refers

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to one suffering thus from his mother's womb, the other to one suffering thus after birth. This is also proved from the fact that he teaches that [the man afflicted with leprous eruption] is like the person with an amputated limb. Deduce from this [that the leper referred to in the Baraita is one who became diseased after birth].

Rab Samuel b. Isaac said : There is no significance in morning-clouds ; for it is written, "Your goodness is as a morning cloud" (Hosea vi. 4). Rab Pappa said to Abbai : But there is a proverbial expression, "If on opening the door [in the morning] there is rain, set down thy sack, O ass-driver, and lie on it"! There is no contradiction ; for this refers to [a sky] covered with heavy clouds, whereas the former refers to [a sky] covered with light clouds.

Rab Samuel b. Isaac said : There is no significance in morning-clouds ; for it is written, "Your goodness is as a morning cloud" (Hosea vi. 4). Rab Pappa said to Abbai : But there is a proverbial expression, "If on opening the door [in the morning] there is rain, set down thy sack, O ass-driver, and lie on it"! There is no contradiction ; for this refers to [a sky] covered with heavy clouds, whereas the former refers to [a sky] covered with light clouds.

There is no contradiction; one refers to where there is a partnership, the other to where there is no partnership. And there is a teaching : The summary of the matter is : Over things of his own he says "Blessed... Who hast kept us in life and preserved us" etc. ; over things which belong to him and another he says "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good."

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said : It may be derived from the following: "In the Lord, I will praise His word ; in God, I will praise His word" (ibid. Ivi. 11) — "In the Lord, I will praise His word" refers to His attribute of goodness; "In God, I will praise His word" refers to His attribute of retribution.

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said : It may be derived from the following: "In the Lord, I will praise His word ; in God, I will praise His word" (ibid. Ivi. 11) — "In the Lord, I will praise His word" refers to His attribute of goodness; "In God, I will praise His word" refers to His attribute of retribution.

according to the statement of R. Ammi who said : "Behind" refers to the work of creation, "before" to retribution.

It is right that "behind" may refer to the work of creation, for Adam was not created until the eve of the Sabbath ; but that "before" refers to retribution — retribution for what? Are we to suppose the punishment of the serpent-incident? Lo, there is a teaching : Rabbi says : With [the award of] greatness we begin with the most important ; but with a curse, we begin with the least important.

What was the blessing wherewith He blessed him ? R. Judah b. Zebida said : It refers to Hamot and her eight daughters-in-law who each bore six children at one birth ;

The tradition refers to [the legal fictions] of extension, lavud, and the curved wall.

Now to what case does this refer? Now to what case does this refer? If I say where he did not interweave them, then behold he joins the invalid covering to the valid one? Rather it refers to a case where one did interweave them; and we learn from here that we don't decree against this?What might you have thought? That [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed

It was objected: He who sleeps under the bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? But, surely, Samuel has explained that [this refers to] a bed ten [handbreadths] high.

It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out of it and read the Shema? The latter refers to a case where [the canopy] was ten [handbreadths] high.

And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls]. But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun].

Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah, one wall of which continues with them. What might one have said? That it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].

This is no difficulty. The former case refers to a large [mat], the latter to a small one.

GEMARA. But there are not ten [handbreadths in the height of the bed]? Shmuel interpreted, [that it refers to] a bed which is ten [handbreadths high].

There is no difficulty, since the former refers to above and the latter to below. R. Papa said, this is like what people say, ‘the size of a zuz above becomes the size of an issar below’.

—Death is not a frequent occurrence. But is there not an open space between [the animal's legs]? [It refers to] where he filled it in with branches of palms and bay-tree

But might it not lie down? [It refers to] where it was tied with cords from above. And according to him who says, Lest it die, is it not tied with cords from above? It might happen that it is made to stand within three [handbreadths] of the skhakh but when it dies,

And the Rabbis? If Scripture had written "In a scroll", [it would be] as you say, but now that it is written "a scroll" it refers to the recital of the words.

But are there not the swaying branches? [It refers to] where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees. If so, what does it come to teach us? One might have thought that we should decree against this lest he come to make use of the tree, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].

Come and hear: If there was there a tree, or a fence, or a partition of reeds, it is regarded as a valid corner-piece! This also refers to where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees.

Come and hear: If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.

Abaye said to him But what about that which has been taught, "A man may sleep casually while wearing his , but not set regular, let us be concerned lest he fall fast asleep? R. Joseph b. R. Ila'i said: his refers to a person who entrusts his sleep to others.

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.

One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.

One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.

But is it so? But didn't R. Yitzchak say, From where do we know that a man is obliged to greet his master on the Festival? As it says, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither Rosh Hodesh nor Shabbat" (II Kings 4:23) from which it follows that on Rosh Hodesh and Shabbat one is obligated greet his master?’ There is no difficulty. The latter refers to where he can go and return [to his house] on the one day; the former to where he cannot go and return on the same day.

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

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.

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.

