rabba

THE beard of truth. (That is, now followeth a description of the beard of Macroprosopus, and its thirteen parts, which are more fully described in the “Idra Rabba.”)

From the ears it proceedeth about the circumference of the open space; the white locks ascend and descend. Into thirteen portions it is distributed in adornment. (Of all these see the explanation in the “Idra Rabba” and “Idra Zuta.”)

(For) it is written, Gen. ii. 8: “And the Tetragrammaton Elohim planted.” (Whereby is understood) that H, He, which is between the two II, Yods, of the word IHI, Yehi, which in the supernals is) the position of the nose of the more Ancient One over the Microprosopus (concerning which see further in the “Idra Rabba,” § 175). (For this) existeth not without the spirit.

(Now the author of the “Siphra Dtzenioutha” descendeth to the inferior paths, leaving out Macroprosopus, and examineth the name IHV, Yod He Vau. In this are represented father and mother and Microprosopus. And first occurreth) the supernal I, Yod (the symbol of the father), which is crowned with the crown of the more Ancient One (that is, whose highest apex denoteth the highest crown, or Macroprosopus; or, according to another reading of the passage, “which is surrounded by the secret things”—that is, by the influence or beard of Macroprosopus, which covereth both the father and the mother). It is that membrane of the supernal brain which, on account of its excellency, both shineth and is concealed. (Concerning this matter further, see the “Idra Rabba,” § 58.)

And above him is the plenteous dew, diverse with twofold colour. (Like as in Macroprosopus it is white alone, so here it is white and red, on account of the judgments. See “Idra Rabba,” § 44.)

His forehead, which shineth not, regulating the far distant future when it is his will to behold the same. (All the qualities, with their antitheses, which are found in Macroprosopus, are more fully described in the “Idra Rabba” and “Idra Zuta,” which see.)

The “peaceful habitation” is the Ancient One, who is hidden and concealed. Wherefore “thine eyes” is written OINK, Auinak (without the letter Yod. All these things are explained in the “Idra Rabba.”)

Thirteen kings (that is, the twelve metatheses of the Tetragrammaton with its radix, which are the measures of mercies) wage war with seven (with the Edomite kings; because, while the lights of the former flowed down, these could not maintain themselves, and, besides, they are the classes of the most rigorous judgments which are opposed to the mercies. For) seven kings are seen in the land (Edom), and now after that their vessels are broken, they are called shells, who have fallen down among the inferiors. These) nine vanquished in war (the measures of Microprosopus, concerning which see the “Idra Rabba”; through which David conquered his enemies), which ascend in the paths of those which pass downward, on account of His ruling power (that is, which make thirteen, as they are in Macroprosopus and his beard, which is called his influence, and freely floweth down), and there is none who can withhold their hand. (For whilst the supernal measures permit the increase in the inferiors, all judgments are subdued.)

Rebbi Yoḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Jacob bar Idi when Rebbi Eleazar saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he does not teach the traditions in my name. He said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Zeïra did not greet Rabba since they observe (Job 29:8) “Boys see me and hide themselves.” As they were walking, he saw a Bet Midrash. He said to him: Here Rebbi Meïr sat and reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Ismaël but he never reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. He answered: Everybody knows that Rebbi Meïr was the student of Rebbi Aqiba. He retorted, everybody knows that Rebbi Eleazar is the student of Rebbi Yoḥanan. May one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eleazar did well that he did not pass before you. He said: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, you know how to pacify.

Isaac Rabba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If eggs were cooked in water and a chick was found in one of them, it is [judged] by the taste it gives.

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written, all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one.” How do the House of Shammai confirm “when he has no child”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה.” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space in Sheol.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard in the name of Samuel that there is no difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, but I do not remember from whom I heard this. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah said this. Rebbi Ḥizqyah said to him, Rebbi Jeremiah did not say this; Rebbi Yose was offended by him. He said to him: Even Joshua who was bound to Moses would not have said so, but you said so! He checked himself and said, it is true that he said that but as a person who quotes something and questions it; does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Samuel: A woman gives birth only either after 271, 272, 273, or 274, days. Rebbi Mana said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this? He said to him, from Rebbi Abba. The position of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There, he says, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth, and here, he says so? Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra in the name of Samuel: {If with ה Rabba, with א Rava.} Everything which is “many” is 208.

