel will not let me. Shall I cause Samuel to die? Seeing he is still young, people will speak ill of him. Shall I spare both Saul and Samuel? The time for the kingdom of the house of David has arrived, and the term set for one kingdom must not overlap that of another even by a hair's breadth. Immediately Samuel was overtaken by old age, and hence it is written (I Sam., 22.6): 'And Saul was sitting in Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree in Ramah.' Now what relation is there between Gibeah and Ramah? The idea therefore is that what had enabled Saul to sit (as king) in Gibeah two and a half years was the prayer of Samuel the Ramathite." But is the life of one man set aside (cut short) on account of that of another? Yes, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Hos., 6.5): "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth"? It is not said by the works of their hands, but "by the words of My mouth", which proves that one man may be set aside on account of another.

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (I Sam., 8.1): "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old"? Did Samuel become old at all? Indeed, Samuel only reached the age of 52, for it is said (Mo'ed Ḳaṭan, 28a) that if one dies at the age of 52, he has attained to the age reached by Samuel the Ramathite. "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "Samuel grew old prematurely, for it is said (ibid., 15.11): 'It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night,' saying: Master of the world! Thou hast declared me equal to both Moses and Aaron, for it is written (Ps., 99.6): 'Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.' Now just as their work was not destroyed during their life-time, so should my work not be destroyed during my life-time. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to Himself, what shall I do? Shall I cause Saul to die? Samuel will not let me. Shall I cause Samuel to die? Seeing he is still young, people will speak ill of him. Shall I spare both Saul and Samuel? The time for the kingdom of the house of David has arrived, and the term set for one kingdom must not overlap that of another even by a hair's breadth. Immediately Samuel was overtaken by old age, and hence it is written (I Sam., 22.6): 'And Saul was sitting in Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree in Ramah.' Now what relation is there between Gibeah and Ramah? The idea therefore is that what had enabled Saul to sit (as king) in Gibeah two and a half years was the prayer of Samuel the Ramathite." But is the life of one man set aside (cut short) on account of that of another? Yes, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Hos., 6.5): "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth"? It is not said by the works of their hands, but "by the words of My mouth", which proves that one man may be set aside on account of another.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

Dixit R. Isaac: Quicumque dicit Rahab, Rahab, profluvio genitali statim afficitur. Dixit R. Naḥman: Ego dixi neque tamen afficiebar! "Ego eum in mente habui," respondit R. Isaac, "qui eam intus et in cute novit."

When R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were taking leave of one another, the former said to the latter, pray, bless me. R. Isaac replied, let me tell thee a parable: To what can thy case be compared? To that of a man who was walking in a desert, suffering fatigue, hunger and thirst, and then found a tree, whose shade was pleasant and whose fruit was sweet, while a brook flowed by it. He rested beneath its shade, ate from its fruit and drank from its water. When he was about to leave, he said: O Tree, O Tree! What blessing shall I bestow upon thee? Shall I wish thee that thy shade be pleasant?—thy shade is pleasant; shall I wish thee that thy fruit be sweet?—thy fruit is sweet; shall I wish thee that a brooklet may flow by thee?—a brooklet does flow by thee! Therefore I say, may it be the will of God that all shoots taken from thee

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

R. Naḥman b. Isaac said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto a tree, as it is said (Prov., 3.18): "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her"? In order to indicate that just as a small piece of wood sets on fire a big piece of wood, so minor scholars sharpen the minds of greater ones. It is in harmony with this view that Rabbi said (Makkot, 10a): I learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues and most of all from my pupils.

R. Salla said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Rain is withheld only on account of the insolent people, as it is said (Jer., 3.3): "Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hadst a harlot's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed." R. Salla further said in the name of R. Hamnuna: Everyone who is insolent will in the end fall a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead." R. Naḥman said, it is certain that he has already fallen a victim to sin, as it is said: "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead," it is not said thou wilt have, but thou hadst.

Rabbah b. R. Huna said: A man who is insolent may be called wicked to his face, as it is said (Prov., 21.29): "A wicked man hardeneth his face." R. Naḥman b. Isaac said, it is commendable to hate him, as it is said (Eccl., 8.1): "And the hardness of his face is changed," do not read yeshunne (is changed), but yissane (is hated).