rab

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

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

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

R. 'Osha'ya said, what is the meaning of the verse (Jerem., 51.13): "O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures"? The verse intimates that it is because she (Babylon) dwells upon many waters that her treasures are abundant. Rab said: Babylonia is rich because she harvests without rain. 'Abbayi said, it is generally accepted that a flooded (swampy) land is better than a dry land.

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.

"And Jacob said unto his sons, Why do ye look one upon another?" (Gen., 42. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, Jacob said to his sons, make no show of your plenty before the sons of Esau and of Ishmael, lest they become jealous of you.

We read in a Baraita: Joseph instructed his brethren, do not march in wide (hasty) steps, and bring the sun into town. "Do not march in wide (hasty) steps," because it was said a wide step takes away one five-hundredth of one's eye-sight, and "bring the sun into town," because it was said by R. Judah in the name of Rab, one should always enter (town) in day-time and leave it in day-time, for it is said (Gen., 44. 3): "As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away."

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, who received it from R. Ḥiyya: One who travels on the road must not eat more than one eats in years of famine. What is the reason therefor? Here (in Babylonia) it was explained that it is in order to prevent disorder of the bowels; in Palestine they said that it is in order to prevent shortage of provisions. Does it make any practical difference what reason we adopt? Answer: The difference arises with regard

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, who said it in the name of R. Ḥiyya: He who denies himself food in years of famine will be saved from an unnatural death, for it is said (Job, 5. 20): "In famine He will redeem thee from death, and in war from the power of the sword." Now, for "In famine He shall redeem thee from death" he should have said "from famine"! The meaning, therefore, is that for denying food to oneself in years of famine one will be saved from an unnatural death.

Samuel said: A fast which one did not take upon oneself before sunset of the preceding day has not the validity of a fast. But what if one did fast? Said Rabbah b. R. Shila: Such a one is comparable to a bellows full of wind. What is the exact time for one to take a fast upon himself? Rab says, during the hours of Minḥah (afternoon); Samuel says, he must insert the vow in the Minḥah prayer itself. Said R. Joseph; Samuel's view is reasonable, because it is written in the Scroll of Fasts—"People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer." Now, does that not mean that they have bound themselves to fast while praying? No, it means only they have bound themselves.

R. Kahana said in the name of Rab: An individual who took upon himself a fast is not allowed to wear shoes while fasting, because we apprehend that he might have taken upon himself a communal fast. What expression must he use in his vow to be allowed to wear shoes? Said Rabba b. R. Shila: He should say thus: To-morrow I shall fast before Thee a private fast.

R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement in the presence of Samuel, he said: Has a resolution to fast the force of a vow, so that one must perforce pay it? It is merely self-affliction that one has taken upon himself. If he feels that he can endure the affliction let him do so, but if he cannot endure it, he need not! Some relate the above in the following form: R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement before Samuel, he said to me: This is a matter of course! Let us assume that his intention has merely the force of a vow, is not one in duty bound to pay a vow the next day or at a later time?

R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement in the presence of Samuel, he said: Has a resolution to fast the force of a vow, so that one must perforce pay it? It is merely self-affliction that one has taken upon himself. If he feels that he can endure the affliction let him do so, but if he cannot endure it, he need not! Some relate the above in the following form: R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement before Samuel, he said to me: This is a matter of course! Let us assume that his intention has merely the force of a vow, is not one in duty bound to pay a vow the next day or at a later time?

R. Joshua, son of R. 'Idi, happened to come to R. 'Ashi, where meat of a three-year-old calf was prepared in his honor. They asked him to eat, but he replied, I am keeping a fast. They said to him: Can you not postpone it and make it up another time? Do you not agree with the statement which R. Judah transmitted in the name of Rab, namely, that one may postpone his fast and make it up at another time? "It is a fast on account of a bad dream," he replied, and Raba b. Maḥseya said in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who reported it in the name of Rab: Fasting is good for a bad dream even as fire is for consuming flax. R. Ḥisda said: But the fast must take place on the same day, to which R. Joseph added: Even if that day is the Sabbath.

