nisan

It is written: “The King said, I shall give.” “The King took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah whom she had born to Saul, Admoni and Mephiboshet,” etc. “Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child until the day of her death,” and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. “He gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal; all seven fell together.” Defective without י. That refers to Mephiboshet ben Jonathan ben Saul, who was great in the Torah and David intended to save him from their hand. David said, I let them pass by the altar and anyone received by the altar will be mine. He let each pass by the altar, prayed for him, and the altar moved and received him. This is what is written: “I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision about me!” For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. “ They were killed on the first days of harvest;” it is written “the barley harvest.” “Riṣpah bat Ayah took a sack and laid it out on the rock.” What means: “On the rock”? Rebbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: “The rock, perfect is His action.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to desecration of the Name it is written: “Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight.” But referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: “From the start of harvest until water was poured on them.” This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked attached proselytes. They would say that even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven not so much more? There is no Power like your God and no people like your people. Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: “Solomon counted all proselytes and appointed from them 70’000 carriers and 80’000 hewers of stone in the mountains.”

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony.

Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan, they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan.

Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan, they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan.

Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan, they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan.

Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan, they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan.

“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.

Some Tannaïm state: “One does not intercalate because of impurity.” Rebbi Yose says, one intercalates, since we find that Hezekiah intercalated because of the impurity, as it is said: For most of the people from Ephraim, Manasse, Issachar, and Zevulun had not been purified, for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written, for Hezekiah had prayed, saying, the Eternal, the Benevolent, will pardon this. Rebbi Simeon says, even though he intercalated Nisan, it was Adar which was intercalated. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Hezekiah forced the community to celebrate the Second Passover.”

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written. How does the one who says one does not intercalate, explain contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but one intercalates only in Adar. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

Six things did Hezekiah do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, he smashed the bronze snake, and he hid the table of medicines; they agreed. He closed the upper Giḥon spring, and he cut down the Temple doors, and he intercalated Nisan in Nisan; they disagreed.

Six things did Hezekiah do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, he smashed the bronze snake, and he hid the table of medicines; they agreed. He closed the upper Giḥon spring, and he cut down the Temple doors, and he intercalated Nisan in Nisan; they disagreed.

One does not intercalate before New Year’s Day; if they did intercalate it would be invalid. But for an urgent need one may intercalate immediately after New Year’s Day. Nevertheless, only Adar is intercalated. Rebbi says, Nisan was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear; it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, this is worse for the desecrator than for the blasphemer and worse for the blasphemer than the desecrator. About the blasphemer it is written: Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight. But about the desecrator it is written: Riṣpa bat Aya took sackcloth and spread it on the rock from the start of harvest until waterwas poured on them. This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan.

The king said, I shall give. The king took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah. Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child, and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. The king gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal. All seven is written defective of one letter. That refers to Mephiboshet, for whom David prayed and whom the altar received. He told them, I let them pass by the altar and anyone whom the altar receives will be his, because of Mephiboshet who was great in Torah. He let him pass by the altar, which received him. Rebbi Avin said, I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision over me. For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. They were killed on the day of harvest …at the start of the barley harvest. Riṣpah bat Ayah took a garment and laid it out on the rock. What means on the rock? Rebbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: The rock, perfect is His action. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: Do not leave his corpse overnight. But referring to desecration of the Name it is written that they were left hanging until water was poured on them. This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked cursed proselytes. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? Since even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; if one would convert for the sake of Heaven not so much more? Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: Solomon counted all proselytes … and appointed from them 70’000 carriers, etc.

Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel, maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

But of three of his acts they disapproved, viz. he stopped up the waters of Gihon, and they disapproved ; he cut down the doors of the Temple and sent them to the King of Assyria, and they disapproved ; he intercalated Nisan in Nisan, and they disapproved.

But of three of his acts they disapproved, viz. he stopped up the waters of Gihon, and they disapproved ; he cut down the doors of the Temple and sent them to the King of Assyria, and they disapproved ; he intercalated Nisan in Nisan, and they disapproved.

Did not Hezekiah know of the teaching, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months" (Exod. xii, 2), i.e. this month and none other shall be Nisan?

But he erred in the teaching of Samuel who said : We do not intercalate the year on the 30th day of Adar, since that day may possibly be fixed as Nisan. Hezekiah thought that we do not say "since that day may possibly be fixed as Nisan."

But he erred in the teaching of Samuel who said : We do not intercalate the year on the 30th day of Adar, since that day may possibly be fixed as Nisan. Hezekiah thought that we do not say "since that day may possibly be fixed as Nisan."

