papa

8. ] Papa; his grave is at Ctesiphon.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

But even where the sun is more than the shade, so what? Behold he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh? R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where he interwove [the branches of the tree].

R. Abba said: These cone-shaped bundles of willows, as soon as the top-knots are untied they are valid [as skhakh]. But are they not still tied at the bottom? R. Papa answered, [This is a case] where he loosens them.

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

Gemara: Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?

Rather R. Papa said: With regard to a small [mat], all agree that ordinarily it is intended for reclining upon. About what do they disagree? About a large one. The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for a covering, while R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended also for reclining.

There is no difficulty, since the former refers to above and the latter to below. R. Papa said, this is like what people say, ‘the size of a zuz above becomes the size of an issar below’.

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

If its leaves were detached etc. R. Papa said. “Detached” means like a broom. “Spread apart” means that they were parted from one another.

R. Papa asked: What is the rule if the central leaf is split? Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. Is this also true if it is split? No, if it is removed the law is different,

And R. Papa said: This implies that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments?

The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments, irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency? The question stands.

R. Papa said: Red [berries] are like black ones, since R. Hanina said, black blood is [in reality] red blood except that it has deteriorated.

R. Papa raised a difficulty: his is well with regard to dough, since it is written, "The first of your dough" (Numbers 15:20). And with regard to the etrog also it is written, "To you" it must be yours. But with regard to matzah, does Scripture say, "your matzah"? Rabbah bar Shmuel, or as some say, R. Yemar bar Shelemia said: It can be deduced from the word "bread" which is common to both passages. It is written here, "The bread of affliction" (Deuteronomy 16:3) and there it is written,

The minimum size of an etrog: Rafram b. Papa said: As is the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded pebbles. For it has been taught, It is permitted on Shabbat to carry three rounded smooth pebbles into [a field] lavatory. And what must be their size? R. Meir ruled, The size of a nut, R. Judah ruled, That of an egg.

Our rabbis taught: One who has to perform many commandments [simultaneously] shall say, “Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandments.” R. Judah said: One must recite a blessing over each one separately. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa said: The halakhah is according to R. Judah. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written, “Blessed be the Lord day by day” (Psalms 68:20). Now do we bless Him by day and not by night? Rather this comes to teach you: Give Him every day His appropriate blessings. So too here: Give Him for every single thing, its appropriate blessings.

Our rabbis taught: One who has to perform many commandments [simultaneously] shall say, “Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandments.” R. Judah said: One must recite a blessing over each one separately. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa said: The halakhah is according to R. Judah. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written, “Blessed be the Lord day by day” (Psalms 68:20). Now do we bless Him by day and not by night? Rather this comes to teach you: Give Him every day His appropriate blessings. So too here: Give Him for every single thing, its appropriate blessings.

R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated: Come and see that the ways of a human being are not like the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. According to the ways of a human being, an empty vessel

R. Papa said to Abaye: To R. Yohanan what is the difference between the Sukkah and the etrog?

R. Papa said: In one case it is written “bullock”, in the other “bullocks”.

But how does this mean that? R. Papa answered, Shekhar—the language of drink, satiation and drunkenness. R. Papa said: Learn from that when a man is satiated with wine, it is due to his filling of his throat. Rava said: A young scholar who does not have much wine should swallow it in gulps. Rava used to gulp down the cup of blessing.

But how does this mean that? R. Papa answered, Shekhar—the language of drink, satiation and drunkenness. R. Papa said: Learn from that when a man is satiated with wine, it is due to his filling of his throat. Rava said: A young scholar who does not have much wine should swallow it in gulps. Rava used to gulp down the cup of blessing.

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

R. Papa said:

R. Papa observed: The following verse as well, “And I will put My spirit into you” (Ezekiel 36:27)....

R. Safra assigned to them the mnemonic Humbahi. R. Papa assigned to them the mnemonic Humhabi; And the mnemonic for you is “the escort (ambuha) of the scribes (sofrim).”