R. Joshua, son of R. 'Idi, happened to come to R. 'Ashi, where meat of a three-year-old calf was prepared in his honor. They asked him to eat, but he replied, I am keeping a fast. They said to him: Can you not postpone it and make it up another time? Do you not agree with the statement which R. Judah transmitted in the name of Rab, namely, that one may postpone his fast and make it up at another time? "It is a fast on account of a bad dream," he replied, and Raba b. Maḥseya said in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who reported it in the name of Rab: Fasting is good for a bad dream even as fire is for consuming flax. R. Ḥisda said: But the fast must take place on the same day, to which R. Joseph added: Even if that day is the Sabbath.

What has been decided about the matter? Said R. Samuel b. Sasarṭai in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi, who said it in the name of Rab: The benediction should be inserted between "Redeemer" and "Healer" (of Israel), but R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Jannai b. Ishmael, it should be included in the benediction: "Who hearest prayer," and this is the accepted law.

In what respect are these fasts more rigorous than the preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. How is the alarm sounded? R. Judah says, by blowing the shofar; R. Judah, son of R. Samuel b. Shilat says in the name of Rab, by the supplication: "Answer us!" It was thought that the one who advocates blowing the shofar is opposed to the use of the supplication: "Answer us!" and that the one who is in favor of the supplication: "Answer us!" is opposed to blowing the shofar. If so, the latter authority would disagree with this Baraita: No less than seven fast days are enjoined upon the community, and on each of them eighteen alarms are sounded; in order to remember this, take Jericho as a sign. Now, in Jericho it was done by blowing the shofar! You must therefore say that everybody admits that blowing the shofar is a proper means of sounding the alarm, but a difference of opinion exists regarding the supplication: "Answer us!" the one authority considering it a mode of sounding the alarm, the other not considering it as such. But has the supplication: "Answer us!" ever been called alarm-sounding? Does not a Baraita state: "For other calamities that break forth and come upon a community, as epidemic eruptions on the skin, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes and a plague of serpents and scorpions, no alarm was sounded (for their disappearance), but cries were uttered"? Now, crying certainly is by mouth! Answer: There are different opinions of teachers in this matter, for we read in the Mishnah: "On the following occasions the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy or is threatened by the overflow of a river, and for a ship which is near foundering; R. Jose says, we may do so in order to secure the people's help, but not in the form of crying to God." Now, how is that sounding to be done? By the use of the Shofar? Is it allowed to blow the Shofar on a Sabbath? Undoubtedly, then, the Mishnah means by crying "Answer us!" And yet it terms it "sounding"! It stands proved.

"My heritage is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; she has uttered her voice against Me; therefore have I hated her" (Jerem., 12. 8). Said R. Zuṭra b. Tobiah in the name of Rab or, as some report, said R. 'Aḥa in the name of R. Eleazar: This verse applies to an unworthy person, who goes before the ark as a messenger of the congregation.

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

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

Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, etc. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim, but if the fasts began, etc. What constitutes a beginning? R. Aḥa said, three fasts, R. Jose said, even one fast. R. Judah said in the name of Rab, this view (that one should not fast to the end of the day) is the view of R. Meir, who offered it in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, but the other Sages say, one must fast to the end of the day. Mar Zuṭra lectured in the name of R. Huna that the law is, one must fast to the end of the day.

Gemara: The order of these fasts as given above applies only to a drought during the first season, etc. A contradiction was pointed out from a Baraita: If the rain fails to come in its first and second season, we should pray for it, but if it fails to come also in its third season, we should begin to fast. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, our Mishnah must be understood as follows: The order of these fasts, as enumerated above, applies only when the first, second and third seasons had passed without rain, but if there was rain in the first season and the seeds sprouted, but then changed for the worse, the alarm must be sounded at once. Said R. Naḥman, the alarm should be sounded only if they changed, but not if they dried up. This is self-evident, since the Mishnah says explicitly "changed!" No, this remark (of R. Naḥman) is needed in case the seeds recovered (so far as to) produce stalks; you might then think that this producing of stalks is something to rely on for a full recovery; he therefore informs you that producing of stalks is nothing to count upon.

