rav

We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated: If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space; While Samuel said that it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated: If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space; While Samuel said that it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?

They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav. Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].

They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav. Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].

They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav. Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].

But why does he not say, From the words of R. Gamaliel"? He informs us of something [else] by the way, like that which R Aha b. Ada, and others say, R. Aha b. Ada in the name of R. Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that even the casual conversation of disciples of the sages demands study? As it says, "And whose leaf does not wither" (Psalms 1:3).

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

R. Kahana was sitting and he recited this statement. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana, do we then not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ where an object is not a handbreadth wide?

R. Kahana was sitting and he recited this statement. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana, do we then not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ where an object is not a handbreadth wide?

What is the implication? Rav Huna said: Like "road." Just as "road" implies a non-obligatory activity, so too for all non-obligatory activities, excluding this one who is involved in a mitzvah.

And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.

And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.

[Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’

R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav, A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious? What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind

R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav, A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious? What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind

And R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A bridegroom and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from the Sukkah all the seven days. What is the reason? Because they have to rejoice. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah? There is no rejoicing but in the huppah. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah? There is no rejoicing but in the huppah.

Rav allowed R. Aha Bardela to sleep in a canopy bed in a Sukkah in order [to keep out] the gnats. Rava allowed R. Aha b. Adda to sleep outside the Sukkah on account of the stink of the plaster.

Rav said, It is forbidden to sleep by day more than the sleep of a horse. And what is the sleep of a horse? Sixty breaths.

Abaye said, The sleep of the Master is as that of Rav, and that of Rav as that of Rabbi and that of Rabbi as of David, and that of David as of a horse, and that of a horse is sixty breaths.

Abaye said, The sleep of the Master is as that of Rav, and that of Rav as that of Rabbi and that of Rabbi as of David, and that of David as of a horse, and that of a horse is sixty breaths.

As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)

As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)

As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)

As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

Rav said: On account of four things the property of householders is confiscated by the state treasury: On account of those who hold back the wages of a laborer; on account of those who completely keep the wages of a laborer; on account of those who remove the yoke from off their necks and place it on [the necks] of others and on account of arrogance. And the sin of arrogance is equivalent to all [the others]. Whereas the humble it is written, "But the humble shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Psalms 37:11).

Said Rav Huna to some merchants, "When you buy Hadasim from Non-Jews, do not cut them yourselves, but rather make them cut it, and they shall give it to you. What is the reasoning? Normal worshipers of stars are thieves of land,

After all, if the merchants cut it, there would be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in the buyer's (lit. our ) hands [and therefore it seems that], We do not need [this solution]! [Rather, Rav Huna was trying to validate] the Hadasim of the merchants themselves. [But are they not able] to acquire it through a change [which takes place through] action [by tying it in the Lulav bundle]?

Rav Nachman said, "The argument is about someone who takes his fellow and removes him from his sukkah, And Rabbi Eliezer [rules] according to his opinion, as he says, 'A person does not fulfill his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah. If land can be [truly] stolen, it is a stolen Sukkah; and if land cannot be stolen, it is a borrowed Sukkah [but either way, it is forbidden].'

(Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

What constitutes "avot"? Rav Judah said: When three leaves grow out of one spot. R. Kahana said: Even two and then one. R. Aha the son of Raba tried to find one [whose leaves grew] two and then one, since that was what R. Kahana said. Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: "My father used to call that a wayward hadas."

It was stated: An etrog which has been gnawed by mice: Rav said: It is not "goodly." Is this so? Did not R. Hanina taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? But isn't our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina?

It is well that our Mishnah is not a difficulty against R. Hanina since the former might refer to the first day of the Festival, while the latter might refer to the second day; but it is still a difficulty against Rav? Rav could answer you: Mice are different, since they are repulsive

It is well that our Mishnah is not a difficulty against R. Hanina since the former might refer to the first day of the Festival, while the latter might refer to the second day; but it is still a difficulty against Rav? Rav could answer you: Mice are different, since they are repulsive

There are those who say: Rav ruled that "goodly" since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an etrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]. But is not our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina? There is no contradiction since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day.

