rava

“If there are a hundred” etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jose the Galilean, but the Sages say “there is no difference between ten and ten myriads”. Rava said, practice follows him who states that there is no difference between ten and ten myriads.

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.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

Rava replied: From the following verse, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days" (Leviticus 23:42) the Torah declared: For seven days leave your permanent dwelling place and dwell in a temporary dwelling place. Up to twenty cubits [high] one makes his home a temporary one; higher than twenty cubits, one does not make his home temporary, but permanent.

Also, they did not say like Rava because of Abaye's question.

Rava said to him: This would be a foul dwelling, and a person cannot live in a foul dwelling!

[But] Rava said to him: we require recognizable partitions and there are not.

Rava ruled: It is only permitted if it has the form of a doorway.

There are others that say: Rava said: And it is also valid if it has the form of a doorway.

There are others that say: Rava said: And it also requires the form of a doorway.

R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of a Sukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway. He said to him: Does not the Master hold the opinion of Rava who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway? He answered: I hold like the other reading of [the statement of] Rava that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary.

R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of a Sukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway. He said to him: Does not the Master hold the opinion of Rava who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway? He answered: I hold like the other reading of [the statement of] Rava that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary.

‘Two walls must be of the prescribed dimensions etc.’ Rava said: And similarly with regard to the Shabbat. Since [the handbreadth] is regarded as a valid wall of the Sukkah it is also regarded as a valid wall in respect of the Sabbath.

And Rava further said: If one placed skhakh over the [upright] boards around wells it is valid [as a sukkah].

Gemara. Rava said: [Our mishnah] was taught only in respect of’ a tree whose shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches] but if the sun is more than its shade, it is valid.

R. Hanan b. Rava said: Izma and hegeh (two types of prickly shrubs) may be used as skhakh. Abaye said: Izma may be used, but not hegeh. What is the reason? Since their leaves fall off, one might leave the Sukkah and depart.

Rava answered: Their ordinary name is really ‘marror", but they are called ‘marror of the marsh’, because they are found in marshes.

Rava said: one can even say that he does not make it larger, but if they were placed as the web, he places [the valid covering] as the woof; if as the woof, he places them as the web.

It was stated: If one placed skhakh over an exedra which has pillars, it is valid If it has no pillars: Abaye declares it valid and Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid [since]

Rava said to Abaye: according to you who say that the edge of the roof [is regarded as though it] descends and fills in [the space, is a sukkah valid] even if the middle wall is missing? .He answered him, In that case I agree with you [that the Sukkah is invalid] since it would be like an alley-way that is open on two opposite sides.

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].

Rava explained according to Abaye that this is a case where one made the beams level.

In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all. If it has pillars: Abaye declares it valid, while Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.

In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all. If it has pillars: Abaye declares it valid, while Rava declares it invalid. Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.

R. Ashi found R. Kahana placing skhakh over an exedra which had no pillars He said to him: Does not the master hold the opinion which Rava stated, that if it has pillars it is valid, but if it has no pillars it is invalid? He showed him [that a pillars] was visible within though level on the outside

Rather Rava said: In the case of a large [mat] all agree that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna holds that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and R. Eliezer holds that ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well.

Rava said, [It means that] they did not bring doors at all because the child, feeling confident might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanliness

It has been taught in agreement with Rava: R. Judah said, They did not bring doors at all, because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanness on account of a grave in the depths... but they brought Egyptian oxen with wide bellies, and the children sat on their backs with stone cups in their hands. When they came to Shiloah they descended, filled them, and ascended and sat again on their backs.

The fact is, said Rava, that oxen are different since they naturally shelter their entrails, as it is written (Job 10), "You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews."

Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."

Rava said: From where do I say that if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide we apply to it the law of ‘beat and throw it down,’ and if it is not so wide we do not apply it? From what we have learned: 1) [With regard to] the roof beams of a house and of the upper story which have no plaster ceiling upon them and are in a line, [the upper ones exactly above the lower]: a) If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, all beneath that one becomes unclean.

But let them do the huppah in the Sukkah? Abaye says: [They cannot] because of seclusion. And Rava said, Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom. What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference between them is a case where people are going in and out of there. According to the one who said "because of seclusion", the restriction does not apply; according to the one who said because of discomfort to the groom, it does.

Rava said: The breach calls out to the thief. What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference is when they are guarding a pile of fruit.

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.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

R. Mesharsheya raised a difficulty: Does not ‘Your guarantor need a guarantor ? Rather Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan, This refers to where the person puts his head between his knees. Rava said: There is no set amount for sleep.

A “Great Thing,” is the workings of the Chariot. A “Small thing,” is the legal discourses of Abaye and Rava. All of this in order to fulfill what is said, “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.” (Prov. 8:21) And since this was true of the lowest of them, how much more so was the greatest? It is said when Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel was studying Torah, any bird that flew overhead was immediately burned.

