resh

Come ye, then, by the crown of the chief of your emperors, and by the sceptres of your power, and of SID, the great demon, your master; by the names and in the names of the holy angels who have been created to be above you, long before the constitution of the world; and by the names of the two princes of the Universe, whose names are, IONIEL and SEFONIEL; by the rod of Moses, by the staff of Jacob; by the ring and seal of David, wherein are written the names of sovereign God; and by the names of the angels by which Solomon has linked and bound ye; and by the sacred bonds by which ANAEL hath environed and hath conquered the spirit; and by the name of the angel who ruleth potently over the rest, and by the praise of all creatures who cry incessantly unto God, who spake, and immediately all things, even the Ages, were made and formed; and by the name HA-QADOSCH BERAKHA, which signifies the Holy and Blessed One; and by the Ten Choirs of the holy angels, CHAIOTH HA-QADESH, AUPHANIM, ARALIM, CHASHMALIM, SERAPHIM, MALACHIM, ELOHIM, BENI ELOHIM, KERUBIM, and ISHIM; and by, and in the sacred name of twelve letters of which each letter is the name of an angel, and the letters of the name are ALEPH, BETH, BETH, NUN, VAU, RESH, VAU, CHETH, HE, QOPH, DALETH, SHIN.

Be ye accursed, damned, and eternally reproved; and be ye tormented with perpetual pain, so that ye may find no repose by night nor by day, nor for a single moment or time, if ye obey not immediately the command of him who maketh the Universe to tremble; by these names, and in virtue of these names, the which being named and invoked all creatures obey and tremble with fear and terror, these names which can turn aside lightning and thunder; and which will utterly make you to perish, destroy, and banish you. These names then are Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, He, Vau, Zayin, Cheth, Teth, Yod, Kaph, Lamed, Mem, Nun, Samekh, Ayin, Pe, Tzaddi, Qoph, Resh, Shin, Tau.

The children of Ham. The people of Ham are thirty and six families, besides the Philistines and Cappadocians. Cush, from whom sprang the Cushites; Misraim, from whom sprang the Misraye (or Egyptians); Phut (or Pot), from whom sprang the Potaye; Canaan, from whom sprang the Canaanites; the seven kings whom Joshua the son of Nun destroyed; the children of 'Obar, Sheba and Havila, from whom sprang the Indians, the Amorites, the Samraye, the Metraye, and all the dwellers of the south. And of Cush was born Nimrod, who was the first king after the flood. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel (Babylon), which he built, and in which he reigned; and then, after the division of tongues, he built the following cities: Arach (Erech), which is Orhai (Edessa), Achar (Accad), which is Nisibis, and Calya (Calneh), which is Ctesiphon. The land of Babel he called the land of Shinar, because in it were the languages confounded, for ‘ Shinar ’ in the Hebrew language is interpreted ‘ division.’ From that land the Assyrian went forth and built Nineveh and the town of Rehoboth, which is the town of Arbel (Irbil). It is said that Belus, the son of Nimrod, was the first to depart from Babel and to come to Assyria; and after Belus, his son Ninus built Nineveh, and called it after his name, and Arbel and Calah, which is Hetre (Hatra), and Resen, which is Resh-'aina (Ras'ain). Misraim begat Ludim, from whom sprang the Lodaye; La'bim, from whom sprang the Lfibay; Lahbim, from whom sprang theTebtaye; Yaphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim, from whom went forth the Philistines, the Gedraye (Gadarenes), and the people of Sodom. Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, from whom sprang the Soraye (Tyrians) and Sidonians, ten nations who dwelt by the side of Israel, from the sea (i. e. the Mediterranean) to the Euphrates; the Kishaye, the Kenraye (or Kiraye), and the Akdemonaye (or Kadmonaye), who were between the children of Esau and Amna of Ireth h The children of Lot are children of Ham.