R. Papa said: The date (for the second rainfall) is of importance as regards walking through private property, for we read (Baba Ḳamma, 81a): One may walk through private property until the second rainfall. R. Naḥman b. Isaac said: It is of importance with regard to the removal of the fruits of the Sabbatical year, for we read (Shebi'it, 9.7): Until what time are we allowed to use or destroy the straw and stubble of the Sabbatical year? Until the second rainfall, as it is written (Lev., 25.7): "And for thy cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food." This means to say that as long as the beasts find food in the field, you may feed your domestic animals from what there is in the house, but when there is nothing left in the field for the beasts, you must also stop feeding the cattle from what is in the house.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

Said R. 'Abahu: When are we to pronounce the blessing over the rain? When the groom goes forth to meet the bride. How does the blessing read? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: "We thank Thee, O Lord our God, for every drop Thou hast caused to descend for us"; and R. Johanan concluded this prayer thus: "Were our mouth full of song as the sea (is of water) and our tongue as loud as its roaring billows," etc., till "behold, they shall give thanks, bless, and praise unto Thy name, blessed art Thou, O Lord to whom many thanks are due." "Many thanks," and not "all thanks"?! Raba therefore directed to say, "God to whom thanks are due." R. Papa said: Let us therefore

R. Ḥanina b. Papa pointed out an inconsistency. It is written (Is., 21.14): "Unto him that is thirsty bring ye water," and again it is written (ibid., 55.1): "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters?!" If he is a worthy scholar, then "unto him that is thirsty bring ye water," but if he is not worthy, then: "ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." R. 'Aḥa b. Ḥanina pointed out an inconsistency. It is written (Prov., 5.16): "Let thy springs be dispersed abroad," and directly after it is written: "Let them be only thine own, and not strangers with thee!" If he is a worthy scholar, "let thy springs be dispersed abroad," but if not, "let them be only thine own."

R. Samuel b. 'Idi, R. Huna b. Manoah and R. Ḥiyya of Vastania used to study under Raba. After Raba's death they studied under R. Papa. Whenever the latter taught them something which did not appeal to them, he noticed that they were winking to one another. R. Papa therefore felt discouraged,

R. Samuel b. 'Idi, R. Huna b. Manoah and R. Ḥiyya of Vastania used to study under Raba. After Raba's death they studied under R. Papa. Whenever the latter taught them something which did not appeal to them, he noticed that they were winking to one another. R. Papa therefore felt discouraged,

R. Shimi b. 'Ashi, studying under R. Papa, used to argue against him very much. One day R. Shimi noticed R. Papa falling on his face and saying: May the Lord save me from being put to shame through Shimi! R. Shimi then resolved to keep silence, and raised no more questions.

R. Shimi b. 'Ashi, studying under R. Papa, used to argue against him very much. One day R. Shimi noticed R. Papa falling on his face and saying: May the Lord save me from being put to shame through Shimi! R. Shimi then resolved to keep silence, and raised no more questions.

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!].

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

to one travelling on a ship, or one travelling from station to station. R. Papa ate a loaf of bread each parasang, for he was of the opinion that the reason for recommending a short diet was to prevent disorder of the bowels (of which he was not afraid).

Said Rafrem b. Papa in the name of R. Ḥisda: On every fast which was decreed for the sake of mourning, like the Ninth of Ab and the fast of a mourner, both warm and cold baths are forbidden; but on fasts which were decreed merely to prevent indulgence in pleasure, like the communal fast, warm, but not cold, baths are forbidden. Said R. 'Idi b. 'Abin, we indeed, read in the Mishnah: "the bath-houses must be closed." Said 'Abbayi to him: Suppose the Mishnah had meant to forbid also cold baths, how should it then have expressed itself? Should it have read: "the rivers must be stopped"? Said R. Shisha, son of R. 'Idi, my father (in making his statement) felt this difficulty: Inasmuch as the Mishnah had said that bathing is forbidden, what was the idea of adding that the bath-houses must be closed? Does this not indicate that only warm baths are forbidden, while cold baths are allowed? It stands proved.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Gemara: What is the order of procedure on the fast days? The ark is carried out, etc. Does this order of procedure apply also to the first six fasts? This would contradict a Baraita which reads: On the first three and the second three fast days the people go to the synagogue and pray in the same way as they do during the whole year, but on the seven last fast days the ark is carried into the open place of the town and ashes are strewn on it (on the head of the Nasi, and on the head of the Ab Bet Din, and everyone else takes ashes and puts on his head; R. Nathan said, it was wood-ashes that were used)! Said R. Papa: Our Mishnah also has reference to the last seven fasts only.

