originally

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, pregnant and nursing women do not fast on any fast-day for which the Court decides to interrupt. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this seems reasonable if they originally decided not to interrupt, but if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women have to fast. It was stated thus: “Pregnant and nursing women fast regularly on the Ninth of Av [and the Day of Atonement] and on the first and the second groups of fast-days. But on the seven last ones they do not fast; nevertheless they should not spoil themselves but eat and drink for the necessities of the child.” Does this not refer to the case that they decided originally not to interrupt? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women do not fast.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, pregnant and nursing women do not fast on any fast-day for which the Court decides to interrupt. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this seems reasonable if they originally decided not to interrupt, but if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women have to fast. It was stated thus: “Pregnant and nursing women fast regularly on the Ninth of Av [and the Day of Atonement] and on the first and the second groups of fast-days. But on the seven last ones they do not fast; nevertheless they should not spoil themselves but eat and drink for the necessities of the child.” Does this not refer to the case that they decided originally not to interrupt? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women do not fast.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: What means that which is written, Prepare a way for the rider on clouds, His name YH, and jubilate before Him. He told him, there is no place which does not have one appointed over its life. And who is appointed over the lives of all? The Holy One, praise to Him. His name YH, His name: Βια. Rebbi Eleazar told him, your teacher was not explaining in this way, but {a parable} of a king who built a palace on a place of sewers, a place of dung heaps, a place which stinks. One who comes and says, this palace is at a place of sewers, a place of dung heaps, a place which stinks, does he not detract? So he detracts who says, originally the world was water in water. {A parable} of a king’s orchard and an observation deck built on it, to look at it but not to touch.

HALAKHAH: Originally the only disagreement in Israel was about leaning on. Then rose Hillel and Shammai and made it four. After the students of the House of Shammai and students of the House of Hillel increased who did not sufficiently serve their teachers, disagreements increased in Israel and they were split into two sects; these declare impure and those declare pure, and the prior state will not be reconstituted until the arrival of David’s son.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Pakora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

Another argument: “Assume that he said to her, ‘you are permitted to every man except Mr. X;’ she went and married another and had children by him. Then her [second] husband died; she went and married Mr. X. Will not her children by her second husband become bastards?” His argument implies that divorce does not permit what the first husband had forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, do we find that a woman was not originally forbidden to a man because of adultery and then retroactively became forbidden as adulterous? Rebbi Mana said to him, to what can you compare this? To one who told his wife, “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you sleep with Mr. X.” At the start, he is forbidden to have sexual relations with her. If he transgressed and slept with her, the divorce was retroactively validated.

HALAKHAH: “A person should not put,” etc. It was stated: Nor a smithy. Rav Qarna stated: If he was like a metal worker, or it was built originally as a smithy, it is permitted. How is it in front of his dwelling? Rebbi Aḥa said, certainly not in front of his dwelling. Rebbi Jonathan said, a person causing damage has no claim of undisturbed posession. Rebbi Joshua said, the rabbis object to permanent smoke. As the following: A woman was burning sand below [the apartment of] Rebbi Ilfay. He wanted to object to her. The case came before Rebbi Nasa who said, they said it only about continuous smoke.

It is stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obligated. It would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine, and vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery, and heart-removed skins. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness.

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

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

MISHNAH: There are three houses. A house which one built originally for idolatry is forbidden. If he whitewashed it or ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he introduced there an idol and removed it, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: There are three kinds of Ashera. A tree which originally was planted for idolatry is forbidden. If he cut and shaped it for idolatry and it grows new shoots, one removes what grew newly. If he puts an idol under it, when he makes it invalid it becomes permitted.

HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise. But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching? As it was stated: “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity. They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine”.

Only in the case of a roan with a running issue who has experienced emission does R. Judah grant exemption, because he was not originally under the obligation to bathe ; but [it may be argued] a man who is merely a Ba'al Keri he does compel [to have immersion].

For whom does he mention this ? If it is supposed for the Rabbis, it is surely obvious ; since if a man with a running issue who experiences emission and originally was not under the necessity of bathing is compelled by the Rabbis to have immersion, how much more so a woman who experiences the menstrual flow during intercourse and originally was under the necessity of bathing ! Must it not be for R. Judah ? But the statement is intended to apply to this case exclusively, viz. :

For whom does he mention this ? If it is supposed for the Rabbis, it is surely obvious ; since if a man with a running issue who experiences emission and originally was not under the necessity of bathing is compelled by the Rabbis to have immersion, how much more so a woman who experiences the menstrual flow during intercourse and originally was under the necessity of bathing ! Must it not be for R. Judah ? But the statement is intended to apply to this case exclusively, viz. :

Rab Nahman said : The difference of opinion applies only to [where the vessel contained urine and into which water has been poured] afterwards ; but if originally [the vessel contained water, and urine was then poured into it, then all agree] that any small quantity of water will suffice.

