ravina

R. Hisda said in the name of Ravina b. Shila: Forked reeds may be used as skhakh even though they are joined, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even though one later joins them, the joining of one thing [to itself] not considered as a proper joining.

R. Hisda [further] stated in the name of Ravina b. Shila: These "bitter herbs of the marsh" one can fulfill one's obligation with them on Pesah.

This applies only to the side, but as regards the middle, R. Aha and Ravina differ. One says: the rule of lavud applies in the middle, while the other says, the rule of lavud does not apply in the middle.

Will you then say that it is because it has salt water, and ‘an unclean fish, since it has no scales, cannot exist [in salt water, it could be retorted that] we see that they do exist? The reason in fact is that the muddy nature of this river does not allow unclean fish to breed in it. Ravina said: But at the present time that the Etan river and the Gamda river flow into it and they are forbidden.

Ravina said, "This is like a beam of a Sukkah, and the Sages make a fix for it because of the Statute of the Beam [that stolen beams built into houses do not need to be removed, but should rather have their value paid]."

Ravina said to R. Ashi: How do we know that “branches of palm-trees” refers to the lulav? ... Perhaps it means [branches of] the hardened palm? It must be [a branch the leaves of which can be] bound up, and this one cannot.

Raba Tosfa’ah said to Ravina: But perhaps it means two bunches of dates? The word is written kappat (in the singular). Then perhaps it means one? That would be called kaf.

Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him, ‘Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela.' And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?

Ravina said: This one is different from the day immediately preceding it, whereas that one is different from the day that is prior [to the period] which precedes it.

just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity. But what does [this midrash] mean? Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy.” It is written here, ‘In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord’, and it is written elsewhere, “Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Exodus 29:34).

Ravina answered: It means that the trumpet blasts are lengthened. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of R. Aha stated: It means that the number of the trumpeters is to be increased.

Ravina said: We learn from this that if a man is seized with fright though he sees nothing, [the reason is that] his star sees. What is his remedy? He should recite the Shema. If he is in a place which is foul, he should move away from it four cubits. If he cannot do this, he should say this formula: “The goat at the butcher’s is fatter than I am.”

Against the proof of R. Jose b. Durmaskith it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers. Against the proof of Shmuel there is no refutation. Ravina said: This is what people say, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.

Ravina said to R. Ashi: How so? Perhaps all agree that the first holiness sanctified it for its time and for all time, and one Master reported what he had heard and the other what he had heard. And if you ask, In that case, why were curtains needed according to R. Eliezer, we can answer that they were merely for privacy.

Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.

Ravina had the ground (the tel) of a synagogue. He came in front of R. Ashi and said to him: Can seeds be planted there. He replied: Go and buy it from the seven “good men” of the town in the assembly of the townspeople, and you may then sow it.

[With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, R. Aha and Ravina disagree, one forbids [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permits. The one who forbade—how is its sanctity removed? While the one who permitted if the giver [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.

Nor do we go into them in summer to escape the heat or in the rainy season to escape the rain. As was the case with Ravina and R. Ada b. Matanah who were once standing and asking questions of Rava and it started to rain. They went into the synagogue and said: We came into the synagogue not because of the rain, but because the discussion of the tradition requires clarity, like a clear day.

Bar Pada said It stands to reason, a fortiori, since a priest who successfully takes away priesthood from his fellow keeps his priesthood, a priest who is unsuccessful remains a priest. Ravina argues, if so, false witnesses can never be punished

Ravina challenges this to Rava: [this case] excludes the father who strikes his son, the teacher who rebukes his student, and the messenger of the court, lets say, that since [the child is already] learned, it is not a mitzvah [to strike his son], also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah [and therefore not required]. There, even though he is learned, it is a mitzvah [to strike him], as it is written: ... “correct your son and he will please you. He will give delight to your soul.” (Proverbs 29:17).

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

(Pneumonic: Ashi lilmod, Ravina lelameid). Rav Ashi said:

Ravina said: "Anyone who loves to teach in public, that is his reward." And this [is similar to] what Rabbi said: "I have learnt a lot of Torah from my teachers, and my colleagues are greater than them—and my students are greater than all of them!"

Ravina says, actually,

Like by the schoolteacher that would hit the children. Rav Acha made a vow against him teaching, but Ravina annulled it, because there couldn't be found one as precise as he.

Ravina says Actually he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but not also all future time, but here we are dealing with a Bechor that the blood was sprinkled before the destruction of the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed with the meat still extant. And we make a hekesh [juxtapose] from the meat to the blood. Just as the blood needs the alter, so does the meat need the alter. And we also make a hekesh from Maaser to Bechor.

Ravina said, The Barasia is referring to where he carried the Maaser Sheni on a stick, and thus we can answer the question of Rav Pappa.

Ravina asked, But let's also consider one who cuts down fruit bearing trees, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 20,19) "For you may eat from them, but you may not cut them down".