refers

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

refers to the creation of the world.

Who is meant by "individuals"? Said R. Huna, Scholars. R. Huna further said, the individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday. What does he teach us? Do we not read: Public fasts should not be decreed to begin on Thursday in order not to cause a sudden rise in market prices, but the first three fast-days should be in the order of Monday, Thursday, and Monday? Answer. You might think that this refers only to congregational fasts but not to the fasts of individuals, therefore he teaches us (that it applies also to fasts of individuals). The same is taught in a Baraita: Individuals fast three days, Monday, Thursday and Monday, but must refrain from fasting if these days coincide with the New moon

The statement that fasting by hours counts holds good only when the person in question did not taste any food during the whole day. Said Abbayi to him. Is not such a fast a complete one?! The statement of R. Ḥisda refers to one who only late in the day made up his mind to fast until evening. R. Ḥisda further said: A fast upon which the sun did not set does not deserve the name of fast. An objection was raised thereto from the Mishnah (below, p. 105): "The 'priests of the guard' fast, but not to the end of the day!" Answer. There they do it merely for the purpose of undergoing some suffering.

(On the nights preceding the fasts) they may eat and drink, etc. The Rabbis have taught: Until what time in the night (preceding a fast) may one eat and drink? Until the morning dawn; this is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar b. Simeon says, until one hears the crowing of the cock. Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not finished his meal, but if one has finished his meal, he should not start eating again. 'Abbayi objects hereto from the following Baraita: If one has eaten and gotten up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers to one who has not yet put away the table. Some give to the foregoing passage the following wording: Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not yet slept, but if he has slept, he should not start eating again. In objection hereto 'Abbayi quoted: If he slept and then got up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers only to one who merely dozed. What is meant by dozing? Said R. 'Ashi:

(On the nights preceding the fasts) they may eat and drink, etc. The Rabbis have taught: Until what time in the night (preceding a fast) may one eat and drink? Until the morning dawn; this is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar b. Simeon says, until one hears the crowing of the cock. Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not finished his meal, but if one has finished his meal, he should not start eating again. 'Abbayi objects hereto from the following Baraita: If one has eaten and gotten up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers to one who has not yet put away the table. Some give to the foregoing passage the following wording: Said Raba, this applies only to one who has not yet slept, but if he has slept, he should not start eating again. In objection hereto 'Abbayi quoted: If he slept and then got up, he may eat again! Answer: This refers only to one who merely dozed. What is meant by dozing? Said R. 'Ashi:

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Because it is something that can be classed with the enjoyment of meat and wine. An objection was raised against Raba. We read: "A maiden that has reached maturity should not neglect herself during the days of her mourning for her father." This statement indicates that a maiden who did not reach maturity is in duty bound to neglect herself. Now, in what respect is she supposed to neglect herself? By abstaining from warm baths? And is not a mature maiden allowed to neglect herself in this way? Did not R. Ḥisda say, a mourner is not allowed to put even a finger into warm water? You must therefore admit that the prohibition of self-neglect refers only to bathing in cold water (which proves that to other mourners cold bathing, too, is forbidden)! Answer: No, by neglect is meant only painting the eyelids and fixing the hair.

Some give the passage in the following version: Raba said, a mourner is not allowed to bathe either in warm or in cold water during the seven days. Why should bathing be different from the enjoyment of meat and wine? In the case of meat and wine, indulgence is permitted because it is done merely to lessen the mourner's suffering, while bathing is a matter of (avoidable) pleasure. Is not Raba's statement supported by the following passage: "A maiden that has reached maturity should not neglect herself during the days of her mourning for her father?" This wording certainly indicates that a maiden who did not yet reach maturity is in duty bound to neglect herself. Now, what is meant by neglect? Does it mean abstaining from bathing in warm water? Is a maiden of maturity, then, not allowed so to neglect herself? Did not R. Ḥisda say, a mourner is not allowed to put even a finger into warm water? You must therefore admit that the prohibition of neglect refers only to bathing in cold water! Answer: No, by neglect is meant painting her eyelids and fixing her hair.