Raba said: drinking vessels may be kept in the Sukkah, eating vessels outside the Sukkah Earthenware pitchers and wooden pails [must be kept] outside the Sukkah. A lamp [may be kept] within the Sukkah, while some say [that it must be kept] outside the Sukkah; but they do not disagree, here refers to a large Sukkah and here refers to a small one.

Raba said: drinking vessels may be kept in the Sukkah, eating vessels outside the Sukkah Earthenware pitchers and wooden pails [must be kept] outside the Sukkah. A lamp [may be kept] within the Sukkah, while some say [that it must be kept] outside the Sukkah; but they do not disagree, here refers to a large Sukkah and here refers to a small one.

Still, as it taught, Rabbi Yehudah says [that] Even dried ones are valid. Does [this] not [refer] to the Etrog? No. [This refers] to the Lulav.

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

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.

There are those who cast one [source] against the other: We have learnt: he thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid. But has it not been taught that they are invalid? Abaye answered, There is no difficulty: The one refers to where the top of the one leaf reaches the junction of the next; the other to where the top of the one does not reach the junction of the other.

Indeed it refers to a case where [he reduced them] after he bound them, but he holds that the binding is merely a designation, and a mere designation is of no consequence.

No! Indeed it refers to a case where it became black from the outset; and you can deduce from here that something "set aside" from the outset is not permanently "set aside"; But a case in which it was fit and then was "set aside" you cannot deduce from here.

this refers to where all of it [was peeled], this to where only a part was peeled.

At any rate it teaches "swollen or decayed." Is it not, swollen from without and decayed from within? No! Both refer to the outside, and yet there is no difficulty. One refers to a case where the etrog is swollen even although it is not decayed; the other to a case where it was decayed without being swollen.

The Master has said: An Ethiopian etrog is invalid. But has it not been taught: If it is Ethiopian it is valid, if it is like an Ethiopian, it is invalid? Abaye answered, In our Mishnah also we learned of one that is like an Ethiopian. Raba answered, There is no difficulty. The former refers to us, the latter to them.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

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.

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.

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

GEMARA. You said that he should take it [even if he is] at his table. That is to say that he must interrupt [his meal]. But there is a contraction: If they have begun they need not interrupt [it]? R. Safra replied: There is no contradiction: here is refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time.

GEMARA. You said that he should take it [even if he is] at his table. That is to say that he must interrupt [his meal]. But there is a contraction: If they have begun they need not interrupt [it]? R. Safra replied: There is no contradiction: here is refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time.

[To this] R. Safra said: There is no difficulty: The latter refers to where there is still time during the day, the former where there is [otherwise] no time.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

This is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.

This is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.

since the one refers to the Temple and the other to the provinces.

one statement refers to the Temple and the other to the Provinces.

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.

But are those who see Him through a bright speculum so few? Did not Abaye in fact state: The world never has less than thirty-six righteous people who see the Shekhinah every day, for it is said, “Happy are they that wait lo [for Him]” (Isaiah 30:18) and the numerical value of lo is thirty-six? There is no difficulty: The latter number refers to those who may enter [the Divine Presence] with permission, the former to those who may enter without permission.

The difficulty between the one statement concerning the lulav and the other is resolvable, since one refers to Temple times and the other to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence; But there is a contradiction between the two statements concerning the sukkah.

Now is this not the blessing of the season? No, it refers to Birkat Hamazon and to Tefillah.

This is also reasonable, for if you were to think that it refers to [the blessing of] the season, is there a blessing over the season all seven days? This is really not a difficulty, for if he did not recite the blessing [of the season] during the first day, he has to recite it the next day, or on any subsequent day.

For it has been taught: R. Judah said "And you shall set it down" (Deuteronomy 26:8)— this refers to waving. You say that it refers to waving but perhaps it means literally "setting it down"? When it says, "And set it down," (26:4) setting down is mentioned. How then do I fulfill, "And you shall set it down"? That refers to waving

For it has been taught: R. Judah said "And you shall set it down" (Deuteronomy 26:8)— this refers to waving. You say that it refers to waving but perhaps it means literally "setting it down"? When it says, "And set it down," (26:4) setting down is mentioned. How then do I fulfill, "And you shall set it down"? That refers to waving

For it has been taught: R. Judah said "And you shall set it down" (Deuteronomy 26:8)— this refers to waving. You say that it refers to waving but perhaps it means literally "setting it down"? When it says, "And set it down," (26:4) setting down is mentioned. How then do I fulfill, "And you shall set it down"? That refers to waving

GEMARA. How do we know this? As our Rabbis taught, The verse], “And you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15) includes the night of the last day of the Festival. But perhaps it only refers to [the night of] the first day of the Festival? When it says, “akh” it divides.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: The pits were created during the six days of creation, for it is said, “The roundings of your thighs are like the links of a chain the work of the hands of a skilled workman” (Song of Songs 7:2): “The rounding of your thighs” refers to the pits; “like the links of a chain (חלאים)” implies that they are carved out (מחוללים) and descend to the abyss; “the work of the hands of a skilled workman” means that they are the skillful handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Bereshit; read not bereshit but bara shit.