If there was absence of rain for forty days between the first and second rainfall, the alarm is likewise sounded at once because this is a calamity of drought, etc. What is to be understood by a calamity of drought (מכת בצרת)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, a calamity that is the cause of scarcity. Said R. Naḥman, when provision has to be imported from one city to another by water,

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

There was a ruinous wall in Nehardea near which Rab and Samuel would not pass, although it had stood on its place for thirteen years. One day R. 'Adda b. 'Ahabah came to that place. On their way Samuel said to Rab, "Let us go roundabout," to which the latter replied: "Now it is not necessary, as we have R. Adda b. 'Ahabah with us, whose merits are very great (and will protect us), hence I am not afraid."

There was a ruinous wall in Nehardea near which Rab and Samuel would not pass, although it had stood on its place for thirteen years. One day R. 'Adda b. 'Ahabah came to that place. On their way Samuel said to Rab, "Let us go roundabout," to which the latter replied: "Now it is not necessary, as we have R. Adda b. 'Ahabah with us, whose merits are very great (and will protect us), hence I am not afraid."

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

On the following occasions the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath, etc. Our Rabbis have taught: When a city is surrounded by enemy troops, or is threatened with a flood; when a ship is foundering on the sea; when a person is pursued by Gentiles or by wild beasts or by bandits, the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath. For any of these things individuals may volunteer to afflict themselves by fasting; R. Jose said, an individual is not allowed to afflict himself by fasting, for he might become dependent upon the public [by reason of incapacity for work] and find no mercy on their part. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, what is R. Jose's (Scriptural) reason? It is written (Gen., 2. 7): "And man became a living soul;" the Torah means to say, keep alive the soul which I gave you.

The alarm is sounded on account of any calamity that comes upon the community, except that of excessive rain. What is the reason? Said R. 'Abba in the name of Samuel, because it is not allowed to pray for the cessation of too much good. R. 'Abba further said in the name of Samuel, whence do we learn that one is not to pray for the cessation of too much good? From the statement (Malachi, 3. 10): "Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency." What is the meaning of "that there shall be more than sufficiency?" Said Rami b. R. Yud in the name of Rab, it means that your lips will grow tired saying, "it is enough".

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, in the Exile we do sound the alarm at once (for excessive rain). The same is taught in a Baraita: When there was excessive rain, the people belonging to the division (of that week) would send word to their delegates in Jerusalem: "Look ye out for your brethren in the Exile, that their houses should not become their graves!"

Rab happened to come to a certain place, where he ordered a fast. The reader of the congregation then went down to the praying desk and recited, "He causes the wind to blow," and immediately a wind blew, and when he recited, "He causes the rain to fall," rain fell. Rab therefore asked him: "What is thy occupation?" "I am a teacher of young children," he replied, "and I teach the children of the poor as well as those of the rich, and if any one is so poor that he is unable to pay, I take no fee from him. I possess a fish-pond, and if a child is careless in his studies, I bribe him by giving him some of the fish and thus win him over to study."

Rab happened to come to a certain place, where he ordered a fast. The reader of the congregation then went down to the praying desk and recited, "He causes the wind to blow," and immediately a wind blew, and when he recited, "He causes the rain to fall," rain fell. Rab therefore asked him: "What is thy occupation?" "I am a teacher of young children," he replied, "and I teach the children of the poor as well as those of the rich, and if any one is so poor that he is unable to pay, I take no fee from him. I possess a fish-pond, and if a child is careless in his studies, I bribe him by giving him some of the fish and thus win him over to study."

were confined to the Section Neziḳin (Damages), while our studies embrace much more; when R. Judah reached in his studies the Mishnah (Ṭeharot, II, 1): 'If a woman was pressing vegetables in a pot,' or, as some say, the Mishnah ('Uḳḳaẓin, II, 1): 'Olives which have been pressed with their leaves are clean,' he would say: 'I see here problems as difficult as the discussions of Rab and Samuel,' while we to-day teach the tractate 'Uḳḳaẓin in thirteen different recensions. [And yet when R. Judah took off one of his shoes rain fell, while we cry (for rain) the whole day and nobody heeds us! Should it be because of our conduct—if there is anybody who has noticed anything wrong, let him testify against me.] However, what can the leaders do when the generation does not appear good enough in the eyes of God!"

Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Every day a Heavenly Voice comes forth and says: "The whole world is supplied with food only on account of my son Ḥanina, while he is satisfied with one ḳab of carobs from one Sabbath eve to the other." Every Friday R. Ḥanina's wife would throw some smoke-producing matter into the oven,

Does a cedar produce young shoots? Do we not read in a Baraita: He who buys a tree from his neighbor in order to fell it, must cut it a hand-breadth above the ground; if the tree is a virgin-sycamore, he must cut it three hand-breadths above the ground; and if it is a truncated sycamore, he must cut it two hand-breadths above ground; if he buys reeds and vine, he must cut them above the knot; in case of palm-trees and cedars he may dig deep in the ground and uproot them, because they do not produce young shoots! Answer. In the passage above (of R. Ḥiyya) reference is had to different kinds of cedars, which is in keeping with a statement of Rabbah b. R. Huna; for Rabbah b. R. Huna said that it was taught in the School of Rab: There are ten kinds of cedars, as it is said (Is., 41. 19): "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia-tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane-tree and the larch together."

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, R. Meir's view is law; R. Huna said, it is established usage; R. Johanan said, the people adopted it as a usage. [The opinion of him who says that a view is law, carries with it that we must teach it in the school sessions; if one says that a view is established usage, it means that we do not teach it in the school sessions, but, if asked, decide accordingly; if one says that the people have adopted a view as usage, it means that we do not even decide according to it, but that when someone has already acted in accordance with it, we do not nullify his action.] R. Naḥman said, R. Jose's view is law and, indeed, R. Jose's view has been recognized as law. Why then do the priests nowadays spread their hands during the Minḥah service of public fasts? Inasmuch as they do it close to sunset, it is as if it were done during the Ne'ilah service.

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

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

Rab once came to Babylonia and, noticing that the people were reciting the Hallel on New Moon, intended to interrupt them, but seeing that they skipped over some portions thereof he concluded that they were following a custom of their ancestors. It was taught that individuals need not commence the recital of the Hallel on New Moon, but having commenced they may finish it.

With the beginning of Ab we should limit our rejoicing. Said R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilat in the name of Rab: Just as we reduce the indulgence in amusements with the beginning of Ab, so we increase it with the beginning of Adar.

"To give you a future and a hope" (Jerem., 29. 11). Said R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilat in the name of Rab, this verse alludes to the palm-trees and linen garments.

"See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed" (Gen., 27. 27). Said R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilat in the name of Rab: As the smell of a field of apples.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

On the day before the ninth of Ab one should not partake of two courses, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this provision applies only to the time after twelve o'clock noon, but not to the time prior to this hour. Some report that R. Judah said in the name of Rab: This provision applies only to the last meal before the fast, but if it is not the last meal before the fast, one may eat of two courses. Both these statements were made to indicate leniency and both are needed for the purpose, for had it been said only that the provision applies to the last meal, one might have understood it to include a meal taken (as the last) in the morning, therefore we are told that it applies only to a meal taken after noon; if, on the other hand, it had been said only that the provision applies to a meal taken after noon, I might have understood it to include even a meal which is not the last, therefore we are informed that it applies only to the last meal before the fast.

On the day before the ninth of Ab one should not partake of two courses, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this provision applies only to the time after twelve o'clock noon, but not to the time prior to this hour. Some report that R. Judah said in the name of Rab: This provision applies only to the last meal before the fast, but if it is not the last meal before the fast, one may eat of two courses. Both these statements were made to indicate leniency and both are needed for the purpose, for had it been said only that the provision applies to the last meal, one might have understood it to include a meal taken (as the last) in the morning, therefore we are told that it applies only to a meal taken after noon; if, on the other hand, it had been said only that the provision applies to a meal taken after noon, I might have understood it to include even a meal which is not the last, therefore we are informed that it applies only to the last meal before the fast.

Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: R. Judah b. R. 'Il'ai had the following custom: On the eve of the ninth of Ab he would order to be brought to him dry bread with salt; then he would sit down

A person in rags may publicly recite the Shema etc. Ulla b. Rab asked of Abaye: Is a child in rags allowed to read in the Torah?