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

Similarly if a city is visited by an epidemic, or its houses are falling in, etc. It was taught: The falling in of houses here spoken of refers to sound houses and not shaky ones, to such as are not liable to fall in and not to such as are liable to fall in. Are not "sound" and "not liable to fall in," the same? And are not "shaky" and "liable to fall in," the same? No, we must needs distinguish between the two, as for instance in a case where the walls (were sound but) fell, because they were too high or stood on the banks of a river.

Is not the foregoing Baraita contradictory? First it says: If the beasts appear in the towns it is a visitation, making no distinction between day and night, later again it says that it is a visitation only when they appear by day and not when they appear by night. It is no contradiction, and the meaning is this: If the beasts appear in the town by day, it is a visitation, if by night, it is not. "If the beast saw two people and ran after them it is a visitation." This would imply that if the beast remained standing in its place it is not a visitation, and yet in the following clause it is taught that "if the beast fled it is not a visitation," which implies that if it remained standing in its place, it is a visitation! This too is no contradiction, because in the one case the reference is to a beast standing in a field that is near reedland, in the other, to one standing in a field that is not near reedland. "If it tore two persons and devoured only one of them, it is a visitation." But just above it was said that even if it only ran after them it is a visitation! Answer. This sentence refers to a beast standing in the very midst of the reeds. "If it climbed upon the roof and took a child out of a cradle, it is a visitation." Is this not a matter of course? Said R. Papa, the statement is needed in order to include the case of a beast taking a child out of a cradle standing in a hunter's cave.

We read in a Baraita: R. Simeon ben Eleazar said, Not a hand-breadth of rain comes from above, but that the deep below comes up to meet it with two hand-breadths. But did we not read three hand-breadths (instead of two)? There is no contradiction, for one passage refers to tilled ground and the other to fallow ground.

"The day of his espousals" refers to the day on which the Torah was given, while "the day of the gladness of his heart" refers to the day on which the building of the Temple was completed. May the latter soon be rebuilt in our days!

"The day of his espousals" refers to the day on which the Torah was given, while "the day of the gladness of his heart" refers to the day on which the building of the Temple was completed. May the latter soon be rebuilt in our days!

Why is it that the recital of the Hallel (which took place in the Temple during the morning prayer) eliminates the corresponding morning prayer of the Ma'amad, while the Musaf prayer does not eliminate the corresponding Musaf prayer of the Ma'amad? "What!" replied R. 'Ashi, "is it possible that the Musaf prayer which eliminates even a non-corresponding service of the Ma'amad (that of Minḥah) should not eliminate the corresponding Musaf service of the Ma'amad?" Said Mar Ḳashshisha: What I meant to say is this: Let the Musaf prayer eliminate only a Ma'amad service that corresponds to it (the Musaf but not the Minḥah). R. Jose actually agrees with this opinion of yours, replied R. 'Ashi, for we find in a Baraita: R. Jose said, on all days on which a Musaf service is held a Ma'amad service is likewise held. Now, to which Ma'amad service does he refer? To that of Shaḥarit? This (the retention of the Ma'amad's Shaḥarit service on days which have the Musaf prayer) is admitted also by the first authority of the Mishnah (R. 'Aḳiba)! Or does he refer to the Ma'amad service during the Musaf prayer? Does not the Musaf eliminate even its own Ma'amad service? Or does he refer to the Ma'amad's Minḥah service? That service is eliminated by the wood offering! No other alternative, then, is possible than to say that he refers to the Ma'amad's Ne'ilah service, which proves that the Musaf eliminates only that Ma'amad service which is simultaneous (and hence conflicts) with it (namely the Ma'amad's Musaf), but none of the services which are not simultaneous with it (as those of Minḥah and Ne'ilah). It stands proved.