It has been taught in the name of R. Meir : Even when the ox has its head in the [fodder-] basket, go up to the roof, and remove the ladder from under thee. Samuel said: This applies only to a black ox in the days of Nisan, because Satan then dances between its horns.

Raba said to the Rabbis : I beg of you not to appear before me during the days of Nisan and Tishri, so that you may not be concerned about your maintenance the whole year.

Rab Judah said : He who goes out during the days of Nisan and sees the trees budding should say "Blessed be He Who has caused nothing to be lacking in His Universe and created therein beautiful creations and beautiful trees where-from men may derive pleasure." Rab Zotra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab : Whence is it learnt that one should pronounce a benediction over a fragrant smell? As it is written, "Let every soul praise the Lord" (Ps. cl. 6). From what is it that the soul, but not the body, derives enjoyment? Say it is a fragrant smell.

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi: I dreamt that my nose fell off. He replied : The divine wrath has departed from thee. He said to him : I dreamt that both my hands were cutoff. He replied : Thou wilt not be dependent upon the work of thy hands. He said to him : I dreamt that both my legs were amputated. He replied : Thou wilt ride upon a horse. He said to him : I dreamt that somebody told me, "Thou wilt die in Adar and not behold Nisan." He replied : Thou wilt die in honour [idruta] and not fall into the power of temptation [nissayon].

Until what time should the prayer for rain be continued? R. Judah says, until the end of Passover; R. Jose says, until the month of Nisan is passed, as it is said (Joel, 2.23): "And He causeth to come down for you the rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in the first month."

7. If all these fast days are passed and the community has not been answered, all business transactions, building, planting, betrothals, marriages, and greetings should be limited, as behooves persons excommunicated in the sight of God. Distinguished individuals begin again to fast till the end of Nisan. If there is rainfall after the end of Nisan, it is the sign of a curse, as it is said (I Samuel, 12.17): "Is it not wheat harvest today?" etc.

7. If all these fast days are passed and the community has not been answered, all business transactions, building, planting, betrothals, marriages, and greetings should be limited, as behooves persons excommunicated in the sight of God. Distinguished individuals begin again to fast till the end of Nisan. If there is rainfall after the end of Nisan, it is the sign of a curse, as it is said (I Samuel, 12.17): "Is it not wheat harvest today?" etc.

R. Joshua might answer, that it is quite right to mention the resurrection of the dead (during the year), because resurrection would always be in time whenever it came, but is it true of rain that it would be in time whenever it came? Do we not read: If rain falls after Nisan is passed it is a sign of a curse?

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

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.'"

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.'"

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.'"

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.'"

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, ibid. 42): Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan, and malḳosh is the rain that falls in Nisan. You say yoreh is in Marḥeshwan, is it not the rain that falls in Kislew? No, Scripture says (Deut., 11.14): "In its season, the former rain (yoreh), and the latter rain (malḳosh)." Now just as malḳosh is that one only which falls in its season (Nisan), so yoreh is that one only which falls in its season (Marḥeshwan).

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, ibid. 42): Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan, and malḳosh is the rain that falls in Nisan. You say yoreh is in Marḥeshwan, is it not the rain that falls in Kislew? No, Scripture says (Deut., 11.14): "In its season, the former rain (yoreh), and the latter rain (malḳosh)." Now just as malḳosh is that one only which falls in its season (Nisan), so yoreh is that one only which falls in its season (Marḥeshwan).

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

Wherever the "Scroll of Fasts" records a day as one on which mourning is forbidden, it is not allowed to mourn even on the preceding day; on the day following, however, it is allowed. The Rabbis have taught: On the following days fasting, and on some of them also mourning, is forbidden: From the first until the eighth day of the month of Nisan, during which time the Daily Offering was established, mourning is forbidden; from the eighth thereof until the close of the festival (of Passover), during which the date for the Feast of Weeks was fixed (in accordance with the Pharisaic view), mourning is likewise forbidden.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