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

"From the eighth thereof until the close of the festival, etc." Why did he not say, "until the festival", since the festival is a holiday (on which fasting and mourning are anyhow forbidden)? Said R. Papa, Raba's statement above

Raba said to Rafrem b. Papa, tell me some of the noble deeds performed by R. Huna. Said Rafrem, of his earlier days I remember nothing; as to his later years I remember that after cloudy (stormy) days he used to be taken out in a gilt carriage, in which he inspected the whole city, and wherever there was a damaged wall, he ordered it to be torn down. If the owner was in a position to build a new wall, he had to do so, if not, R. Huna would have it built at his own expense. Every Friday toward evening R. Huna would send a servant to the market who would buy up all the vegetables left over with the gardeners and throw them into the river. Why did he not rather give them to the poor? Because they would sometimes rely on these gifts and fail to provide themselves for the Sabbath. Why did he not throw it to the animals? He was of the opinion that food proper for human beings should not be given to animals. Why did he buy them at all? Because if he had not done so, it would lead the gardeners to sin in the future (by failing to provide the community with vegetables).

Is not the foregoing Baraita contradictory? First it says: If the beasts appear in the towns it is a visitation, making no distinction between day and night, later again it says that it is a visitation only when they appear by day and not when they appear by night. It is no contradiction, and the meaning is this: If the beasts appear in the town by day, it is a visitation, if by night, it is not. "If the beast saw two people and ran after them it is a visitation." This would imply that if the beast remained standing in its place it is not a visitation, and yet in the following clause it is taught that "if the beast fled it is not a visitation," which implies that if it remained standing in its place, it is a visitation! This too is no contradiction, because in the one case the reference is to a beast standing in a field that is near reedland, in the other, to one standing in a field that is not near reedland. "If it tore two persons and devoured only one of them, it is a visitation." But just above it was said that even if it only ran after them it is a visitation! Answer. This sentence refers to a beast standing in the very midst of the reeds. "If it climbed upon the roof and took a child out of a cradle, it is a visitation." Is this not a matter of course? Said R. Papa, the statement is needed in order to include the case of a beast taking a child out of a cradle standing in a hunter's cave.

Said R. Mari, son of the daughter of Samuel: I was standing (on the day the miracle was performed by R. Judah) on the bank of the River Papa, and saw angels, disguised as sailors, filling ships with sand, which turned into fine flour. Everybody tried to obtain some, but they were told that they should not buy that kind of flour, because it was the product of a miracle. The next morning ships laden with wheat arrived from Parzina.

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

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

when the appetite is satisfied and the stomach filled. This is not so, for did not R. Papa once chance to be in the synagogue of 'Abi Gubar, where he ordered a fast and rain fell before noon-time (of the fast-day), yet he advised them: "Read the great Hallel and then eat and drink!" With city people it is different, as drunkenness is a frequent occurrence among them.

Said R. Papa, therefore a Jew who has a lawsuit with a heathen in the month of Ab, should try to avoid it, because his luck is bad, but if he has a lawsuit in the month of Adar, he should prosecute it, because in that month his luck is good.

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use this “from his issue” to include a zav who has had two observations, and the other “from his issue” to exclude a zav who has had two observations?

R.Papa said: “And the king’s pitgam shall be published” (Esther 1:20); R. Nahman b. Isaac said: “And all the wives shall give yekar to their husbands” (Esther 1:20).

Hanina b. Papa began his discourse on this section with the following text: “You have caused men to ride over our heads, we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12). Through fire in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and through water in the days of Pharaoh. “But you did bring us out into abundance,” in the days of Haman.

with poverty R. Papa said: They also called him: The slave that was sold for loaves of bread.

Shesheth from Katrazya happened [once to read] in the presence of R. Ashi, and he blessed M”N”H. Blessed are You, O Lord our God, king of the universe, [the God] who fought our fight and judged our judgment and avenged our vengeance and punished our adversaries for us and paid back retribution on all the enemies of our lives. Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel. Rava Says: [The concluding words are], “The God who saves.” R. Papa said: Therefore we should say both: “Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel, the God who saves.”

“If the last reads four verses he is praiseworthy”: Because of the principle that “in dealing with holy things we go up but never go down.” R. Papa was once in the synagogue of Ave Govar, when the first one [who was called up] read four verses, and R. Papa praised him.

“If the last reads four verses he is praiseworthy”: Because of the principle that “in dealing with holy things we go up but never go down.” R. Papa was once in the synagogue of Ave Govar, when the first one [who was called up] read four verses, and R. Papa praised him.