A breach was made in the walls of the city. Was that on the seventeenth of Tammuz? Is it not written (Jerem., 52. 6-7): "In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city," and further on it is said (ibid., 52. 7): "Then a breach was made in the city"? Said Raba, this is no difficulty, for one statement refers to the time of the First Temple, and the other to the time of the Second, as is stated in a Baraita: On the ninth day of the month a breach was made in the city during the time of the First Temple, but during the time of the Second Temple the breach was made on the seventeenth thereof.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

R. Benjamin b. Jephet also said in the name of R. Eleazar that the prohibition of washing refers only to washing for immediate wear, but washing for the purpose of putting aside is allowed. An objection was again raised from the following Baraita: It is not allowed to wash before the ninth of Ab (within the same week) even when the intention is to put the clothes aside for use after the ninth of Ab; our (Babylonian) fine laundry work is under the same rule as their (Palestinian) plain washing; linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding laundering! This, indeed, is 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,

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,

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,

Now that you have said that the words “city and city, town and town” are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words “family and family” [in the same verse]?. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.

What [source refers to] Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, villages and large towns push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and walled cities read on the day itself. Rabbi said: I say that towns should not have to shift their date, but both one and the other read on the day itself.

R. Yose b. Hanina said: What is meant by what is written, “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God?” (Zechariah 9:7). “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth”: this refers to their sacrificial shrines.“ And his detestable things from between his teeth”: this refers to their oracles. “And he also shall be a remnant for our God”: these are the synagogues and houses of learning in Edom.

R. Yose b. Hanina said: What is meant by what is written, “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God?” (Zechariah 9:7). “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth”: this refers to their sacrificial shrines.“ And his detestable things from between his teeth”: this refers to their oracles. “And he also shall be a remnant for our God”: these are the synagogues and houses of learning in Edom.

this refers to Germania of Edom, for should they but go forth they would destroy the whole world.

There is no contradiction; the one [piece of advice] refers to one’s own affairs the other to religious matters.

And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy. If so let the verse say, “And when he that has an issue is cleansed” and no more. Why do I have “from his issue”? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days.

But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.

Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the baraita] refers to the Megillah, the other to the other books [of the Scripture]. What is the reason in the case of the Megillah? — Because it is written in regard to it, “According to their writing and according to their language” (Esther 1:20). What case of Aramaic being written in Hebrew is possible here?

Abba b. Kahana opened his discourse on this section from here: “For to the man that is good in his sight he gives wisdom, and knowledge and joy” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). This is the righteous Mordecai. “But to the sinner He gives the task, to gather and to heap up”; this is Haman. “That he may leave it to him, that is good in the sight of God”; this refers to Mordecai and Esther, as it is written, “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:20).

“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.

“But a fool exposes his folly’: this refers to Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, and “Let the king appoint officers: whoever had a daughter hid her.

He replied to Him, He replied to Him, “But they also reel through wine, and stagger through strong drink,” they totter in judgement [paku peliliyah]; and “paku” refers only to Gehinnom, as it says, “That this shall be no stumbling-block [pukah] for you” (I Samuel 25:31); and “peliliyah” contains a reference to the judges, as it says, “And he shall pay as the judges determine [bi-felilim]” (Exodus 21:22).

After he had trimmed his hair he put the garments on him, and said to him, Mount and ride. He replied: I am not able, as I am weak from the days of fasting. So Haman stooped down and he mounted [on his back]. When he was up he kicked him. He said to him: Is it not written in your books, “Rejoice not when your enemy fails” (Proverbs 24:17)? He replied: That refers to an Israelite, but in regard to you it is written, “And you shall step on their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29).

“Honor” means tefillin, and so it says, “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10); and it has been taught: R. Elazar the Great says that this refers to the tefillin of the head.

But what did you see to rely on this verse? Rely rather on the other! There is written another verse, “Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit”(Psalms 103:3-4). This implies that redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But it is written, “And he will repent and be healed”? That refers not to the healing of sickness but to the healing [power] of forgiveness.

But how do we know that this zekhirah refers to reading [out loud]? Perhaps it means reading with the eyes? Do not think such a thing, since it has been taught: “Remember” [zakhor] (Deuteronomy 25:17). Do not think such a thing, since it has been taught: “Remember” [zakhor] (Deuteronomy 25:17). This might be only with the mind? When it says, “Do not forget,” forgetting in one’s heart is already stated. How then can I fulfill “remember”? With one’s mouth.

They objected: If letters in it [the scroll] are partially rubbed out or torn, if they are still legible, it may be used, but otherwise it may not be used. There is no difficulty: one statement refers to all of it, the other to part of it.

