ot

On the Friday, after the making of all created things, God said, ‘ Come, let us make man in our image and in our likeness.’ The Jews have interpreted the expression ‘ Come, let us make,’ as referring to the angels; though God (adored be His glory!) needs not help from His creatures: but the expositors of the Church indicate the Persons of the adorable Trinity. Some say that when God said ‘Come, let us make man in our image and in our likeness,’ the angels by the eye of the Spirit saw the right hand (of God) spread out over the whole world, and there were in it parts of all the creatures both spiritual and corporeal. And God took from all these parts, and fashioned Adam with His holy hands, and breathed into him the breath of life, nay “QXin Among other things, Jewish tradition says that the first Adam had two faces, p&ima ‘Ot? (Berachoth, fol., col.); that he was formed in two parts, on the one side male, and on the other female; that in height he reached from earth to heaven (Chagigah, p., col.); and that he could stretch from one end of the world to the other (Seplier Ilasidim, No. and man became a living soul. Others say that God took earth from the four quarters of the world, and formed Adam outside Paradise; while others say that God fashioned him in the middle of the earth, on the spot where our Lord was crucified, and that there also was when silence reigned over all the ranks of the (heavenly) hosts, God said, “ Come, let us make man in our image after our likeness ” — hereby making known concerning the glorious Persons (of the Trinity). When the angels heard these words they were in fear and trembling, saying one to another, “ We shall see a great miracle to-day, the likeness of God our Maker.” And they saw the right hand of God stretched out and extended over the whole world; and all created things were collected in the palm of His right hand. And they saw that He took a grain of dust from all the earth, a drop of water from the whole nature of water, a breath of wind from all the atmosphere above, and a little warmth from all the nature of fire. And the angels saw when these four feeble elements — that is, cold and heat and dryness and moisture — were laid in the palm of His right hand, and God formed Adam. For what reason did God make Adam out of these four elements, unless it were that through them everything in the world should be subject unto him? He took a grain of dust, that all natures which are of dust might be subject unto Adam; and a drop of water, that all those in the seas and rivers might be his; and a breath of air, that all kinds of birds of the air might be given unto him; and the heat of fire, that all the fiery beings and (heavenly) hosts might come to his aid. And God formed man with His holy hands, in His image and likeness. When the angels saw his glorious appearance, they trembled at the beauty of his appearance; for they saw the form of his face blazing with glorious beauty like the sphere of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the sun, and the form of his body like the light of crystal. And when he stretched himself, and stood in the centre of the earth, he set his two feet on the spot where the cross of our Redeemer was placed: for Adam was created in Jerusalem, and there it was that he put on royal apparel, and the crown of glory was set upon his head; and there was he made king and priest and prophet, there did God set him upon the throne of His glory, and there He made him master over all creatures. And all beasts and cattle and fowl were gathered together, and they passed before Adam and he gave them names; and they bowed their heads to him, and all natures did homage to him and were subject unto him. And the angels and (heavenly) hosts heard the voice of God saying to him, “ Adam, behold I have made thee king and priest and prophet and lord and chief and governor of all things made and created; to thee shall they be subject, and thine shall they be: and I have given thee power over everything that I have created.” And when the angels heard these words, they all blessed and worshipped him.’

Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two se’ot were due but he owed only one, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That [extra] seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must be that, since we say that all the ṭevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place?

MISHNAH: If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, one may separate another eight se’ot and eat them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he separates only according to the computation.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

“Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated”. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zwieback. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said boqrlṭa. That you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for ḥallah, that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? So far green, even dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! So I am saying, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rebbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered that I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written (Jos. 5:11): “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,” on the sixteenth! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written (Num. 33:3): “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.” Not on the fifteenth?

“ “And all who had wives who [subsequently] died may marry them.” It only says “who died”; therefore, not if they were divorced. “And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married”, since usually nobody sins for an uncertain future. “All are permitted to their sons or brothers,” since usually nobody sins for the benefit of either his son ot his brother.

MISHNAH: If the children of five women were mixed up, and the mixed-up became adults, married wives, and died, then four perform ḥalîṣah and one marries in levirate. This one and three others perform ḥalîṣah for another one and another one marries in levirate. It turns out that there are four ḥaliṣot and one levirate marriage for every one.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say, “money” is a peruṭah, but here, they say that “money” is two obols. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The house of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolus and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left, and at the end of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolus, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

“How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.” It was stated: The as is/24 of a silver denar; the silver denar is/24 of a gold denar. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A tetradrachma is four denarii. Six silver oboli are in a denar. Two dupondii are an obolus. An obolus is two as. A pondius is two semisses. An as is two quadrantes. A semis is two peruṭot. It turns out that a quadrans is/32 of the above.”