GEMARA. What is the reason [why the one who says the haftarah does all of these other things]? Papa said: For his honor. Rabbah bar Shimi said: So they do not come to quarrel.

Papa said: The Mishnah is speaking only of those which are made as round as a nut.

Papa said to him: But maybe [the reason he repeats] is because at first he did not have proper intention, and now he has proper intention? He said to him: Is he to treat heaven like an ordinary friend? If he does not have intention, I will hit him with a hammer until he does have intention.

Rami b. Abba was building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue which he wanted to tear down, and to bring the bricks and beams from it and use them for the other. He was sitting and trying to figure out the implications of what R. Hisda had said, for R. Hisda said: A man should not tear down a synagogue until he has built another [to take its place]. The reason there [that it was prohibited] was so that there should be no negligence. But what about in a case like this? He came in front of R. Papa, who forbade him; and in front of R. Huna, and he also forbade him.

To turn a synagogue into a study hall is permitted; to turn a study hall into a synagogue is forbidden. Papa in the name of Rava taught the opposite. Aha said:

We learned: On the second, Zakhor. Now when Rosh Hodesh [of Adar] is on Shabbat, Purim falls on Friday, and it teaches “On the second, Zakhor”? Papa said: What is meant by “second”? The second to the interruption.

On the other days of Pesach the various passages in the Torah relating to Pesah are read. What are these? R. Papa said: The mnemonic is MAPU.

they are like the ox that has gored an ox, an ass, and a camel, and has been made a precedent of warning for all men. R. Papa said, If R. Hunna had heard that this is the Baraitha, viz., Who is a fool? it is he who destroys all that is given to him, he would have recalled his words. It is a question as regards his recalling of his words, whether he would have recalled his words only in the case of the man who tears his clothes, in consideration of the Baraitha which is like it, or whether he would have recalled them in the case of all three. The matter was left undecided.

R. Chănina bar Papa said, Every one who doeth a thing and repenteth of it is forgiven at once, for it is said, "and they fear not me" (ibid.). Lo, if they do "fear me," it follows that they are forgiven at once.

"But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride" (Jer. xiii. 17). R. Samuel bar Inia in the name of Rab said, The Holy One, blessed be He, has a place, and its name is "secret places." What is the meaning of "for your pride"? R. Samuel bar Isaac said, For the glory of Israel, because it was taken away from them and given to the peoples of the world. R. Samuel bar Nachmani said, On account of the glory of the kingdom of heaven. And how is there weeping in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, seeing that R. Papa said, There is no tribulation in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He. For it is said "Honour and majesty are before him, strength and beauty are in his sanctuary" (Ps. xcvi. 6). There is no difficulty. The one has to do with the inner, the other with the outer side of the Divine Being. Is there then no weeping on the outer side? And yet it is written, "And in that day did the Lord, the LORD of hosts, call to weeping and to mourning and to baldness and to girding with sackcloth" (Is. xxii. 12). That is a different matter, viz., the destruction of the Temple, for for this even the angels of peace wept, as it is said, "Behold, their valiant ones cry without: the angels of peace weep bitterly" (Is. xxxiii. 7).

But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For surely Hezekiah said, A Nazirite, if again polluted on the eighth day, must bring an additional offering, but if in the previous night, he need not bring it; but R. Jochanan said, Nay, in the latter case also he must bring it. R. Jeremiah said, A case of defilement is a different matter, for payments postponed from it are made at a second Passover. R. Papa objects to this and says, It will be all right according to him who says,

The second Passover admits of offerings postponed from the first; but according to him who says, The second is an independent Festival, where is your argument? But R. Papa said, that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included in the seven days of cleansing. But how could R. Jochanan have said this? For lo, R. Jochanan said elsewhere, If a man has had one emission in the night and two in the day, he must bring an additional offering; if two in the night and one in the day, he need not bring it; and if thou dost imagine that R. Jochanan considered that the night is not to be included, then, if there were two in the night and one in the day, he must bring. But, it is answered, R. Jochanan was adopting the words of the other speaker, viz., that the night is to be included. "Adopting the words of the other speaker," say you? Of course there would then be nothing further to argue about. No; two in the day and one in the night were necessary for him. I might otherwise have taught that it would be according to the view of R. Shisha son of R. Idai; but we learn from this that it is according to R. Joseph.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