R. Abbahu said: R. Meir is different, because to him could be applied the verse, "Let your eyes look in front, and gaze straight before you" (Proverbs 4:25). Rami b. Hama asked R. Jeremiah from Difti: What is the meaning of "Let your eyes [af'apekha] look in front, and gaze straight before you"? He replied: This refers to the words of the Torah, of which it is written, "Will your eyes fly over it [ta'if] and it is gone?" (Proverbs 23:5). And even so, they were produced correctly by R. Meir.

R. Yohanan said: All these rabbis derived their rule from the same verse: “Then Esther the queen and Mordecai the Jew wrote all the acts of power” (9:29). He who says the whole Megillah, this refers to the power of Ahashverosh;

R. Abbahu said: It refers to one who says, "My monetary [value] be upon me" as it has been taught: "One who says, My monetary [value] be upon me, we estimate his value as we would that of a slave." And a slave is compared to property, as it is written, "And you shall pass them down as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession" (Leviticus 25:46).

One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. Shall we say that that we have already taught this, as our Rabbis taught: [The obligation for] tefillin to be square is a law set down by Moses at Sinai. And Rava explained [this refers] to their stitching and their diagonal.

The accounts of David and Amnon is read but not translated. But you just said that the story of Amnon and Tamar is both read and translated? — There is no contradiction; the former statement refers to where it says “Amnon son of David,” the latter to where it says “Amnon” simply.

And even if we adopt the view that the mere intention [to use a thing for a certain purpose] has force, this refers to a case, for instance, when one weaves a shroud for a dead body, but in this case [the bricks and beams in question] are like thread which has still to be woven into cloth, and no one says [that in such a case there is force in mere intention].

Come and hear: But if they sell, a Torah they may not buy scrolls; it is scrolls that they may not buy, but if they buy a Torah with the proceeds from the sale of a Torah it is okay! [No.] The Mishnah refers to something already done, and the question we asked was whether it is permitted?

“Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary [in the land into which they will go]” (Ezekiel 11:16). R. Yitzchak said: This refers to the synagogue and study houses Elazar says: This refers to the house of our teacher in Babylonia.

“Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary [in the land into which they will go]” (Ezekiel 11:16). R. Yitzchak said: This refers to the synagogue and study houses Elazar says: This refers to the house of our teacher in Babylonia.

Rava gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Lord, You have been our dwelling place” (Psalms 90:1)? This refers to synagogues and study houses. Abaye said: At first I used to study at home and pray in the synagogue, but when I heard the words of David, “O Lord, I love the dwelling place [me’on] of Your house” (Psalms 26:8), I began to study in the synagogue.

If grass has grown in it, he should not pluck it, so as not to arouse distress. But it has been taught: He should not pluck it and give it as food [to cattle], but he pluck it and leave it there. The statement in our Mishnah also refers to plucking and giving it for food.

To what do these last words apply? Shall I say, to the last clause? Since he burns them on the spot, what respect does this show for the dead? Rather it refers to the preceding clauses.

There is no conflict [between these two statements]; the one refers to a case where Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls on Shabbat, and the other where it falls in the middle of the week.

R. Jochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, "And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them" (Deut. xxxi. 21). A slave, whose master brings upon him evils and troubles—is there any help for him? What is the meaning of "evils and troubles"? Rab said, Evils which become troubles counterbalancing one another, as in the case of the wasp and the scorpion. But Samuel said, This refers to him who bestows money upon the poor man in the hour of his extreme distress. Rabba said, This agrees with the proverb, Money for corn standing in the field is not found, for corn hanging up it is found.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

Halachoth concerning Sabbath. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning it. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with the words of R. Abba, for R. Abba said, He who digs a hole on the Sabbath, when it is only needed for the sake of the earth from it, is permitted to do so. According to whom is this teaching? According to R. Simeon, who said, A work which is not necessary for its own sake is permitted. If thou sayest, According to R. Jehudah, his teaching is that there are two cases to be distinguished, and that in the one the man does something which effects good, in the other harm. What is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? It refers to the fact that

Temple Services. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary with a view to the bringing of the blood. For there is a Baraitha, "and they shall present" (Lev. i. 5). This is the receiving of the blood. And the Merciful One expressed it by a word which denotes "bringing," as it is written, "And the priest shall present the whole and shall burn it upon the altar" (Lev. i. 13). But the Mishnah teacher said, This refers to the bringing of limbs to the steps, and the object of the passage is to shew that the bringing did not take it out of the genus receiving.

