na

The question was raised: Is the sixtieth day to be counted with those that precede it or with those that follow? Rab said, the sixtieth day belongs to the days that succeed it, but Samuel said, the sixtieth day belongs to the days that precede it. Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac, the sign for it should be: Those high up need water, those below need no water. R. Papa said, the law is that the sixtieth day is to be treated like those following it.

What has been decided in this matter? R. Naḥman said, in such a case the prayer for rain may be inserted in the "Blessing of the Years," but R. Sheshet said, it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer," and the law is that it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer."

R. Eleazar said: A prominent man is not allowed to fall upon his face in prayer unless he knows that he will be answered, as was Joshua, as it is said (Josh., 7. 10): "And the Lord said unto Joshua: 'Get thee up; wherefore, now, art thou fallen upon thy face?'" R. Eleazar further said: A prominent man is not allowed to put on sackcloth unless he knows that he will be answered, as was Jehoram, as it is said (II Kings, 6. 30): "And the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh." R. Eleazar further said: Not all were to fall upon their faces (for prayer) and not all were to rend their clothes, but Moses and Aaron were to fall upon their faces, while Joshua and Caleb were to rend their clothes. As to Moses and Aaron, it is said (Num., 14. 5-6): "Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces"; and as to Joshua and Caleb, it is said (ibidem, 14. 6): "And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of them that spied out the land, rent their clothes." R. Zera or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Naḥamani, raised an objection: If Scripture had only the word "Joshua," it would mean what you said, but since it has "and Joshua," Scripture indicates that they (Joshua and Caleb) did both.

(Is., 49. 7): "Kings shall see and arise." "Princes will have to prostrate themselves," as it is written (ibid.): "Princes and they shall prostrate themselves." R. Zera or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Nahamani, raised an objection: If Scripture said, "they shall prostrate themselves," it would mean what you maintained, but since it says, "and they shall prostrate themselves," it indicates that they will have to do both. Said R. Naḥman: We say in addition that not all will share in light and not all in gladness, but the righteous will have light and the upright will have gladness. As to the righteous having light, it is written (Ps., 97. 11): "Light is sown for the righteous," and as for the upright having gladness, it is written (ibidem): "And gladness for the upright in heart."

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

and was told that they do so in accordance with the view of Rabbi. This proves that the other scholars forbade it, their reason being that the Temple might soon be rebuilt, and we should have no priest fit for the service. Now, does not the same reason hold good also here (in the case of the priests growing their hair long)? No, in this case the priest may have his hair cut and then enter upon his duty. If so, an intoxicated priest might likewise sleep a while and then go to his duty, as Rami b. 'Abba said, a walk of a mile, or a little sleep causes the wine to evaporate? No, for did not R. Naḥman say in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this holds good only if one drank about a fourth (of a log), but if he drank more than that, walking makes him still more weary and sleep makes him still more drunk?

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

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

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

If there was absence of rain for forty days between the first and second rainfall, the alarm is likewise sounded at once because this is a calamity of drought, etc. What is to be understood by a calamity of drought (מכת בצרת)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, a calamity that is the cause of scarcity. Said R. Naḥman, when provision has to be imported from one city to another by water,

Our Rabbis have taught: It once happened that the Israelites went up to Jerusalem for the festival and there was not enough water in the city for drinking purposes. Naḳdimon (Nicodemos) b. Gorion therefore betook himself to a general who possessed water and said to him: Lend me twelve wells of water and I will return to you twelve wells of water or, in case I cannot do so, I will give you twelve talents of silver. He stipulated the sum of money and fixed the day for payment. When the time arrived, the general sent word to Naḳdimon that he should deliver either the water or the money. The latter replied, the day is not yet over. At noon he sent to him again saying, deliver the water or the money. Naḳdimon again replied, I have still time. In the afternoon the general sent again the demand that either the water or the money be delivered and Naḳdimon again replied, the day is not yet over. The general said: There has been no rain for a whole year