will apply here. There the first of Nisan was mentioned to extend the prohibition to the day preceding. Here the festival is included in order to extend the prohibition to the day following. With whose view does this tally? With that of R. Jose, who said that the prohibition includes "both the preceding and the following day?" If so, why base the inclusion of the twenty-ninth of Adar on the fact that it is the day preceding the first of Nisan, on which day the Daily Offering was established, when the prohibition might have been derived from the fact that it follows upon the twenty-eighth of Adar (which was likewise proclaimed a holiday) as we read: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good news reached the Jews that they were no longer to be restrained from the study of the Torah? [It had namely happened that the wicked government issued a decree against Israel, that they should not study the Torah nor circumcize their children, and that they should profane the Sabbath, whereupon Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues took counsel with a prominent lady with whom all the noblemen of Rome associated, who advised them to make an appeal during the night; they made the appeal during the night, saying: "O Heavens! Are we not your brethren, are we not the sons of one father and one mother? Wherein do we differ from all other nations and tongues, that you issue such cruel decrees against us?", whereupon the decrees were annulled and the day was declared a holiday.] Said 'Abbayi in reply to the above: The twenty-eighth of Adar would be of no avail for the last day if it were a full month. R. 'Ashi said, the same thing would be true if Adar was deficient, for on a day following immediately upon a holiday only fasting is forbidden, while mourning is allowed, whereas the twenty-ninth of Adar, being placed between two holidays, has been made as important as if it were itself a holiday.

will apply here. There the first of Nisan was mentioned to extend the prohibition to the day preceding. Here the festival is included in order to extend the prohibition to the day following. With whose view does this tally? With that of R. Jose, who said that the prohibition includes "both the preceding and the following day?" If so, why base the inclusion of the twenty-ninth of Adar on the fact that it is the day preceding the first of Nisan, on which day the Daily Offering was established, when the prohibition might have been derived from the fact that it follows upon the twenty-eighth of Adar (which was likewise proclaimed a holiday) as we read: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good news reached the Jews that they were no longer to be restrained from the study of the Torah? [It had namely happened that the wicked government issued a decree against Israel, that they should not study the Torah nor circumcize their children, and that they should profane the Sabbath, whereupon Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues took counsel with a prominent lady with whom all the noblemen of Rome associated, who advised them to make an appeal during the night; they made the appeal during the night, saying: "O Heavens! Are we not your brethren, are we not the sons of one father and one mother? Wherein do we differ from all other nations and tongues, that you issue such cruel decrees against us?", whereupon the decrees were annulled and the day was declared a holiday.] Said 'Abbayi in reply to the above: The twenty-eighth of Adar would be of no avail for the last day if it were a full month. R. 'Ashi said, the same thing would be true if Adar was deficient, for on a day following immediately upon a holiday only fasting is forbidden, while mourning is allowed, whereas the twenty-ninth of Adar, being placed between two holidays, has been made as important as if it were itself a holiday.

"From the eighth thereof until the close of the festival", etc. Why does he say "from the eighth thereof", why not from the ninth thereof, since the eighth is anyhow a holiday? Because if for some reason we should have to abolish the first seven days of Nisan as holidays, mourning would still be forbidden on the eighth because it immediately precedes the days on which the date for the Feast of Weeks was legally fixed. Now that you have arrived at this point, the matter becomes clear also regarding the twenty-ninth of Adar, for if it happened that we should have to abolish the twenty-eighth of Adar as a holiday, fasting on the twenty-ninth would still be prohibited on the ground that it immediately precedes the time during which the Daily Offering was established.

5. There were nine days on which the priests and the people used to bring their wood-offerings: on the first of Nisan wood was donated by the family of Arah of the tribe of Judah (Nehemiah, 7. 10); on the twentieth of Tammuz, by the family of David from the tribe of Judah; on the fifth of Ab, by the family of Parosh from the tribe of Judah (ib., 7. 8); on the seventh of Ab, by the family of Jonadab, son of Rechab (Jeremiah, 35. 6); on the tenth thereof, by the family of Senaah of the tribe of Benjamin (Nehemiah, 7. 38); on the fifteenth, by the family of Zattu of the tribe of Judah (ib., 7. 13). With the last mentioned family wood was offered also by priests, Levites and all Israelites who were not sure of their tribe, as also by those who deceived (the Roman officials) by a pestle and dry figs; on the twentieth, by the family of Pahath-Moab of the tribe of Judah (ib., 7. 11); on the twentieth of Elul, by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah (ib., 7. 20); on the first of Ṭebet, by the family of Parosh for the second time.

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

“In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Nisan, so to here Adar is next to Nisan.

“In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Nisan, so to here Adar is next to Nisan.

And since it is in Nisan that we have to bring from the new contributions, we read beforehand on the first of Adar so that shekels should be brought [in time] to the Sanctuary.

On the third [Shabbat] the portion of the red heifer etc. (Parshat Parah). Our Rabbis taught: Which is the third Shabbat? The one which follows Purim. It was stated: R. Hama b. Hanina said: The Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh Nisan.

There is no conflict [between these two statements]; the one refers to a case where Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls on Shabbat, and the other where it falls in the middle of the week.

Which is the fourth Shabbat?The one immediately preceding the week in which Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls, even if on Friday.