What is meant by ‘cedar’? Myrtle. Like Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: In the school of Rav they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle" etc. (Isaiah 41:19).

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

The other answered him: That case is different, for it has been said concerning it: R. Shmuel bar Hattai said in the name of R. Hamnuna Saba who said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said in the name of R. Huna who said in the name of Rav: For instance they brought it from a chamber that contained animals which had not been examined.

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Aibu said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok when a man brought an aravah before him, and he took it and shook it over and over again without reciting any blessing, or he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets. Aibu and Hezekiah, the sons of the daughters of Rav, brought an aravah before Rav, and he shook it over and over again without reciting a blessing, for he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets.

Aibu said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok when a man brought an aravah before him, and he took it and shook it over and over again without reciting any blessing, or he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets. Aibu and Hezekiah, the sons of the daughters of Rav, brought an aravah before Rav, and he shook it over and over again without reciting a blessing, for he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The blessing is recited over] the lulav for seven [days] and over the Sukkah for only on one day. What is the reason? In the case of the lulav where the nights interrupt the days, each day is a separate commandment; in the case of the Sukkah where the nights do not interrupt the days, all seven days are regarded as one long day.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two. From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.

Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two. From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.

Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two. From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.

Which [blessing] does one omit? — The blessing on the time. Say that one omits the blessing of the miracle? The miracle occurred every day. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak taught this explicitly: Rav said: The commandment of the lulav applies to all seven days.

The following dispute is based on the same principles] as the one between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. For it was stated: If one set apart seven etrogs for the seven days: Rav said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it immediately. R. Assi said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it the next day. What do they argue about? One Master holds that it is set apart for its mitzvah while the other holds that it is set apart for the whole day.

R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat said in the name of Rav: The eighth day which may be the seventh is regarded as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah and as the eighth in respect of the blessing. R. Yohanan said It is regarded as the eighth for this and that. Dwelling [in the Sukkah on the eighth day] all agree that one does dwell, they only disagree over

Gemara: It was stated: Rav Judah and R. Ina: One of them taught Shoevah and the other taught Hashuvah Mar Zutra said: He who teaches, Shoevah is not in error, and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error. He who teaches Shoevah is not in error, since it is written, “And you shall draw water in joy” (Isaiah 12:3) and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error, since R. Nahman stated: It is an important mitzvah, dating from the very creation.

Rav said: They found a verse and expounded it:

R. Hana b. Abba stated: It was said at the house of the Rav: There are four things that the Holy One, blessed be He, regrets having created, and they are the following: Exile, the Chaldeans, the Ishmaelites and the Evil Inclination. “Exile”: as it is written, “Now, therefore, what am I doing here, says the Lord, seeing that My people is taken away in vain” (Isaiah 52:5). “The Chaldeans” as it is written, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans — this is the people that was not” (Isaiah 23:13).

When I was in the school of Rav in Babylon I used to say that which has been taught, "If Yom Kippur fell on the eve of Shabbat, they did not sound the trumpet, and if it fell at the conclusion of Shabbat they did not recite the Havdalah" is agreed to by all, but when I came up to Palestine I found R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi sitting and teaching that it was in agreement with R. Akiba only?

On Shavuot they used to say to the priest etc. It was stated, Rav said: [The blessing of] the Sukkah[comes first] and then that of the season. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said: [The blessing of] the season [is first] and then that of the Sukkah.

Rav ruled, [The blessing of] the Sukkah [comes first] and then that of the season, since the obligation of the day is more important. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said: [The blessing of] the season [is first], since that which is frequent precedes that which is infrequent.

Shall we say that Rav and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah differ on the same principles as those on which Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel differed? For our rabbis have taught, These are the points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regard to [the ritual at] a meal: Beth Shammai says that one recites the blessing of the day and then the blessing over the wine, whereas Beth Hillel says that one recites the blessing over the wine and then the blessing of the day.

Shall we say that Rav is in agreement with Beth Shammai and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah with Beth Hillel?

