nachman

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Because of (Jos. 1:8): “You should think about it day and night”, that the thinking of day and night should be equal. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of (Ps. 119:164): “Seven times a day I praise You for Your just laws.” Rebbi Nachman in the name of Rebbi Mani: Everybody who keeps “seven times a day I praise you” is as if he kept also “you should think about it day and night”.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

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

Rav Nachman said, "The argument is about someone who takes his fellow and removes him from his sukkah, And Rabbi Eliezer [rules] according to his opinion, as he says, 'A person does not fulfill his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah. If land can be [truly] stolen, it is a stolen Sukkah; and if land cannot be stolen, it is a borrowed Sukkah [but either way, it is forbidden].'

There was an old woman who came up to Rabbi Nachman. She said to him, "The exilarch and all of the Rabbis of the house of the exilarch- in a stolen Sukkah they were sitting [meaning, its wood was stolen from her]." She shouted, and Rabbi Nachman paid no attention to her. She said to him, "A woman whose father had 318 servants [meaning, a descendant of Abraham] is shouting before you, and you pay no attention to her?" Rabbi Nachman said to [his students], "She is a chatterbox, and she only has [a claim to] the value of the wood alone.

There was an old woman who came up to Rabbi Nachman. She said to him, "The exilarch and all of the Rabbis of the house of the exilarch- in a stolen Sukkah they were sitting [meaning, its wood was stolen from her]." She shouted, and Rabbi Nachman paid no attention to her. She said to him, "A woman whose father had 318 servants [meaning, a descendant of Abraham] is shouting before you, and you pay no attention to her?" Rabbi Nachman said to [his students], "She is a chatterbox, and she only has [a claim to] the value of the wood alone.

There was an old woman who came up to Rabbi Nachman. She said to him, "The exilarch and all of the Rabbis of the house of the exilarch- in a stolen Sukkah they were sitting [meaning, its wood was stolen from her]." She shouted, and Rabbi Nachman paid no attention to her. She said to him, "A woman whose father had 318 servants [meaning, a descendant of Abraham] is shouting before you, and you pay no attention to her?" Rabbi Nachman said to [his students], "She is a chatterbox, and she only has [a claim to] the value of the wood alone.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

before the world was created, and so were not created. The Holy One, blessed be He, stood and scattered them through all the successive generations, and these are the shameless who are in a generation. But R. Nachman bar Isaac said, They are these who are wrinkled for blessing. This is the meaning of that which is written, As for these disciples of the wise, who have become wrinkled over the words of the Law in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, discloses to them the secret of the world to come, as it is said, "their foundation was overflowed with a stream" (Job xxii. 16).

R. Shimi bar Ashi deals with the matter thus. Up to this point our Rabbis disagree with R. Meir only as to the eating of the tithe, but as regards the touching of the tithe and the eating of common food they do not disagree. But suppose that both the one and the other refer to eating, and still there is no difficulty. The one has to do with eating bread, the other with eating fruits. For R. Nachman said, Every one who washes his hands for fruit is over scrupulous and affected.

Our Rabbis have taught thus, He that washes his hands—if he does it with intention, his hands are clean; if he does it without intention, his hands are unclean. And so he that dips his hands—if he does it with intention, his hands are clean; if he does it without intention, his hands are unclean. And yet there is a Baraitha, Whether he does it with intention or not, his hands are clean. R. Nachman said, There is no difficulty. The one has to do with common food,

Rabbah put this question to R. Nachman, Thou saidst, He who dips for common food and has credit for common food, is forbidden tithe. If he claims credit, he has it; if he does not claim credit, he has it not. Nay, but it means, Although he has credit for common food, he is forbidden tithe. He put this further question to him, There is a Mishnah as follows, If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped. Do you think it means, that it is as though he had not dipped? Certainly not, but it means that it is, as though he had not dipped for tithe. But the case supposed is that of one who has dipped for common food. He considered and brought this refutation.

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

and with an area of the size of two fingers making a complete revolution (Mikvaoth, vi. 7). He bethinks himself, This is like that which R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, viz., Eleven features of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer alike to hallowed things and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

But at the time of the vintage...[they are believed] with regard to the heave-offering also. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest. R. Nachman said, There is no difficulty. The one is the case of new, the other of old ones. R. Ada bar Ahăba said to him, For instance things like those belonging to the house of thy father. R. Joseph said, The teaching refers to Galilee. Abai replied to him, The other side of Jordan and Galilee, lo, these are as Judea. Another explains, They are believed about wine at the time of wine, and oil at the time of oil, but not about wine at the time of oil, and not about oil at the time of wine. But it is perfectly clear that it is as originally explained.

It has been said, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, The law follows Rebbi Yosi. And Rav Nachman says, The law follows Rebbi.

Rav Nachman said, Individual testimonies are valid by monetary cases, as the Torah says, "He shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness", which implies that only by capital cases are [individual testimonies] not valid, but by monetary cases they are valid.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

But it was taught in a different baraisa, Rebbi Yehuda says, both a man and a woman [are exempt] with excrement? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered,... [The second baraisa means that] both of them are equal with regards to excrement....

Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) says, Who is this tanna? Rabbi Yitchak who says that there is no kares by liabilities of malkus, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Yitzchak says, Liabilities of kares are included in the punishment of malkus, and why was kares bachoso singled out? To punish him with kares alone but not malkus.

Yeshaya returned and established these on two, as it is said (Issiah 56,1) "So says, God, guard justice, and do righteousness". Amos came and established these on one, as it is said (Amos 5,4) "Thus said Hashem to the house of Israel: Seek me Me, and live." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged this, maybe it means to seek out the entire Torah? Rather, Chabakuk came and established these on one as it said (Habakkuk 2,4) "The righteous shall live by his faith."