The Bible teaching is little, but Halachoth are manifold. There is a Baraitha, viz., Concerning stripes and uncleanness connected with tents the Bible teaching is little, but Halachoth are manifold. Concerning stripes is the Bible teaching little? Concerning stripes there is manifold Bible teaching. R. Papa said, This is the right reading, Concerning stripes the Bible teaching is manifold, but Halachoth are few. Concerning tents Bible teaching is little, but Halachoth are manifold. But what comes out of this? If thou art in doubt on the subject of stripes, look in the Bible; if thou art in doubt on the subject of tents, look in the Mishnic teaching.

A certain passage says, "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, etc." (Ezek. i. 10) and it is written, "And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14). And lo, the ox is not reckoned in. Resh Lakish said, Ezekiel besought the Merciful One with regard to him, and He changed him into a cherub. He addressed Him thus, Lord of the Universe, shall an accuser become an advocate? What is the meaning of cherub? R. Abohu said, It is equivalent to a growing child. For so in Babylon a young child is called Rabya. R. Papa said to Abohu, But, as it is written, "The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14), this shews that the face of a cherub is the same thing as the face of a man. There are large faces and there are small faces.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

Menahem went out, Shammai entered in, etc. Whither did he go out? Abai said, He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, Let the sabbath rest be by no means a light thing in thine eyes; for lo, the laying on of the hands is only prohibited on account of the Sabbath rest, and the great men of the nation were divided upon the matter. That is self-evident. But as this is a case of a Sabbath rest which clashes with a positive command, there was need of it. But this also is self-evident. It was to meet the objection of the person who says, In the matter of the laying on of the hands itself men are divided. We learn from this that it is in the matter of Sabbath rest that they are divided. Ramai bar Chama said, Learn hence that we require the laying on to be done with all one's strength, for if thou dost imagine that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength, how is the idea of work involved in the laying on of the hands? Some people adduce the passage, "Speak unto the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hand" (Lev. i. 2, 4). The sons of Israel lay on their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Ishmael say, Daughters of Israel lay on their hands by permission. R. Jose said, Abba El'azar related to me the following story: Once we had a calf belonging to the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and we brought it to the court of the women, and the women laid their hands upon it, not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify the women. And if thou dost imagine we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, dost thou mean to say that in order to gratify women we introduced work into holy things? But do we not learn hence that we do not require it to be done with all one's strength? Nay, by all means I will grant you that we require it to be done with all one's strength. He said to them, Rest your hand upon it. If so, it was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women that it was done. Thou mayest conclude that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hand. R. Ami says, He is establishing two things; one that it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the laying on of the hands, and the other that it was done in order to gratify the women. Rab Papa said, Learn hence, Sides, and not the head only, are forbidden; for if thou dost imagine that sides are allowed, might they not lay hands on the sides? But no; learn hence that sides are forbidden.

a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so there is no interposition. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. Rabbi Ela is consistent with himself. For R. Ela said that R. Chănina bar Papa said, Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to hallowed things, and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things; the later refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things, which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. What is the reason? Because the former five involve an essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. Because the later ones involve no essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply to hallowed things; but to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things our Rabbis have decided that they do not apply.

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

R' Papa said, no. Everybody agrees that it is atonement, where they disagree is that, one explains the value is according to the victim, and one explains the value is according to the owner

R' Papa, [according] to the wife and her Ketubah.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

R' Papa was doubtful, Rava was certain.

Rebbi Akiva says the third on didn't come etc. and just as by two [one could disqualify the group] etc. Rav said to Rav Papa But now, let the victim [who is a witness to his own murder] save [the murderer from being executed]? [The case] is where he was killed from behind.

Rebbi Yosi says, etc.: Rav Papa asked Abaii, And does Rebbi Yosi indeed adhere to that logic? But we learned in a mishna, Rebbi Yosi says, An enemy is killed, because he is like someone who had purpose and was warned.

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Rav Papa said: This is only necessary to teach [a case of] a garbage heap that is regularly used [as a bathroom] at night, and not one that is regularly used during the day, because it is possible that someone will be sitting there, [therefore] he is not a [considered] a criminal. [In a case] that it is not regularly used during the day, it is also not [considered] totally unexpected, because it is possible that someone will be sitting there.