[No,] Rav could say to you: I can state my view even according to Bet Hillel, for Bet Hillel stated their ruling only in that case, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited, but not in this case, since even if there were no blessing of the season, would we not still say [the blessing of] the Sukkah?

We have learned: On Shavuot they used to say to the priest, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread.” Now here, surely, the leavened bread is the essential feature [of the Festival] and the matzah a secondary one, and yet it teaches, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread.” Is this not then a refutation of Rav?

Rav could say to you: This is a tannaitic dispute; for it has been taught, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread for you.” Abba Shaul says: [They said,] “Here is leavened bread for you, here is matzah.

R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: The law is not according to Rav who said, [First the blessing over] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season, rather first [is the blessing of] the season and then [that of] the Sukkah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: First [the blessing of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season. And the halakhah is that the blessing of the Sukkah is first and then that of the season.

Rav Judah said: [And so too] do they divide the musaf offerings. They objected: "The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings, and the incoming watch offered the evening Tamud and the incense dishes" and it does not state, that they divided the musaf offerings? — This Tanna does not deal with the question of division.

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

But did Onkelos the convert compose the Targum to the Pentateuch? Did not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by the verse, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading?” (Nehemiah 8:8): “And they read in the book, in the law of God”: this refer to the [Hebrew] text; “with an interpretation”: this refers to Targum; “And they gave the sense” this refers to the verse stops; “And caused them to understand the reading”: this refers to the accent marks, or, according to another version,

For so said R. Judah in the name of Rav: The Priests at their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to hear the reading of the Megillah.

Rav said: The Megillah, in its proper time, can be read even by an individual; Rav Asi said: But [when read] not in its proper time, it should be read only in a company of ten. Such a case actually occurred and Rav gave consideration to the opinion of R. Asi

Rav said: The Megillah, in its proper time, can be read even by an individual; Rav Asi said: But [when read] not in its proper time, it should be read only in a company of ten. Such a case actually occurred and Rav gave consideration to the opinion of R. Asi

Rav said: The Megillah, in its proper time, can be read even by an individual; Rav Asi said: But [when read] not in its proper time, it should be read only in a company of ten. Such a case actually occurred and Rav gave consideration to the opinion of R. Asi

But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.

But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.

But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.

No. For the reading of the Megillah Rav requires ten. What then did he mean by saying “Friday is the proper time”? His was rejecting the opinion of Rabbi, who said that since the towns had to shift their time they should shift to the day of gathering. Therefore Rav teaches us that Friday is the proper day [to which they should shift].

No. For the reading of the Megillah Rav requires ten. What then did he mean by saying “Friday is the proper time”? His was rejecting the opinion of Rabbi, who said that since the towns had to shift their time they should shift to the day of gathering. Therefore Rav teaches us that Friday is the proper day [to which they should shift].

Is that so? Did not Rav see a man planting flax on Purim, and curse him, so that the flax did not grow? There he [the man] was doing it on the day which he ought to have kept.

Why then did Rav curse that man? “Things which are permitted but others make a practice of abstaining from them”: but in Rabbi’s place this was not the practice

Rav and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan and R. Haviva teach [the above statement in this form]: in the whole of the Order Mo’ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Yohanan is replaced by R. Jonathan): Esther sent to the sages saying, “Write an account of me for the ages. They sent back: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20) — three times and not four?

Rava said: They said in the school of Rav: We have [also] learned [this]: There is no difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat except that he who breaks the one deliberately is punished by a human court, while he who breaks the other deliberately is punished with karet. Now if [R. Hananiah’s opinion] is correct, then both are punished by the human court?

“And it came to pass [vayehi] in the days of Ahashverosh: Rav said, [The word vayehi means] There was “voi” [trouble]. This is what is written, “And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for slaves and for bondwomen, and no man shall buy you” (Deuteronomy 28:68).

Ahashverosh: Rav said The brother of the head and the counterpart of the head — “The brother of the head”: the brother of Nebuchadnezzar the wicked who was called head, as it is written, “You are the head of gold” (Daniel 2:38). “The counterpart of the head”: the one slew, the other sought to slay; the one laid waste, the other sought to lay waste, as it is written, “And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:6).