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "For God shall bring every work into judgment concerning every hidden thing" (Eccles. xii. 14). A slave, whose master punishes sins of error as though they were sins of presumption—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "concerning every hidden thing"? Rab said, This means the man who kills a louse in the presence of his neighbour, so that he is disgusted at it. But Samuel said, This means the man who spits in the presence of his neighbour, so that he is disgusted. What is the meaning of "whether it be good or whether it be evil"? The men of the house of R. Jannai say, This is he that gives a coin to a poor man publicly. For this story is told of R. Jannai himself. He saw a man who gave a coin to a poor man publicly. He said to him, It had been better that thou hadst not given it to him now, for thou hast given it to him and hast put him to shame. The men of the house of R. Shila say, This is he that gives alms to a woman secretly, because he brings her into suspicion. Rabba said, This is he that sends home to his wife meat that is not bled on the eve of the sabbath. But lo, on the other hand, Rabba himself sent such home. Ah, but it was a different matter as regards the daughter of R. Chasda, for he was certain about her, as being a woman of experience.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them" (Deut. xxxi. 21). A slave, whose master brings upon him evils and troubles—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "evils and troubles"? Rab said, Evils which become troubles counterbalancing one another, as in the case of the wasp and the scorpion. But Samuel said, This refers to him who bestows money upon the poor man in the hour of his extreme distress. Rabba said, This agrees with the proverb, Money for corn standing in the field is not found, for corn hanging up it is found.

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them" (Deut. xxxi. 17). R. Bardala bar Tabyumi said that Rab said, Every one who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them; every one who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured" (Deut. xxxi. 17)

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

R. Ela was mounting a ladder in the house of Rabbah bar Shela; he heard a child who was reading, "For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought" (Amos iv. 13). Ela said, A slave, whose master declareth to him what is his thought, is there any help for him? What is the meaning of the expression, What is his thought? Rab said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told a man in the day of his death. Is it so? and yet Rab Kohăna hid himself under the nuptial couch of Rab and heard him talk and laugh and do as he had a mind. He said, The mouth of Rab is like that of one who has not tasted broth. He said to him, Kohăna, get out, these are not good manners. There is no difficulty. In the one case it was needful to procure her favour, in the other it was not needful to procure her favour.

"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).

R. Idi, father of R. Jacob bar Idi, was accustomed to spend three months on his journey and one day in the house of Rab, and our Rabbis used to call him Rab's schoolboy of a day. He became broken-hearted. He read to himself the passage, "I am as one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbour, etc." (Job xii. 4). R. Jochanan said to him, In the prayer that comes from thee do not injure our Rabbis.

things only from which the Chagigah may come. These are excluded, for the Chagigah does not come from them. R. Ashi said, This comes out of the expression "and thou shalt rejoice." These are excluded, for there is no joy in them. And R. Ashi said, Pray, for what purpose does the expression "in thy feast" occur? It is to serve the same purpose as it served with R. Daniel bar Kattinah. For R. Daniel bar Kattinah said that Rab said, How is it that men do not take them wives on a middle holiday? Because it is said, "and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast," and not in thy wife.

"Neither is there any peace to him that goeth out or to him that cometh in" (Zech. viii. 10). Rab says, It means when a man leaves off from speaking Halachah to speak Bible only, he has no more peace; but Samuel said, This is he who deserts the Talmud for Mishnah. But R. Jochanan said, Even if he go from one Talmud to the other.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

of a treasurer. We give in charge to him the stones of a building, so that all which is thus placed, is placed at his disposition. But at the end he has built some of it into his house. Behold, he has not trespassed, until he has dwelt under it to the worth of a farthing. But most assuredly he has altered the stone. What is it to me whether he has dwelt in it or not? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Rab; for Rab said, For example, if a man have placed it upon the opening of a roof-window, then, if he have dwelt in it, yes; if he have not dwelt in it, no. But granting fully that it is as Rabba said, yet thou findest more difficulty here than in the case of him who drew sacred money for common uses; in that case he knows well that they are coins belonging to the sanctuary. It was a matter for him to watch what he was doing. But in this case how should he know? This is as mountains suspended by a hair.