If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, if there were slaves, either adult or underage, they gain their freedom. Abba Shaul said, the adults gain their freedom, the minors do not become free. Why? They are no longer property after their owner’s death. Then even adults? Rebbi Abba said, since adults are competent to acquire themselves, they gain their freedom. Minors, who are not competent to acquire for themselves, do not gain their freedom. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Abba Shaul. The opinions of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are contradictory. There, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi said: A person who has given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him. They said, what Rebbi Joshua said about enslaving, if he did not give, he did not give; perhaps practice would be to enslave him, therefore he has to write him a bill of manumission. And here, he says so! We heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly, perhaps practice follows Abba Shaul. The slave girl of Rabba bar Zuṭra ran away and he gave up hope to recover her. He went to ask Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They said, he is not entitled to enslave her. How is it to write her a bill of manumission? They said to him, if you wrote, you did the right thing. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: A slave who married as a free person in the presence of his master gained his freedom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and formulating: If somebody writes a document of preliminary marriage for his slave or a document of definitive marriage for his girl slave, Rebbi says, they acquired, but the Sages say, they did not acquire. The first Tanna follows Rebbi: he acquired.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and I am saying that even for the borrower one does not estimate, and Abba agrees with me. Who is Abba? Rebbi or Rabba bar Abuha. Rav Ḥisda said, this treats the main event as an accessory. There came Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and watchmen fall under the rules of damages.

“A person may borrow from his sons or daughters on interest, but he educates them for interest.” Rav said, e. g., I from Rabba bar bar Ḥana or Rabba bar bar Ḥana from me. “A person may not borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma; but a Gentile may borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma.”

“A person may borrow from his sons or daughters on interest, but he educates them for interest.” Rav said, e. g., I from Rabba bar bar Ḥana or Rabba bar bar Ḥana from me. “A person may not borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma; but a Gentile may borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma.”

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

Whose view is represented in the following Baraita (Bereshit Rabba, 4, 3): The upper waters are suspended (in the air) by a divine ordinance, and the rain is the fruit thereof, as it is said (Ps., 104.13): "The earth is full of the fruit of Thy work"? Whose view? Answer—that of R. Joshua! [R. Eliezer, however, refers this verse to the handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He.]

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.

The priests of the guard and the members of the lay division are not allowed to cut their hair or to wash their clothes; on Thursday, however, they are allowed to do so for the honor of the Sabbath. What is the reason? Said Rabba bar Ḥana in the name of R. Johanan: In order that they may not enter their division looking neglected.

Except a deaf man, a fool, and a child etc. There is a Baraitha, A deaf man is like a fool and a child. As a fool and a child are not responsible for their actions, so a deaf man is not responsible for his actions. And we learn, as we are taught by a canonical Mishnah, A deaf man, as wise men have everywhere said, is one who does not hear and does not speak (Niddah, 13b, ii. 17). Lo, you will say then, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. Yes, for there is a Baraitha for this. For our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them. And whence do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who openeth not his mouth" (Ps. xxxviii. 14). And, if you like, I will say, according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. But, lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt. Rabena, or it may have been Rabba, said, There is a hiatus here. And there is a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust, and as regards the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust, he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak, and as for a fool and a child, he is exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law.

R. Tanchum said, He that is lame in one foot is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "footgoing times." And this expression, "footgoing times," must mean to exempt men with wooden legs. This comes out of the expression "steps," for there is a Baraitha, viz., Steps are not steps but feet, and so He says, "The foot shall tread it down, the feet of the poor, the steps of the needy" (Is. xxvi. 6), and He says, "How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter!" (Cant. vii. 1). Rabba expounds thus, What is the meaning of that which is written, "How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter"? It means, How comely are the feet of Israel at the time when they go up to the feast! "Prince's daughter" means daughter of Abraham our father, who is called prince, as it is said, "The princes of the peoples are gathered together to be the people of the God of Abraham:" (Ps. xlvii. 9) "God of Abraham," and not God of Isaac and Jacob, but "God of Abraham"; for he was the first of the proselytes.