Our Rabbis have taught: It once happened that the Israelites went up to Jerusalem for the festival and there was not enough water in the city for drinking purposes. Naḳdimon (Nicodemos) b. Gorion therefore betook himself to a general who possessed water and said to him: Lend me twelve wells of water and I will return to you twelve wells of water or, in case I cannot do so, I will give you twelve talents of silver. He stipulated the sum of money and fixed the day for payment. When the time arrived, the general sent word to Naḳdimon that he should deliver either the water or the money. The latter replied, the day is not yet over. At noon he sent to him again saying, deliver the water or the money. Naḳdimon again replied, I have still time. In the afternoon the general sent again the demand that either the water or the money be delivered and Naḳdimon again replied, the day is not yet over. The general said: There has been no rain for a whole year

Our Rabbis have taught: It once happened that the Israelites went up to Jerusalem for the festival and there was not enough water in the city for drinking purposes. Naḳdimon (Nicodemos) b. Gorion therefore betook himself to a general who possessed water and said to him: Lend me twelve wells of water and I will return to you twelve wells of water or, in case I cannot do so, I will give you twelve talents of silver. He stipulated the sum of money and fixed the day for payment. When the time arrived, the general sent word to Naḳdimon that he should deliver either the water or the money. The latter replied, the day is not yet over. At noon he sent to him again saying, deliver the water or the money. Naḳdimon again replied, I have still time. In the afternoon the general sent again the demand that either the water or the money be delivered and Naḳdimon again replied, the day is not yet over. The general said: There has been no rain for a whole year

Our Rabbis have taught: It once happened that the Israelites went up to Jerusalem for the festival and there was not enough water in the city for drinking purposes. Naḳdimon (Nicodemos) b. Gorion therefore betook himself to a general who possessed water and said to him: Lend me twelve wells of water and I will return to you twelve wells of water or, in case I cannot do so, I will give you twelve talents of silver. He stipulated the sum of money and fixed the day for payment. When the time arrived, the general sent word to Naḳdimon that he should deliver either the water or the money. The latter replied, the day is not yet over. At noon he sent to him again saying, deliver the water or the money. Naḳdimon again replied, I have still time. In the afternoon the general sent again the demand that either the water or the money be delivered and Naḳdimon again replied, the day is not yet over. The general said: There has been no rain for a whole year

and you expect it to come now? He then went in good spirits to the bath-house. But while the general was on his way to the bath-house, Naḳdimon went to the Temple, wrapped himself in his cloak and prayed; Master of the world! It is well known before Thee that I did not do it for my own glory or for that of my father's house, but for Thy glory, that the pilgrims should have water. Immediately the skies became clouded and rain began to fall, so that all wells overflowed with water. While the general was coming from the bath-house, Naḳdimon came from the Temple, and when they met, the former said to the latter: I know that it is for you alone that your God disturbed His world. However, I can still maintain my claim against you, so as to get my money from you, for the sun had set and the rain came during the time that belonged to me. Naḳdimon returned to the Temple, wrapped himself and again stood in prayer, saying: Master of the world! As Thou hast performed a miracle for me before, do it also now! Immediately the wind blew, the clouds were dispersed and the sun shone. The general then said: Were it not that the sun shone, I would have had a claim against you, to collect my money from you.

and you expect it to come now? He then went in good spirits to the bath-house. But while the general was on his way to the bath-house, Naḳdimon went to the Temple, wrapped himself in his cloak and prayed; Master of the world! It is well known before Thee that I did not do it for my own glory or for that of my father's house, but for Thy glory, that the pilgrims should have water. Immediately the skies became clouded and rain began to fall, so that all wells overflowed with water. While the general was coming from the bath-house, Naḳdimon came from the Temple, and when they met, the former said to the latter: I know that it is for you alone that your God disturbed His world. However, I can still maintain my claim against you, so as to get my money from you, for the sun had set and the rain came during the time that belonged to me. Naḳdimon returned to the Temple, wrapped himself and again stood in prayer, saying: Master of the world! As Thou hast performed a miracle for me before, do it also now! Immediately the wind blew, the clouds were dispersed and the sun shone. The general then said: Were it not that the sun shone, I would have had a claim against you, to collect my money from you.