of a treasurer. We give in charge to him the stones of a building, so that all which is thus placed, is placed at his disposition. But at the end he has built some of it into his house. Behold, he has not trespassed, until he has dwelt under it to the worth of a farthing. But most assuredly he has altered the stone. What is it to me whether he has dwelt in it or not? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Rab; for Rab said, For example, if a man have placed it upon the opening of a roof-window, then, if he have dwelt in it, yes; if he have not dwelt in it, no. But granting fully that it is as Rabba said, yet thou findest more difficulty here than in the case of him who drew sacred money for common uses; in that case he knows well that they are coins belonging to the sanctuary. It was a matter for him to watch what he was doing. But in this case how should he know? This is as mountains suspended by a hair.

Now seeing that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," to what purpose are there given me the words, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (Deut. iv. 32)? They are to agree with the words of R. El'azar; for R. El'azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament, for it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.), and inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, "Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, The first man extended from one end of the world to the other, for it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth," and from one end of heaven unto the other (Deut. iv. 32). Inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). If so, the passages are difficult to reconcile. No, for both are of the same dimensions.

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, Ten things were created on the first day, and they are these; heaven and earth, chaos and desolation, light and darkness, wind and waters, the measure of the day and the measure of the night: heaven and earth; for it is written, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" (Gen. i. 1) chaos and desolation; for it is written, "And the earth was chaos and desolation;" (Gen. i. 2) light and darkness; darkness, for it is written, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," (ibid.) light, for it is written, "And God said, Let there be light;" (Gen. i. 3) wind and water; for it is written, "and the wind of God was brooding upon the face of the waters;" (Gen. i. 2) the measure of the day and the measure of the night; for it is written, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. i. 5). There is a Baraitha, Chaos is a green line encompassing all the world, and from it darkness springs, as it is said, "He made darkness his hiding place round about him" (Ps. xviii. 12; E.V. 11). Desolation—this means the stones covered with mud, which are sunk in the deep, from which waters come forth, as it is said, "and he shall stretch upon it the line of chaos and the stones of desolation" (Is. xxxiv. 11). And was light created on the first day? But there is against this view the passage, "and God set them in the firmament of the heaven" (Gen. i. 17), and the passage, "and there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day" (Gen. i. 19). But it is as R. El'azar says; for R. El'azar said, The light which the Holy One created on the first day, Adam saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One considered the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, and saw that their works were vain, He stood up and took it from them, as it is said, "and from the wicked their light is withholden" (Job xxxviii. 15). And for whom did He take it away? For the righteous of the time to come, as it is said, "And God saw the light, that it was good" (Gen. i. 4), and there is nothing good but a righteous man, as it is said, "Say ye of a righteous man, that he is good" (Is. iii. 10). When He saw that He had taken away the light for the righteous, He rejoiced, as it is said, "He rejoiceth at the light of the righteous" (Prov. xiii. 9). And this is in accordance with the Baraitha which says, The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam observed and saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. These are the words of R. Jacob. But wise men say, These are the luminaries, which were created on the first day, but were not hung up until the fourth day.

R. Zot'ra bar Tobiah said that Rab said, By ten things the world was created, by wisdom and by understanding and by knowledge, and by strength and by rebuke and by might, by righteousness and by judgment, by mercy and by compassion: by wisdom and by understanding; for it is written, "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens," (Prov. iii. 19) and by knowledge; for it is written, "By his knowledge the depths were broken up;" (Prov. iii. 20) by strength and might; for it is written, "Which by his strength setteth fast the mountains, being girded about with might;" (Ps. lxv. 7; E.V. 6) by rebuke; for it is written, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke;" (Job xxvi. 11) by righteousness and judgment; for it is written, "Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of thy throne;" (Ps. lxxxix. 15; E.V. 14) by mercy and compassion; for it is written, "Remember thy compassion, O Lord, and thy mercies, for they are from of old" (Ps. xxv. 6).