It has been taught, R. Yose says The cavity of the pits descends to the abyss, for it is said, “Let me sing of my beloved, a song of my lover for his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1). “And planted it with the choicest vine” refers to the Temple; “and built a tower in the midst of it” refers to the altar; ‘and also hewed out a vat therein’, refers to the pits.

It has been taught, R. Yose says The cavity of the pits descends to the abyss, for it is said, “Let me sing of my beloved, a song of my lover for his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1). “And planted it with the choicest vine” refers to the Temple; “and built a tower in the midst of it” refers to the altar; ‘and also hewed out a vat therein’, refers to the pits.

It has been taught, R. Yose says The cavity of the pits descends to the abyss, for it is said, “Let me sing of my beloved, a song of my lover for his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1). “And planted it with the choicest vine” refers to the Temple; “and built a tower in the midst of it” refers to the altar; ‘and also hewed out a vat therein’, refers to the pits.

You may even say that it is that of the rabbis, [but it refers to] where it was collected.

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?

Mishnah: The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day.

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple? Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod.

5) Isaiah called it the stumbling block, as it is said, “Build up, build up! Clear the way, Take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people” (Isaiah 57:14). 6) Ezekiel called it a stone, as it is said, “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). 7) Joel called it the Hidden One, as it is said, “But I will remove far off from you the hidden one” (Joel 2:20). Our Rabbis taught: “But I will distance from you the northern one (tz’foni)” (Joel 2:20): This refers to the Evil Inclination which is constantly hidden (tzafun) in the heart of man;

Gemara. What is meant by before and what by after? If you say that before refers to the first day of the Festival and after to the last day of the festival, isn't this then the Shabbat of Hol Hamoed?

Rather, before refers to the last day of the festival and after refers to the first day of the festival. What is the reason? Since the one watch had to arrive early and the other had to leave late, the Rabbis made an enactment in order that they might eat together

Rather, before refers to the last day of the festival and after refers to the first day of the festival. What is the reason? Since the one watch had to arrive early and the other had to leave late, the Rabbis made an enactment in order that they might eat together

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the clouds and the winds, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? The reason is that they are never withheld. Are they not withheld? Did not R. Joseph transmit the tannaitic teaching: "The verse (Deut., 11.17): 'He will shut up the heaven,' indicates the withholding of clouds and winds; I say 'clouds and winds,' is it not possible, you may object, that it indicates only the withholding of rain? No, for Scripture adds (in the same verse): 'and there shall be no rain,' rain is thus explicitly stated; what then is implied in the preceding 'He will shut up the heaven'? No doubt the withholding of clouds and winds?" Evidently, then, this (teaching of R. Joseph) contradicts that of the preceding Baraita as regards both clouds and winds! No, there is no contradiction as regards clouds, because the Baraita refers to clouds that appear before the rain (which are not withheld), while R. Joseph refers to such as appear after the rain (which are withheld). Nor is there a contradiction as regards winds, for the one refers to common (moderate) winds (which are not withheld), the other to uncommon (strong) winds (which are withheld). But are not even strong winds needed for winnowing? Winnowing can be done with sieves.

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

Said R. 'Asi in the name of R. Johanan, the law is in accordance with R. Judah. Said R. Zera to R. 'Asi: Did R. Johanan really say so? Did we not read (above, p. 2): On the third of Marḥeshwan we begin to pray for rain; R. Gamaliel says on the seventh thereof. Now R. Eleazar, commenting upon the statement, said, the law is in accordance with R. Gamaliel! Said R. 'Asi: Do you pit one authority (R. Eleazar) against another (R. Johanan)?! Moreover, I can say that there is no contradiction between the two, for the one refers to praying and the other to mentioning. But did not R. Johanan say, whenever one prays for rain one also mentions it? This statement refers only to the time of discontinuation. But was not reference made to both, R. Johanan saying explicitly, when one begins to mention the rain he begins to pray for it, and when he stops praying for it he stops mentioning it? Nevertheless there is no difficulty, for in the one statement he has reference to us (the Babylonians), in the other to them (the Palestinians). Why such difference? Is it because we have produce in the field? (Then there should be no difference, because) they have pilgrims! R. Johanan speaks of the time after the destruction of the Temple. Now that we have arrived at this point we can say that both statements have reference to them (Palestinians), and yet there will be no contradiction, for the one refers to the time before, and the other to that after the destruction of the Temple.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Ami further said: One's prayer is not accepted unless he puts his heart in his hands, as it is said (Lam., 3.41): "Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens." After R. 'Ami had left, R. Samuel b. Nahamani placed an Amora by his side and discoursed as follows: "But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue. For their heart was not steadfast with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant." And yet "He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity" (Ps., 78.36-38). Do not R. 'Ami and R. Samuel contradict one another? No, one refers to individual, the other to communal, prayers.