pedat

Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Eleazar used to recite three prayers. What did he say after his prayer? May it please You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that nobody should come to hate us in his heart nor should we hate anybody in our hearts, that nobody should be envious of us nor we envious of anybody. May Your Torah be our occupation all the days of our life and may our words be supplications before You. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba added: Make our hearts singleminded in the fear of Your name, remove us from all You hate and bring us close to all You love, and deal with us in charity for Your name’s sake.

There, we have stated (Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin 3:6): “Unripe figs and grapes, Rebbi Aqiba said they may become impure by the impurity of food; Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said only after they come to the period of tithing.” We have stated here “immediately” but is it “not immediately”? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah speaks only about unripe figs, but unripe fruit of any other kind may not become impure by the impurity of food until it reaches the period of tithing. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah implies this: “Unripe figs when they started to be radiant one eats them with his bread in the field.” Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees about the Sabbatical year. “Everybody agrees,” the colleagues said that the figs do not become impure by the impurity of food.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

“One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya]: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi [Yose] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals. Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. “Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.”

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood.

HALAKHAH: Why non-sanctified? Even if it is sanctified! Did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Yasa, you shall sanctify the altar; then the altar will be most holy. Since the altar only sanctifies with intention, so vessels should only sanctify with intention. Ḥizqiah said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for the sanctification of hands and feet become disqualified by staying overnight. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for Tabernacles become disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the evil impression; but we do not know whether following Ḥizqiah or according to everybody’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The water for a deviant wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Abuna: anything of whose kind nothing possibly is for the altar cannot become disqualified by staying overnight.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: It is forbidden for the individual to mention before the public reader mentions. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Is the matter dependent on the public reader? Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Ḥaggai, do they disagree? He said to him: no. That which you are saying, is the matter dependent on the public reader? The individual if he wants to mention, he mentions dew. But what you are saying is: it is forbidden for the individual to mention before the public reader mentions rain. If they rise for prayer it is as if the public reader mentioned it.

And similarly, Amen Amen, hear hear. An interpreter who stands in front of a Sage is permitted neither to change, nor to circumlocute, nor to add unless he was his father or his teacher. Rebbi Pedat was the speaker of Rebbi Yasa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Eleazar’s name. Bar Yashita was the speaker of Rebbi Aḥa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Ḥinena’s name. When Rebbi Mana was instructing in a group, things which he had heard from his father in his house he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Jonah’s name. Things which he had heard from his father in the Academy he referred to: so says Rebbi Jonah.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled. Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples”. A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of [Rebbi] Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,” not from those who dwell in your land.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]. “He shall write for her.” “He shall execute for her.” “Or manumission was not given to her.” Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow, the dust of the suspected wife, and the spittle of the sister-in-law. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible. As it was stated: “In the blood”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight.

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave? It already preceded.

Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon! For he explains it for those who insist. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to everybody for those who do not insist. If you say for those who insist, one should have stated that Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob and Rebbi Tarphon say the same thing. Some Tannaїm say, “one who wants”; some Tannaïm say, “also one who wants”. He who says “one who wants” supports Rebbi Abba; he who says “also one who wants”, supports Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon!

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.

There, we have stated: “You have in your hand a mina of my father’s; you have to get from me only 50 denars. He does not have to swear since he is like a person who returns a find.” Rebbi Eleazar said, in this case they instituted a regulation as they instituted for a find, as we have stated: “The finder of a lost object shall not swear because of the public good.” Rebbi Abba said, this Mishnah [applies] when he said to him, you found my two oxen. But if he said, I found your two oxen and returned both of them, but the other said, you returned only one, in that case they did not institute the rule. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In this case they did institute. But in the first case, it is a word of the Torah, as it was stated: I could think that if he said to him, you found my two oxen, but the other said, I found only one, should he be obligated [to swear]? The verse says, “or if he found a find and disowned it;” that excludes this one who did not disown. But if he said to him, I was standing on my roof when I saw you dragging away two tied oxen, two tied oxen you dragged away from me, and he says, only one I dragged away; in that case they made no regulation. Similarly: “I was standing with my father when he was dying and he claimed from you a mina and you agreed to it,” and the other says, “I agreed only for 50;” in that case they made no regulation.

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me”, then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.

It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted, so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. You may even say in both cases if they insist; here it is about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged. Just as speeding-up vows are permitted, so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in matters of flogging, he cannot be flogged.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims against another a claim of thief he pays double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. There, they say, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There we state and it supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was lost.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he ate it; he has to pay its value. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” Is there eating without slaughtering? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, explain it if another slaughtered. And the following said so: He said to one in the market place, “where is my ox which you stole?” He says, “I did not steal.” “I want you to swear,” and he says “Amen.” He is (not) liable. Because he is one in the market place. But if he said it to one of the keepers, that one would be liable. The baraita when he ate it and then swore. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore and after that ate it.

Which is the other [blessing to be recited before the morning Shema']? Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : "With abounding love" ; and so R. Eleazar taught his son R. Pedat to say "With abounding love."

Rab Huna b. Ammi stated that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan : He who sees a dream and his soul is depressed should go and have it interpreted in the presence of three. He should have it interpreted ! But Rab Hisda has said : An uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter ! Nay, but say : He should have it turned into good in the presence of three. He should assemble three men and say to them, "I have seen a good dream" ; and they should say to him, "Good it is and may it be good. May the All-merciful turn it to good ; seven times may it be decreed concerning thee from Heaven that it should be good, and may it be good." Then they should recite three verses in which the word hapak "turn" occurs, three in which padah "redeem" occurs, and three in which shalom "peace" occurs.

R. Eleazar b. Pedat was greatly distressed by poverty. One day he was bled, and after the operation had nothing to eat. He found some garlic and swallowed it, whereupon he fainted. Some of the Rabbis went to visit him and noticed that he was weeping and laughing, and that a ray of light proceeded from his forehead. When he awoke, they asked him: "Why did you weep and laugh, and why did a ray of light proceed from your forehead?" "I saw the Shekinah," he replied, "and complained before her, saying, 'how long shall I continue to live in this poverty?' and the Shekinah replied to me: 'Would it be acceptable to thee that I should destroy the world and create it anew? Perhaps thou wilt then be born in an hour that will betoken plenty for thee.' I said, 'So much trouble for a mere perhaps?' [I further said: 'Is the time which I have already lived greater than the time I am yet to live, or the reverse?' I was told: 'The time thou hast lived is greater.' 'If so,' said I, 'I do not care to be reborn.'] I then asked: 'What wilt thou give me in the world to come?' 'Thou wilt be given,' the answer was, 'thirteen rivers flowing with balsam oil, in which thou wilt find pleasure.' Said I, 'Is that all?' [The Shekinah replied: 'What am I to give to thy fellowmen if thou takest everything?' But I said: 'Do I ask it of one who is not in a position to give?']. I was then struck on my forehead by the snapping of a thumb and was asked: 'Eleazar my son, do my arrows irritate thee?'"