Rava said: It is necessary, since I might have said, derive [the law from a similar case] of the fifteenth, from the fifteenth of the Festival of Matzot: just as there women are obligated, so too here women are bound. Therefore he taught that [women are exempt].

But is this so? But did not Rava say, Scripture and Mishnah [should be studied] in the Sukkah, but reciting outside the Sukkah? There is no difficulty, One refers to reciting, one refers to examination.

As was the case of Rava and Rami b. Hama when they were standing before R. Hisda, [first] they ran through the gemara together, and then they investigated the reasons.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

No. For didn't Rava say [about Rabbi Yehudah's use of the phrase 'with its own species'], "[One can bind the Lulav] even with the vines, and even with the bark, of the palm [which are not beautiful]. Rather, what is the reasoning for Rabbi Yehudah's [statement] there? He had thought, "A Lulav needs binding, and if he brings another species [as binding material], it would be for him five species."

Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

Here [ie. in the Mishnah], we are dealing with a worshipped tree [from the days] of Moses, for [it must be burnt, and therefore it is treated as ashes, and so] its size is crushed [to below the minimum size of a Lulav. The worshipped tree of Rava is a tree worshipped after the days of Moses, which does not need to be burnt].

[Regarding a Lulav that is] bent, like a scythe, Rava said, "They only said [that it is invalid if it was bent] forward, but [if it were bent] backward, that is its natural state."

Rava further said: A lulav all of which grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid.

Rava said: May the master forgive R. Tarfon! Now that we cannot find a valid hadas three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required?

Rava said:

If a rash spread out on the majority of it [it is invalid]. R. Hisda said: The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the etrog] is valid. Rava said: On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the etrog is as though it is striped and it is invalid.

Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of the mishnah]: if on its lesser part it is valid. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the etrog is as speckled and invalid. Rava said: And if it is on its nose, even the smallest rash, the etrog is invalid.

Rava asked: If there developed in an etrog the symptoms [which render an animal] terefah, what is the law? What is he asking about? If it is peeled, have we not [already] learned it? If it is split have we not learned it also? If it was pierced have we not learned it also?

If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid Rava said: They taught this only in the case where it has the appearance of another species but if it has its natural shape it is valid. But is this not obvious, seeing that it was taught: the appearance of another species! It was necessary only in a case where it was cast in the shape of planks joined together.

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

Rava said: Whatever is used to beautify it is not an interposition. Rabbah further stated: One should not hold the hoshanna with a scarf, for a whole "taking" is required, and in this case it is not. Rava said: Taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."

Rava said: Whatever is used to beautify it is not an interposition. Rabbah further stated: One should not hold the hoshanna with a scarf, for a whole "taking" is required, and in this case it is not. Rava said: Taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."

Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?

Rabbah further stated: One should not thrust the lulav through the bound hoshanna lest some leaves are detached and form an interposition. But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.

Rabbah further stated: One should not shear the lulav while it is in the hoshanna, since loose leaves might remain and form an interposition. But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.

even the ancillary parts of a commandment prevent calamities; for the waving is obviously a ancillary part of the commandment, and yet it stops harmful winds and harmful dews. And Rava said: And so too with the lulav. R. Aha b. Yaakov used to wave it to and fro, saying: This is an arrow in the eye of Satan This, however, is not a proper thing [to do] since it might cause him to incite him.

Rava said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps one is a Torah commandment and one is a rabbinical obligation? Rather Rava said: If there is a difficulty, it is this: He should take it when he comes home [even if he is] at his table therefore he must interrupt [his meal]. And then it teaches: If he did not take it during the morning he should take it at any time before dusk—therefore he need not interrupt [his meal].

Rava said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps one is a Torah commandment and one is a rabbinical obligation? Rather Rava said: If there is a difficulty, it is this: He should take it when he comes home [even if he is] at his table therefore he must interrupt [his meal]. And then it teaches: If he did not take it during the morning he should take it at any time before dusk—therefore he need not interrupt [his meal].

Rava said:

Rava said: One should not say "Blessed be he that comes" and then [pause and] say "In the name of the Lord. Rather he should say ‘Blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord’ together. R. Safra said to him

‘Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter. Rava said: One should not say: "Let His great name" and then say "be blessed." Rather he should say, "Let His great name be blessed" R. Safra said to him: Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter.

But is there not the wood of the oily tree, the benefit from which is derived at the same time as its consumption? Rava said: Wood in general is used for heating.

Rava said: The dispute

like that which Rava said: [If one say to his fellow], "Here is an etrog [as a gift] on condition that you return it to me," and the latter took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned it, he has fulfilled his obligation, , but if he did not return it, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rava said: You may even say that he did not hold it upside down, but here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel. But was it not Rava who said that taking by means of something else counts as a valid taking? That applies only [where the taking with something else is done] as a mark of respect, but not [if it is done] in a disrespectful manner.