But Rab Joseph said : The difference of opinion applies only to [where there was water] originally [and urine had afterwards been added] ; but where [water has to be added] afterwards, all agree that a fourth [of a Log] is necessary. Rab Joseph said to his attendant, "Bring me a fourth [of a Log] in accordance with the opinion of R. Zakkai."

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

GEMARA The question was asked : If a Ba'al Keri sees a flow, how is it according to R. Judah's view ? For although R. Judah there [in the Mishnah] exempts the man with a running issue who experienced emission — and such a man originally did not require immersion — but a Ba'al Keri who experiences a flow — and such a man originally did require immersion — does he compel to have immersion ? Or perhaps there is no difference ?

He does not ? Behold it is written, "But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity" (Ezek. xviii. 24)! That refers to a man who was originally wicked; but the man who is originally righteous does not.

He does not ? Behold it is written, "But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity" (Ezek. xviii. 24)! That refers to a man who was originally wicked; but the man who is originally righteous does not.

Abbai said : Johanan is the same person as Januaeus. Raba said : They are different persons ; and Jannaeus was originally wicked, but Johanan originally righteous. That is quite right according to Abbai ; but it is in contradiction with Raba's view.

Abbai said : Johanan is the same person as Januaeus. Raba said : They are different persons ; and Jannaeus was originally wicked, but Johanan originally righteous. That is quite right according to Abbai ; but it is in contradiction with Raba's view.

Raba can reply that even with one who was originally righteous there is the possibility of his apostatizing. If so, why did they not discharge [Samuel the Small]?

Rab Nahman b. Isaac replied : We draw an a fortiori conclusion from the Tefillah : If of the Tefillah where [the Habdalah] was originally instituted they say : He who pronounced the "Division" in the Tefillah must do so again over the cup of wine, how much more so must one who says the Habdalah over the cup of wine, where it was not originally instituted, [say it in the Tefillah] !

Rab Nahman b. Isaac replied : We draw an a fortiori conclusion from the Tefillah : If of the Tefillah where [the Habdalah] was originally instituted they say : He who pronounced the "Division" in the Tefillah must do so again over the cup of wine, how much more so must one who says the Habdalah over the cup of wine, where it was not originally instituted, [say it in the Tefillah] !

It is different there, because they originally [being three in number] laid upon themselves the obligation.

But the master has said : The cup of benediction requires a measure [of a fourth of a Log] ; and lo, he made it less than that measure ! He originally had more than the required measure.

R. Abbahu said : If it was originally a public path, it is permitted [as a short cut for all]. R. Helbo said in the name of Rab Huna: Who enters a Synagogue to pray is allowed to use it as a short cut ; as it is said, "But when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the appointed seasons, he that entereth by the way of the north gate to worship shall go forth by the way of the south gate" (Ezek. xlvi. 9).

[They are called] "Hoshanah"? Originally, also to "Asa", "Hoshanah" they called [and thus we cannot rely on the change of name].

At the conclusion of the first festival day etc. What was the great enactment? R. Elazar said: Like that of which we have learned: Originally [the walls of the Court of the Women] were smooth, but [later the Court] was surrounded with a gallery, and it was enacted that the women should sit above and the men below.

Our rabbis have taught: Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of the Women] while the men were outside, but this would cause levity, it was instituted that the women should sit outside and the men inside. But they would still come to levity. It was instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

What is the reason [why] tefillin and mezuzahs [must be written in Hebrew]? — Because in reference to them it is written, “And they shall be”, (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be as they originally were. What cases are there of Aramaic which can be written in Hebrew? I grant you we find in the Torah “yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47); but here [in the case of tefillin, and mezuzot] what Aramaic is there?

R. Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it originally brings deliverance to the world, as it says, “And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22).

Abahu said: If a path went through there originally, it is permitted.

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.

Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: 'Originally, both unintentional and intentional [murderers] would rush to the cities of refuge, and the courts would send for them and bring them out of there [for judgement]. One who was liable for death by the court, they would put him to death; one who was not liable for death they would exempt him; one who was liable for exile, they would return him to his place, as it is said: "The congregation will return him to the city of his refuge" (Numbers 35:25).'"

But if he was a zar [non-Kohen] he would have received two sets of malkus. But if he had originally eaten it [without designating any tithes] he would have only been liable one set of malkus.