Rebbi Lia, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the great Rebbi Aḥa: If he prayed and he found himself in “He Who hears prayer”, he may assume that he prayed with intent. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he prayed without intent and he knows that the second time he will pray with intent, he may pray a second time; otherwise he should not pray. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said: I never managed to pray with intent, but one time I made an effort to concentrate and I started to think and said to myself, who enters first before the king, the ἀργαπέτης or the Resh Galuta? Samuel said: I counted chicks. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: I counted stone rows. Rebbi Mattaniah said: I an thankful to my head that when I come to modim it bends down by itself.

HALAKHAH: Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

HALAKHAH: Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada, the nephew of Bar Qappara, died did Resh Laqish accept for him since he was his teacher and a student is beloved as a son. He went and eulogized him: (Song of Songs 6:2) “My friend descended to his garden, to the spice patch, to shepherd in the gardens.” It would have been necessary only to say “ “My friend descended to shepherd in the gardens.” But “my friend” is the Holy One, praise to Him. “He descended to His garden”, that is the world. “To the spice patch”, that is Israel. “To shepherd in the gardens”, these are the peoples of the world. “And to collect lilies”, these are the just ones whom He removes from their midst. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To a king who had a son whom he loved very much. What did the king do? He planted a garden for him. When the son did the will of his father, the father searched in the entire world for a nice plant and planted it in his garden. When the son was making him angry, he cut down all his plants. So when Israel does the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, he searches the entire world and observes the just person, brings him and attaches him to Israel, like Jethro and Rahab. And when they are making him angry he removes the just ones from amongst them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥana: Practice follows Rebbi Yehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. What we know of Samuel means the same; for Samuel said: I never prayed Musaph except once when the son of the Resh Galuta died and there was no public prayer, then I prayed.

Rebbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan in the name of Resh Laqish: When Abraham their forefather did My will, I swore to him that dew will never move away from his descendants forever; what is the reason? (Ps. 110:3) “You have the dew of your youth.” And it is written after that (Ps. 110:4) “The Eternal swore and He will not change His intention.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, by a will I gave it to Abraham, as a gift I gave it to him. (Gen. 27:28) “God may give you from the dew of heaven.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani said, when Israel sin and do evil the rains are arrested. They bring an old man like Rebbi Yose the Galilean, he prays for them and the rains come. But dew does not descend by the merit of any creature, what is the reason? (Micah 5:6) “Like dew from the Eternal, like light showers on grass, that do not listen to anybody nor wait for humans.”

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city”, etc. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said, 2000 cubits the domain of the levitic cities. Deduct from them 1000 cubits open space, there results one quarter open space and the remainder fields. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: A quarter of 1000113. Rebbi Isaac said, even if you say a quarter from every side, it is a quarter. He who wants to make a square from four amphoras needs sixteen. Rebbi Mana estimated it from a brick, Rebbi Abin estimated it from a strip, Rebbi Oshaiah estimated it from a dish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, 50 by 50 form a bet se’ah; 100 by 100 are four bet se’ah. As it happened to the Resh Galuta when it was imposed on him to fill a hall of 40 by 40 cubits with wheat. He came to Rav Huna who said to him, negotiate that they should take from you 20 by 20 now and 20 by 20 later; you will earn half.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha,

And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha,

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

Immediately the children [throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs]. R. Yohanan said: The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, and permitted on the eighth; the Sukkah is forbidden even on the eighth And Resh Lakish said: The etrog is permitted even on the seventh day.

Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Yohanan: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Does not this equally apply to adults also? No; specifically to children.

There are others who say that R. Yohanan raised the objection against Resh Lakish: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Children only, not adults! No; the same law applies to adults as well, and the reason that it mentions children is that it states what was customary.