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? As it is said, "Look down from thy holy habitation (Ma'on), from heaven" (Deut. xxvi. 15). Makhon is that in which are the treasures of snow and the treasures of hail, and the high dwelling-place of harmful dews, and the high dwelling-place of round drops, and the chamber of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the retreat of noisome vapour, and their doors are made of fire, as it is said, "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure" (Deut. xxviii. 12). But are not these in the firmament? Nay, they are in the earth, as it is written, "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour; storm making the substance of the wind" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 8). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, David besought the Merciful One for them, and He sent them down to the earth. He said before Him, O Lord of the world, "Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with thee" (Ps. v. 5; E.V. 4) in thy dwelling. Righteous art thou, O Lord; evil shall not sojourn in thy dwelling. And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "And hear thou in heaven, the habitation (Makhon) of thy dwelling" (1 Kings viii. 39, 43, 49).

R. Jochanan said to R. El'azar, Come, I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Jochanan's soul had passed away. R. Asi said to him, Come, and I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the Chariot. He said to him, If I had been worthy, I should have received full instruction from R. Jochanan thy teacher. R. Joseph was giving full instruction in the subject of the Chariot. The wise men of Pumbeditha were teaching the subject of Creation. They said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, Instruct me fully in the subject of Creation. After they had instructed him fully, they said to him, Would that our lord would instruct us fully in the subject of the Chariot. He said to them, There is a Baraitha with reference to these things which says, "Honey and milk are under thy tongue" (Cant. iv. 11). Let words sweeter than honey and milk be under thy tongue. R. Abohu said, It is drawn from this passage, viz., "things to be concealed under thy clothes" (Prov. xxvii. 26), that is to say, things which are the secrets of the world shall be under thy clothes. They said to him, We have worked in them as far as the words, "And he said unto me, Son of man" (Ezek. ii. 1). He said to them, But this is the subject of the Chariot. Some one puts a difficulty. How far does the subject of the Chariot reach? Rab says, It reaches to the last occurrence of the expression, "I saw" (Ezek. i. 27). R. Isaac says, It reaches to the Chashmal. We instruct fully to the words, "and I saw;" thenceforward we only impart the heads of the divisions. There are others who say, As far as, "and I saw," we impart the heads of the divisions; thenceforward, if the man be wise and of ready intelligence, Yes; if not, No. And how are we to expound in Chashmal? For there is the story of the child, who was studying in Chashmal, and there came out a fire and consumed him. The case of the child is different, for he had not reached the fitting age.

Fiery beings who speak. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that it means, At times they are silent and at times they speak; at the time that the utterance goeth forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and at the time that the utterance goeth not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. "And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezek. i. 14). What is the meaning of "ran and returned?" R. Jehudah said, As the light which goeth forth from the mouth of the furnace. What is the meaning of "as the appearance of a flash of lightning?" R. Jose bar Chănina said, Like the flame that goeth forth from between the potsherds. "And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire infolding itself, and a brightness round about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezek. i. 4). Whither did it go? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore was all this done? That the peoples of the world might not say, The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hand of a mean people. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What forced me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me.

There is a passage which says, "each one had six wings" (Is. vi. 2), and there is a passage which says, "And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings" (Ezek. i. 6). There is no difficulty. The one case was at the time when the Holy House was standing, the other at the time when the Holy House was not standing. As if it were possible to say which two of the wings of the living creatures were taken away. Which of them were taken away? R. Chănaneel said, that Rab said, Those with which they utter their song. It is written thus, "And with twain he did fly. And one cried to another and said," (Is. vi. 2, 3) and it is written, "Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? But it is gone" (Prov. xxiii. 5). But our Rabbis say, Those with which they cover their feet, as it is said, "And their feet were as a straight foot" (Ezek. i. 7). And if none had been taken away, how would he have known? Perhaps it was uncovered, and he saw it. But if thou sayest, Not so, then I may argue thus: "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man," and I may argue that in this case also they were taken away. But when you reply that in this case it was uncovered and he saw it, then I rejoin that in this case also it was uncovered and he saw it. But no, for in this case, even granting that the face is customarily uncovered before one's teacher, the legs are not customarily uncovered before one's teacher.