and you expect it to come now? He then went in good spirits to the bath-house. But while the general was on his way to the bath-house, Naḳdimon went to the Temple, wrapped himself in his cloak and prayed; Master of the world! It is well known before Thee that I did not do it for my own glory or for that of my father's house, but for Thy glory, that the pilgrims should have water. Immediately the skies became clouded and rain began to fall, so that all wells overflowed with water. While the general was coming from the bath-house, Naḳdimon came from the Temple, and when they met, the former said to the latter: I know that it is for you alone that your God disturbed His world. However, I can still maintain my claim against you, so as to get my money from you, for the sun had set and the rain came during the time that belonged to me. Naḳdimon returned to the Temple, wrapped himself and again stood in prayer, saying: Master of the world! As Thou hast performed a miracle for me before, do it also now! Immediately the wind blew, the clouds were dispersed and the sun shone. The general then said: Were it not that the sun shone, I would have had a claim against you, to collect my money from you.

It has been taught that his name was not Naḳdimon but Bunai. Why then was he surnamed Naḳdimon? Because the sun shone for him.

It has been taught that his name was not Naḳdimon but Bunai. Why then was he surnamed Naḳdimon? Because the sun shone for him.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

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

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

R. Naḥman was told that there was an epidemic in Palestine, so he ordered a fast, saying, "If the mistress is stricken, how much the more so her servant!" Is the fact that the one is mistress and the other servant the reason for ordaining a fast? Suppose both were servants, would we not order a fast? Is it not a fact that when Samuel was told of an epidemic among the people of Khuza, he ordered a fast (in Neharde'a)? In that case it was different, for caravans were frequently travelling between the two places and might have carried the infection (to Neharde'a).

R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda discoursed: What message did the Synhedrin of the Hewn-Stone-Hall send to Ḥoni the Circle-drawer? (They expounded to him the verses) (Job, 22. 28-30): "Thou shalt also decree a thing and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'; for the humble person He saveth. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent, yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands."—"Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee," that is, thou hast decreed here below and the Holy One, blessed be He, established thy decree there above.—"And light shall shine upon thy ways," that is, a generation that was in gloom, thou hast brightened by thy prayer—"When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: 'There is lifting up'", that is, a generation that was cast down, thou hast lifted up by thy prayer. "For the humble person He saveth," that is, a generation whose eyes drooped down, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "He shall deliver even him that is not innocent," that is, a generation that is not innocent, thou hast saved by thy prayer. "Yea, thou shalt be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands," that is, through the work of thy clean hands.

R. Naḥman once ordered a public fast, during which he prayed for rain, which, however, failed to come. He therefore said: "Take Naḥman and throw him down from the wall!" He felt greatly discouraged, and then rain came.

R. Naḥman once ordered a public fast, during which he prayed for rain, which, however, failed to come. He therefore said: "Take Naḥman and throw him down from the wall!" He felt greatly discouraged, and then rain came.

R. Papa ordered a fast but, feeling very weak, took some food. He then prayed, but no rain came. R. Naḥman b. 'Ish Prati (of the Euphrates) then said to him: "If you had swallowed a plate of grit, rain would have come." R. Papa felt humiliated, and then rain came.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, R. Meir's view is law; R. Huna said, it is established usage; R. Johanan said, the people adopted it as a usage. [The opinion of him who says that a view is law, carries with it that we must teach it in the school sessions; if one says that a view is established usage, it means that we do not teach it in the school sessions, but, if asked, decide accordingly; if one says that the people have adopted a view as usage, it means that we do not even decide according to it, but that when someone has already acted in accordance with it, we do not nullify his action.] R. Naḥman said, R. Jose's view is law and, indeed, R. Jose's view has been recognized as law. Why then do the priests nowadays spread their hands during the Minḥah service of public fasts? Inasmuch as they do it close to sunset, it is as if it were done during the Ne'ilah service.

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

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

R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Naḥman, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the last one of the generation that was doomed to die in the desert, died; for it was stated by some authority, God did not address Himself to Moses until the last one of that generation had died, as it is said (Deut., 2. 16-17): "So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people, that the Lord spoke unto me saying," that is to say: To me then came a message through speech.

R. Kohăna said, R. Nathan bar Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum thus, What is the meaning of that which is written? "And the pit was empty, there was no water in it" (Gen. xxxvii. 24). From the literal sense, as it is said, "And the pit was empty," do I not know that there was no water in it? Nay, but it means that though there was no water in it, there were serpents and scorpions in it.

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,