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

There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”

What is meant by "Gropers"? R. Johanan said, old men walking on staffs; Resh Laḳish said, the last gleaners.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.10): "If the iron be blunt and one do not whet the edge"? If thou seest a generation over which the heavens are as tough as iron, sending neither dew nor rain, it is due to the people's corrupt deeds, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is the remedy? They should pray much, as it is said (ibid.): "Then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that the additional praying will prove more profitable if the people's deeds are still good. Resh Laḳish explains it thus: When thou seest a scholar

to whom his studies are as tough as iron, it is because his lesson is not properly ordered in his mind, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is his remedy? He should attend more diligently the sessions of the scholars, as it is said, "then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," the latter part of which means to say that increased diligence will prove still more profitable if the scholar's studies have always been well ordered. Resh Laḳish used to arrange his studies in proper order forty times, corresponding to the forty days during which the Torah was given to Israel, before he appeared before R. Johanan. R. 'Adda b. 'Ahabah used to arrange his lessons in proper order twenty-four times, corresponding to the number of the books of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, before he appeared before Raba.

Resh Laḳish said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? In the time to come all beasts will gather together and approach the serpent, saying to him: A lion attacks with his paws and eats his prey, a wolf tears and eats, but what pleasure hast thou in biting and killing? The serpent will reply: "The charmer hath no advantage."

R. Johanan said: He who conducts himself righteously here below is judged strictly in the heaven above, as it is said, "Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness hath looked down from heaven." R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba derives this lesson from this verse (Ps., 90.11): "And Thy wrath according to the fear that is due unto Thee." Resh Laḳish derives it from this verse (Is., 64.4): "Thou didst take away him that joyfully worked righteousness."

Said Resh Laḳish: Why is it written (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"? Because when the heavens are prevented from sending down dew and rain, they are to be compared to a woman that travails, but cannot give birth. This is in keeping with what Resh Laḳish said in the name of Bar Ḳappara: The expression "shut up" is used in connection with a woman and in connection with rain;

Said Resh Laḳish: Why is it written (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heavens"? Because when the heavens are prevented from sending down dew and rain, they are to be compared to a woman that travails, but cannot give birth. This is in keeping with what Resh Laḳish said in the name of Bar Ḳappara: The expression "shut up" is used in connection with a woman and in connection with rain;

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

Resh Laḳish was likewise of the opinion that rain is granted also for the sake of an individual, for he said, whence do we infer that rain is granted for the sake of an individual? It is written (Zech., 10.1): "Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain, even of the Lord that maketh lightnings; and He will give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field." Now, from the words "He will give them," one might conclude that He gives it only when everybody needs it; Scripture therefore adds "to every one"; but if it said only "to every one," we might think that He gives it only when that one needs it for all his fields; Scripture therefore says "field" (singular); but the word "field" might still be understood to mean a whole (large) field; Scripture therefore says "grass." This finds its illustration in the following case: R. Daniel b. R. Ḳeṭina had a garden which he used to examine every day, and say: This bed needs rain, and this one does not need it. The next day it was found that rain fell upon the one, but not upon the other.

It has been said above: "R. Eliezer said, it gets sweetened in the clouds"—whence did he derive this? He derived it in the way reported by R. Isaac b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan: In one passage we find it written (Ps., 18.12): "darkness (ḥeshkat) of waters," in another we find (II Sam., 22.12): "gathering (ḥashrat) of waters"; take the kaf (of ḥeshkat) and add it to the resh (in ḥashrat) and then read hakshārat (=improvement) of waters. What use does R. Joshua make of these two verses? He explains the matter on the basis of what was later reported by R. Dimi who, upon returning from Palestine to Babylon, said that the Palestinians used to say: when the clouds are dark they contain much water, but when they are light they contain little water.

Resh Laḳish said: In years of famine one must refrain from conjugal relations, for it is said (Gen., 41. 50): "And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came." It was taught, however, that people who have no children may perform their marital duty even in years of famine.

Resh Laḳish said: He is called pious, for it is said (Prov., 11. 17): "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul." R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba said in the name of Resh Laḳish, a scholar is not allowed to impose fasts upon himself, because it makes him lessen his heavenly work. R. Sheshet said, if a student takes upon himself such a fast, his meal should be given to the dogs.

Resh Laḳish said: He is called pious, for it is said (Prov., 11. 17): "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul." R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba said in the name of Resh Laḳish, a scholar is not allowed to impose fasts upon himself, because it makes him lessen his heavenly work. R. Sheshet said, if a student takes upon himself such a fast, his meal should be given to the dogs.