And the lame man and the blind man and the sick man and the old man. Our Rabbis have taught, The expression "steps" excludes people with wooden legs. Another explanation is, The expression "steps" excludes the lame man, and the sick man, and the blind man, and the old man, and the one who is not able to go up on his feet. And the one who is not able to go up on his feet, what is this expression to include? Rabba said, It is to include

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, "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.

is not of them. Our Rabbis said to Rabba, Master, thou art not included in the "hiding of the face," and thou art not included in the "devouring." He said to them, How know ye how much I send out secretly to king Shabor? And still our Rabbis fixed their eyes upon him. While this was going on, there came a message from the house of king Shabor, and they spoiled him. He said, This agrees with the Baraitha, viz., Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, Every place on which wise men have fixed their eyes is the scene of a death or calamity.

"And I will surely hide my face in that day" (Deut. xxxi. 18). Rabba said, The Holy One said, Even if I hide mine eyes from them, I will speak to him by a dream. R. Joseph said, His hand is stretched out over us, as it is said, "and I have covered thee in the shadow of my hand" (Is. li. 16).

R. Chasda enquired, What is the meaning of this verse? "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings," lambs, "and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD" (Exod. xxiv. 5). Or perhaps both these and those were oxen. What comes out of it all then? Mar Zot'ra says, It depends upon the division of the verse by the accents. R. Acha, the son of Rabba, said, It is important for a man who says, Behold, I vow a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What was it? Were they oxen or lambs? The matter was left undecided.

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.

the daughter of a woman, whom a man had forced, for this is not determined in Holy Writ. Rabba said, R. Isaac bar Abdimi said to me, There comes in each passage the word "they," "they," and there comes the word "crime," "crime."

Rabba said, All which Ezekiel saw, Isaiah saw. To what is Ezekiel like? He is like a rustic who has seen the king. And to what is Isaiah like? He is like a townsman who has seen the king.

R. Kattinah said, Even at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem there did not cease from them faithful men, as it is said, "When a man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler" (Is. iii. 6). Let things which are hid from the children of men, as a garment hides, be under thy hand. "And this ruin." What is the meaning of the expression "and this ruin"? Words which the children of men cannot understand, but if one tries, he stumbles over them, they are under thy hand. "In that day shall he swear, saying, I am not an healer, for in my house is neither bread nor clothing. Ye shall not make me ruler of the people" (Is. iii. 7). "Shall he swear" is simply a term expressing an oath, as it is said, "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD thy God" (Exod. xx. 7). "I am not an healer," i.e., I have not been of those that heal a college. "For in my house is neither bread nor clothing," i.e., There is not in my hand either Torah or Mishnah or Gemara. And perhaps it is different here. For if he had said to them, I teach Gemara, they would have said to him, Tell us something. But no, he cannot have feared detection, for he might have said, that he had learned it but had now forgotten. What is the meaning of the words "I am not an healer"? They mean, I am not a healer at all. But, after all, behold Rabba said, Jerusalem was not laid waste till there ceased from it honest men, as it is said, "Run ye to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth, and I will pardon her" (Jer. v. 1). There is no difficulty.

When R. Dimi came, he said, They say in the West, R. Meir was eating a date and threw away the stone. Rabba expounded the meaning of the passage, "I went down into the garden of nuts, to see the green plants of the valley, etc." (Cant. vi. 11) Why are the disciples of wise men likened to a nut? It is to tell thee that, just as, although this nut be soiled with mud and dirt, what is in the heart of it is not therefore rejected, so also, although a disciple of a wise man has sinned, his study of the Law is not rejected.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

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.

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.

In what you have said you have reminded me of a saying of Rabba bar Abuah, viz., Eleven degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer, as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things treated with the observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

Rabba bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, Any negative prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, [Lo saseh sh'kadmu asheh] is subject to malkus.