Rava said: You may even say that he did not hold it upside down, but here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel. But was it not Rava who said that taking by means of something else counts as a valid taking? That applies only [where the taking with something else is done] as a mark of respect, but not [if it is done] in a disrespectful manner.

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

Rava said to R. Yitzchak the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana: O Son of the Torah, come and I will tell you an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learned: Every day they circled the altar once, and on that day they circled it seven times, thus said your father in the name of R. Eleazar: with the lulav.

R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav which is a Torah commandment we perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple in the case of the aravah which is only a rabbinic commandment, we do not perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple.

Rather, R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav, which has its Torah origin when performed in the provinces, we perform it for seven days in memory of the Temple; in the case of the rite of the aravah, which has no Torah origin for its performance in the Provinces, we do not perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Temple. Resh Lakish said:

Hezekiah further stated in the name of R. Yirmiyah who said it in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: I have seen the sons of heaven and they are but few. If there be a thousand, I and my son are among them; if a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son. Are they then so few? Did not Rava say, There is a row of 18,000 righteous men before the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, “It shall be eighteen thousand round about [and the name of the city from that day on shall be ‘The Lord Is There'” (Ezekiel 48:35)? This is no difficulty: The former number refers to those who see Him through a bright speculum, the latter to those who do not see him through a bright speculum.

It was stated: Abaye said he law is in agreement with Rabbi. But Rava said: The law is in agreement with the sages. R. Mari the son of Shmuel’s daughter, I noticed that Rava himself did not act in accordance with his own ruling but rising early, he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing, and when he had to go a second time he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing again. We too act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi and recite the blessing all seven days.

It was stated: Abaye said he law is in agreement with Rabbi. But Rava said: The law is in agreement with the sages. R. Mari the son of Shmuel’s daughter, I noticed that Rava himself did not act in accordance with his own ruling but rising early, he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing, and when he had to go a second time he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing again. We too act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi and recite the blessing all seven days.

This is good for a small sukkah but what can be said with regard to a large Sukkah? One might bring into it eating utensils, since Rava said: Eating utensils must be kept outside the Sukkah; drinking vessels in the Sukkah.

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

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

Rava made the following exposition What is it that is written, “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter?” (Song of Songs 7:2): How beautiful are the steps of Israel when they go up [to Jerusalem] to celebrate a festival. “O prince’s daughter”: Daughter of our father Abraham, who is called prince, as it is said, “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10). The God of Abraham! And not the God of Isaac and Jacob? But the meaning is, The God of Abraham who was the first of the converts.

Rava said: First he is called a passer-by, then he is called a guest, and finally he is called a man, for it is said, “And there came a passer-by to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to prepare a meal for the guest and then it is written, “And he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man that came to him.” (II Samuel 12:4).

Rava said: Who is not concerned about the flour [he grinds out]? First, because we have learned every day; And secondly, even if there were the same number, it should still have been stated “on the Shabbat of the Festival they blew forty-eight blasts” since from this statement you could make two deductions, that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob and that of R. Aha b. Hanina.

Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices: The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?

An objection was raised: Rava b. Samuel taught: It might have been that that just as they sound a blast for Shabbat on its own and for Rosh Hodesh on its own, so too they sound a blast for each additional offering (musaf) separately. scripture says, “And on your New Moons” (Numbers 10:10). This is a refutation of R. Aha. It is indeed a refutation.

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.

Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth. From where is this ruling derived? Rava said: Because Scripture says, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc.” (Esther 9:19) Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth.

Rava, or, some say, Kadi said: Shushan was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it.

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

Rava said: The meaning is]: The festival sacrifice may be postponed for the whole period of the festival sacrifice, but not more, as we have learned If one did not bring a festival sacrifice on the first day of the festival, he may go on to do so throughout the festival, including the last day. If the festival passed without his having brought the festival sacrifice, he need not bring another in compensation.

Rava said, The only purpose of mentioning these days [in Megillath Ta’anith] was to make whatever is forbidden on the one forbidden on the other also? This applies only to mourning and fasting, but for work one day and no more.

Rabbah the son of Rava said. [The Jews] accepted upon themselves [in the days of Esther] to abstain from mourning and fasting, but not from work.

Rava said: Is there anyone who can maintain that Rakat is not Tiberias. But when a person dies here [in Babylonia] they mourn for him there [in Tiberias] as follows: “Great was he in Sheshach and he has a name in Rakat”, and when the coffin is taken there they mourn for him thus: “You lovers of the remnants, dwellers in Rakat, go forth and receive the slaughtered of the depths.”

Rather Rava said: Hamat is the hot springs of Gerar; Rakat is Tiberias; and Kinnereth is Ginosar. Why is it called Rakat? Because even the least worthy of its inhabitants (rekanim) are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate. R. Jeremiah said: Rakat is its proper name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because it is situated in the very center (tabor) of the land of Israel. Rabbah said: Rakat is its name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because its appearance is good (tovah).