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, in the days of Rebbi Simai and our teachers they made it/24 of an obolus, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, three dodrantes are an obolus, two besses are a dodrans, two semisses are a bes, two peruṭot a semis. It results in/24 of an obolus.”

Ḥilfai said: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “A tetradrachma are four denar.” He said to them, we also have stated: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it: “Fraud is four silver coins for twenty-four silver coins, a tetradrachma, one sixth of the selling price.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two dupondii are an obolus.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He gives a tetradrachma and a dupondius per year.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two as are a dupondius”. He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two semisses are an as, two quadrantes are a semis, two peruṭot are a quadrans.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Rebbi Yannai said, in front of him, whether forward ot behind he is (not) liable. Outside, forward he is (not) liable, behind he is [not] liable.

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it? In walled cities until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly’. Cheating is by four oboli, claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah. There are five peruṭot: Confession is about one peruṭah; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media. There are five fifths: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe, or heave of the tithe of demay, or ḥallah, or first fruits, adds a fifth. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year or his Second Tithe, adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolos, but the House of Hillel say, two oboloi. The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolos. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say that “money” is a peruṭah but here, they say that “money” is two oboloi. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said, she leaves gratis, without silver. Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, without silver? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolos and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolos, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. Think of it, if there is only one peruṭah’s worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor, etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor, etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

HALAKHAH: “What is an old woman,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, the blood disappears because of the milk. Rebbi Yose says, the blood disappears because of the pain. You find a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Meïr, and a leniency and a stringency following Rebbi Yose. A leniency following Rebbi Meïr, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, her timing continues exact. And a stringency, if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, she [makes impure] for 24 hours. A leniency for Rebbi Yose, for if she handed her child to a wet-nurse or it died, her timing is exact. And a stringency, for if the baby was continuing to suckle for four ot five years, it is forbidden after 24 months. But did not Rebbi Meïr say, she makes impure for 24 hours? When? Immediately or if the baby stops and cannot start again? Let us hear from the following: “A baby can nurse until 24 complete months, after that it is as if an abomination suckled, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, a baby can nurse even four or five years; this is permitted. If he stopped, one cannot return him.” How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to 24 hours. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to three times 24 hours. When was this said? If he stopped when healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one can return him immediately. And for a baby which was not in danger. But a baby who was in danger one can return him immediately even after a longer time.

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

What is the meaning of "The Lord maketh lightnings" (Zech., 10.1)? Said R. Jose b. Ḥanina, it teaches us that the Holy One prepares a cloud for every righteous man. What are ḥazizim? Said R. Judah, poreḥot. But what are poreḥot. Said R. Papa, a thin cloud under a thick one. R. Johanan said, poreḥot are a sign of coming rain. 'Ulla happened to be in Pumbedita and, seeing poreḥot, said, move your things, for rain is due to come presently. But rain did not come, whereupon 'Ulla remarked: As the Babylonians are deceivers so are their rains. ['Ulla once happened to be in Pumbedita and seeing that a basketful of dates was selling for a zuz, he remarked: A basket of honey for a zuz and yet the Babylonians are not studying the Torah! He ate some and became indisposed. He then said: A basketful of knives for a zuz and yet the Babylonians study the Torah!].

Our Rabbis taught: Wherever a disgraceful expression is written in the text, we read it in a more polite way. [Thus for] yishgalenah [we read] yishkavenah (Deuteronomy 28:30); [for] ba’afolim [we read] batehorim (Deut 28:27); [for] hiryonim [we read] divyonim (II Kings 6:25); [for] le’ekhol et horehem velishtot et meme shinehem [we read] le’ekhol et zo’atham velishtot et meme raglehem (II Kings 18:27); [for] lamahara’ot [we read] lemoza’ot (II Kings 10:27).

Our Rabbis taught: Wherever a disgraceful expression is written in the text, we read it in a more polite way. [Thus for] yishgalenah [we read] yishkavenah (Deuteronomy 28:30); [for] ba’afolim [we read] batehorim (Deut 28:27); [for] hiryonim [we read] divyonim (II Kings 6:25); [for] le’ekhol et horehem velishtot et meme shinehem [we read] le’ekhol et zo’atham velishtot et meme raglehem (II Kings 18:27); [for] lamahara’ot [we read] lemoza’ot (II Kings 10:27).

Joshua b. Korha says that the actual word lamahara’ot [is read] because it is a term of disgrace for idolatry.