There is a certain passage which says, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10), and there is a certain passage which says, "Is there any number of his armies?" (Job xxv. 3) There is no difficulty. The one was at the time when the Holy House was standing, and the other was at the time when the Holy House was not standing. As though it were possible to say that the family of the Most High was diminished. There is a Baraitha, Rabbi says in the name of Abba Jose ben Dosai, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him," this is the number of one troop, but of His troops there is no number. And R. Jeremiah bar Abba said, Thousand thousands ministered unto him at the fiery stream, as it is said, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10). Whence does it come forth? From the perspiration of the living creatures. And upon what is it poured? R. Zot'ra bar Tobiah said that Rab said, Upon the heads of wicked men in Gehenna, as it is said, "Behold the tempest of the LORD, even his fury, is gone forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the wicked" (Jer. xxiii. 19). And R. Acha bar Jacob said, Upon those who were held back, as it is said, "Who were held back before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream" (Job xxii. 16). There is a Baraitha to the effect that R. Simeon the Holy said, These are nine hundred and seventy-four generations, which were held back from being created

Samuel said to Chia bar Rab, Thou clever fellow, come, and I will tell thee something from those noble words, which thy father used to say. Every several day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and they utter a song and perish, as it is said, "They are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness" (Lam. iii. 23). But R. Samuel bar Nachmani differs in his view; for R. Samuel bar Nachmani said that R. Jonathan said, Every several utterance that goeth out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is created from it an angel, as it is said, "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. xxxiii. 6).

Quoties velim, coire sine sanguine possum. Or perhaps it may be said, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. He (Ben Zoma) said to them, This case of Samuel is not a usual thing. But we take into consideration the possibility eam in balneo gravidam factam esse. But against this view Samuel said, Omne semen coitus quod non velut sagitta emittitur, non generat. But this may only mean quod primo velut sagitta emissum est. Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about R. Joshua ben Chănaniah, that he was standing upon a high ridge of the Temple mountain, and Ben Zoma saw him and did not stand up before him. He said to him, Whence and whither tend thy thoughts, Ben Zoma? He said to him, I was considering the interval between the upper and the lower waters, and there is only between the two a bare three fingers' breadth, as it is said, "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2), like a dove which broods over her young without touching them. R. Joshua said to his disciples, Ben Zoma is certainly still out of his mind. "And the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters." When was it doing so? On the first day? But the division between the upper and lower waters was on the second day, for this is what is written, "and let it divide the waters from the waters" (Gen. i. 6). And about what is the interval? R. Acha bar Jacob said, About the thickness of a hair. And our Rabbis say, The interstices between closely fitting planks of a bridge. Mar Zot'ra, or, if you like, I will say Rab Asi, said, Like two cloaks that are spread out together, and there are some who say with regard to it, Like two inverted cups that are pressed together.

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.

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

Rab Mari said, Learn from this that common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, is like hallowed things. Wherefore? Is it

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,

Nay, but shall I tell you on what authority this depends? This is the teaching of R. Chănaniah ben Akbia; for he said, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? There is a Baraitha, viz., A man shall not take up the waters of sin and the ashes of sin, and carry them away over Jordan or in a ship, and he shall not stand on this side and throw them to the other side, and he shall not make them to swim upon the face of the waters, and he shall not ride upon the back of a beast nor upon the back of his comrade, but if he do, his feet must touch the ground; but he may bear them over a bridge, and he need not regard whether it be Jordan or any other river. R. Chănaniah ben Akbia says, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan and the case when the man is in a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was the matter that occurred? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, A matter occurred with a certain man, who was carrying the waters of sin and the ashes of sin over Jordan and in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship. In the same hour they said, A man shall not bear waters of sin and ashes of sin and carry them over Jordan in a ship. This question was put by them. In the case of an unclean sandal the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a clean sandal? In the case of an open cask the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a closed cask? What also if it be the case of a man who has passed over and borne it? R. Ela said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is unclean. R. Zera said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is clean.

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And so too the thieves, who have restored the vessels. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., In the case of the thieves who have gone into the midst of the house, only the place where the thieves' feet trode is unclean. R. Phinehas said in the name of Rab, They are to be believed only in case they have repented. You can even press it out from the language of the Mishnah, for the teaching is, Who have restored the vessels. Learn it thence.

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?