The one refers to that which is within, the other to that which is without. And R. Acha bar Jacob said, There is again a firmament above the heads of the living creatures, for it is written, "And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, like the colour of the terrible crystal" (Ezek. i. 22). So far thou hast permission to speak. Thenceforward thou hast not permission to speak. For thus it is written in the Book of Ben Sira, "Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, and into the things that are hidden from thee enquire thou not. In what is permitted to thee instruct thyself; thou hast no business with secret things" (Ecclus. iii. 21, 22).

That which is unclean by reason of a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and on the seventh day. But men do not borrow a vessel for use at the end of seven days. And with regard to dipping, are we not to take a man's word? And yet there is the Baraitha, The word of a common person is taken with respect to the purification of washing of that which is unclean by reason of a dead body. Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one refers to his body, the other to his vessels. But Raba said, Both the one and the other teaching refer to his vessels. And even so there is no difficulty. The one is the case of a man who says, I have never dipped vessels in the midst of vessels; and the other is the case of a man who says, I have dipped, but I have not dipped in a vessel the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And this is borne out by a Baraitha, viz., A common person is believed when he says, Fruits have not been rendered predisposed to defilement. But he is not believed, when he says, The fruits have been rendered predisposed to defilement, but they have not been defiled. And with regard to his body, is he to be believed? Surely not, For lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., In the case of a learned and observant man who comes for sprinkling, he is to be sprinkled at once; in the case of a common person, who comes for sprinkling, he is not to be sprinkled, until he performs before us the things appertaining to the third and seventh days. But Abai says, As the result of thy severity towards him at the beginning, thou dealest gently with him at the end.

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

But at the time of the vintage...[they are believed] with regard to the heave-offering also. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest. R. Nachman said, There is no difficulty. The one is the case of new, the other of old ones. R. Ada bar Ahăba said to him, For instance things like those belonging to the house of thy father. R. Joseph said, The teaching refers to Galilee. Abai replied to him, The other side of Jordan and Galilee, lo, these are as Judea. Another explains, They are believed about wine at the time of wine, and oil at the time of oil, but not about wine at the time of oil, and not about oil at the time of wine. But it is perfectly clear that it is as originally explained.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

Rather it refers to witnesses that testified against the innocent party, and new witnesses come and exonerate the innocent party and make those witnesses guilty [of false testimony], and they deserve to be beaten.

A Tanna taught, 'A loan to his fellow without any conditions, he may not demand it back less than thirty days.' Rava b. Bar Chana explained in the presence of Rav here it refers to a written loan because a person doesn't bother to write a loan for less than thirty days but not a verbal loan. Rav said to him, my beloved uncle has said [elsewhere], 'a written loan and a verbal loan [are equivalent]'

Gemar: It was taught: Rebi said to the Sages: Does it say, "and the iron [flies off] from ITS wood?" Does it not only say "from the wood?" And furthermore, the word "wood" is said below and the word "wood" is said above. Just as the word "wood" is said above [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped, so too the word "wood" is said below [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped.

Gemar: It was taught: Rebi said to the Sages: Does it say, "and the iron [flies off] from ITS wood?" Does it not only say "from the wood?" And furthermore, the word "wood" is said below and the word "wood" is said above. Just as the word "wood" is said above [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped, so too the word "wood" is said below [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped.

(Joshua 24,26) "And Yehoshua wrote these words in the Torah scroll of God". Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemiah argue [abut what "these words" refers to]. One says, The eight verses [that are after Moshe Rabeninu died]. And one says, [The passage of the] cities of refuge.