“Who reigned”: Rav said: this indicates that he made himself king. There are those who interpret this to his credit, and those to his discredit. Those who interpret it to his credit hold that there was no other man equally fitted for the throne. Those who interpret it to his discredit hold that he was not fit for the throne, but that he was very wealthy, and that he gave and thereby became king.

“From Hodu to Cush”: Rav and Shmuel: One said that Hodu is at one end of the world and Cush at the other, and the other said that Hodu and Cush are right next to each other, and that just as he ruled over Hodu and Cush, so he ruled from one end of the world to the other.

Similarly you say, “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the River, from Tiphsah until Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel: One said that Tiphsah is at one end of the world and Gaza at the other, and the other said that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another [and that what is meant is that] just as he [Solomon] ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the whole world.

In those days, when the king sat [on his throne] (Esther 1:2). But it says just afterwards, “In the third year of his reign? Rav said: What is meant by “when he sat”? After he began to feel secure. He reasoned thus: Belshazar calculated and made a mistake; I have calculated and made no mistake.

“And when these days were fulfilled” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel, One said he was a clever king, and the other said that he was a foolish king. The one who said he was a clever king said that he did well in entertaining his distant subjects first, because he could win over the inhabitants of his own city any time he wished. The one who held that he was foolish says that he ought to have entertained the inhabitants of his city first, so that if the others rebelled against him, these would have supported him.

“In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel— One said that those who were fit for the court were [entertained] in the court, and those who were fit for the garden in the garden, and those who were fit for the palace in the palace. The other said He first put them in the court, and it did not hold them — Then he took them into the garden and it did not hold them; and finally he had to take them into the palace, and it fit them. In a baraitha it was taught: He took them into the court and opened two doors for them, one into the garden and one into the palace.

White [hur], fine cotton [karpas] and blue. What is hur? Rav said: Fine lace-work (harei harei). Shmuel said: He spread for them carpets of white silk. Karpas: R. Yose b. Haninah said: [this means] cushions of velvet (karim shel pasim).

And shell [dar] and onyx marble [sohareth]. Rav said: This means rows [dari] upon rows. Shmuel says: There is a precious stone in the seaports called darah. He put it in the midst of the guests, and it lit up the place as at midday [Sahara] In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It means that he gave a remission of taxes [deror] to all merchants [sehorah].

And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse [shonim] one from another. Rava said: A heavenly voice went forth and said to them, Your predecessors met their end (kalu) on account of vessels (kelim), and yet you use them again [shonim]? And royal wine in abundance: Rav said: This teaches that each one was given to drink wine older then himself.

“And let the king appoint officers”. Rav said: What is it that is written, “A clever (arom) man deals with forethought, but a fool exposes his folly” (Proverbs 13:16)? “A clever (arom) man deals with forethought’: this refers to David, of whom, it is written, “And his servants said to him, “Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin”: Every one who had a daughter brought her to him.

“And the seven maidens who were meet to be given to her” (Esther 2:9): Rava said: [They were seven so that] she could count the days of the week by them. “And he treated her better than her maidens” (Esther 2:9). Rav said: [This means that] he gave her Jewish food to eat.

“And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight above all the virgins” (Esther 2: 17). Rav said: If he wanted to find in her the taste of a virgin he found it; if the taste of a non-virgin, he found it.

"For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai" (Esther 2:20). R. Jeremiah said: [This means] that she used to show her menstrual blood to the Sages. "As when she was brought up with him" (Esther 2:20). Rabbah b. Lema said in the name of Rav: [This means] that she used to rise from the lap of Ahashverosh and bathe and sit in the lap of Mordecai.

“Miriam”, as it is written, “And Miriam the prophetess the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). Was she only the sister of Aaron and not the sister of Moses? R. Nahman said in the name of Rav: For she prophesied when she was the sister of Aaron [only] and said, My mother is destined to bear a son who will save Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light, and her father arose and kissed her on the head, saying, My daughter, your prophecy has been fulfilled.