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

(Deutermany 12, 17) "and your voluntary gifts", this refers to the Todah and Sh'lamim offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from the Todah or the Sh'lamim before the z'rika [the sprinkling of the blood] incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "And your firstborn", this refers to a Bechor offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem], [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser; if to [make one liable for eating them] before the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Todah and Sh'lamim, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from a Bechor even after the z'rika incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "Your cattle and your sheep", this refers to the Chatos and Asham offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

(Deutermany 12, 17) "Your vows", this refers to the Olah offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

And one who rounds the corners of his head. etc.: The rabbis taught in a baraisa, The corners of his head are the extremities of his head. And what are the extremities of his head? This refers to someone who smooths out his side from behind his ears to his forehead.

And one who destroys the corners of his beard. etc.: The Rabbis taught in a baraisa "the corner of his beard" refers to the extremities of his beard. And what are the extremities of his beard? The pointy corn-like parts of the beard.

"has no slander upon his tongue" this refers to Yakov, our forefather, as it is written (Genesis 27,12) "Maybe my father will feel me and I will be in his eyes like a deceiver".

"Who does not takes up a reproach against his neighbor" This refers to one who brings his relatives near him.

"In whose eyes a vile person is despised" This refers to King Chizkiyahu who dragged the bones of his father on a bed of ropes.

"But he honors those that fear Hashem" This refers to Yehoshafut the King of Yehuda, who whenever he would see a Torah scholar would get up from throne, embrace them and kiss them, and call them (my father, my father), my Rebbi, my Rebbi, my master, my master.

They told him is it written "who does all of these things"? it is written, "one who does these things" which would imply even one of them. That if you will not say this, it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 18, 24) "Do not contaminate yourself with all of these". There also, is only one who touches all of the things one who becomes tamai, but if he only [touched] one of them not? Rather it refers to one of these. So too here it refers to one of these.

They told him is it written "who does all of these things"? it is written, "one who does these things" which would imply even one of them. That if you will not say this, it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 18, 24) "Do not contaminate yourself with all of these". There also, is only one who touches all of the things one who becomes tamai, but if he only [touched] one of them not? Rather it refers to one of these. So too here it refers to one of these.

"He who walks righteously", this refers to Avraham our forefather, as it is written (Genesis 18, 19) "For now I known that he may command etc.".

"And speaks uprightly" this refers to one who does not embarrass his fellow in public.

"And shuts his eyes from seeing evil" this is like what Rebbi Chia bar Aba said. That Rebbi Chia bar Aba said this refers to one who does not gaze at woman at the time that they are doing their laundry.

"To do justly", this refers to laws. "To love mercy", this refers to kind deeds. "And to walk discreetly with your God" this refers to bringing out the dead and bringing in the bride. And is it not a kal v'chomer? If matters which are usually not done discretely [like funeral and bridal processions], the Torah says to perform them with discretion, then matters which usually are done discreetly [like charity], how much more so [should they be performed discreetly.

"To do justly", this refers to laws. "To love mercy", this refers to kind deeds. "And to walk discreetly with your God" this refers to bringing out the dead and bringing in the bride. And is it not a kal v'chomer? If matters which are usually not done discretely [like funeral and bridal processions], the Torah says to perform them with discretion, then matters which usually are done discreetly [like charity], how much more so [should they be performed discreetly.

"To do justly", this refers to laws. "To love mercy", this refers to kind deeds. "And to walk discreetly with your God" this refers to bringing out the dead and bringing in the bride. And is it not a kal v'chomer? If matters which are usually not done discretely [like funeral and bridal processions], the Torah says to perform them with discretion, then matters which usually are done discreetly [like charity], how much more so [should they be performed discreetly.

Rav said, I am worried from that verse, "and you will become lost among the nations". Rav Pappa challenged him, Perhaps, it refers to a lost article that one searches for, as it is written, (Psalms 119, 176) "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant". Rather, [Rav was worried] from the later part of the verse. (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will be consumed in the land of your enemies". Mar Zutra challenged him, Perhaps it refers to the eating of cucumbers and gourds [which still survive after some of them are consumed].

Rav said, I am worried from that verse, "and you will become lost among the nations". Rav Pappa challenged him, Perhaps, it refers to a lost article that one searches for, as it is written, (Psalms 119, 176) "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant". Rather, [Rav was worried] from the later part of the verse. (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will be consumed in the land of your enemies". Mar Zutra challenged him, Perhaps it refers to the eating of cucumbers and gourds [which still survive after some of them are consumed].