Why did they go out for these ceremonies to the open place of the town? Said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: Because they wished to say thereby: We have cried privately and were not answered, now let us humiliate ourselves publicly. Resh Laḳish said, they meant to say: We have exiled ourselves from our synagogues, and exile atones for sin. Does it make any practical difference what reason we adopt? The difference arises with regard to a case where the community leave one synagogue and enter another.

Why do they put wood-ashes on the Torah scroll? Said R. Judah b. Pazzi, this means to say: "I will be with him in trouble" (Ps., 91. 15); Resh Laḳish said, it means to say: "In all their affliction He was afflicted" (Is., 63. 9). Said R. Zera: When I saw wood-ashes put on the Torah, I trembled in my whole body.

The Patriarchal house once ordered a public fast, without informing R. Johanan and Resh Laḳish thereof. They informed them, however, the next morning. Resh Laḳish therefore said to R. Johanan: "How can we observe the fast, since we did not take it upon ourselves yester-night?" Said R. Johanan, "We must follow their (the Patriarchs') ordinances."

The Patriarchal house once ordered a public fast, without informing R. Johanan and Resh Laḳish thereof. They informed them, however, the next morning. Resh Laḳish therefore said to R. Johanan: "How can we observe the fast, since we did not take it upon ourselves yester-night?" Said R. Johanan, "We must follow their (the Patriarchs') ordinances."

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

Why did they not fast on Sunday? Said R. Johanan, because of the Christians; R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, because Sunday is the third day after the creation of man; Resh Laḳish said, because of the additional soul; for Resh Laḳish holds that an additional soul is given to man on Friday eve, which is taken away from him at the expiration of the Sabbath, as it is said (Ex., 31.17): "He ceased from work and rested"—alas, the soul is gone after the Sabbath is over.

Now if you assume that Kitron is Tzippori, why did Zevulun complain of his portion, seeing that Tzippori is an even better place? And if you were to say that it is not “flowing with milk and honey,” Resh Lakish has said: I myself have seen the flowing of milk and honey around Tzippori, and it is sixteen miles by sixteen miles.

Resh Lakish began his discourse on this section with the following text: “As a roaring lion and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” (Proverbs 4:7). “A roaring lion”: this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written, “A lion is gone up from his thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7). “A ravenous bear”: this is Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear,” (Daniel 7:5), and R. Joseph taught: These are the Persians, who eat and drink like bears, and are coated with flesh like bears, and are hairy like bears, and have no rest like bears. “

For Resh Lakish has said: The Holy One, blessed be He, does not strike Israel unless He has created for them a healing beforehand, as it says. "When I have healed Israel, then is the iniquity of Ephraim uncovered" (Hosea 7:1). Not so, however, with the other nations: He smites them first, and then creates for them a healing, as it says: "The Lord will smite Egypt, smiting and healing" (Isaiah 19:22).

“If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver”: Resh Lakish said: It was well known to Him at whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay shekels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore He anticipated his shekels with those of Israel.

How much [was it stretched]? — R. Jeremiah said: It was two cubits long and he made it twelve cubits — Some say, sixteen, and some again twenty-four. In a Baraitha it was stated, sixty. so too you find with the arm of the daughter of Pharaoh, and so you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written, You have broken [shibarta] the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8) and Resh Lakish said: Do not read shibarta but shirbavta. Rabbah b. Ofran said in the name of R. Elazar who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, [that the sceptre was stretched] two hundred [cubits].

Resh Lakish eulogized a certain rabbinical student who was frequently in the Land of Israel and who used to repeat halakhoth before twenty-four rows [of disciples]. He said: Alas! The Land of Israel has lost a great man.

We have learned in another place: Whoever makes use of a crown, passes away [from the world] and Resh Lakish taught: This applies to one who accepts service from one who can repeat halakhoth, the crown of Torah. And Ulla said

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says:... Ezra established for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah. ... What is the reason? Abaye, or you may also say Resh Lakish said: So that the year may end along with its curses.

Resh Lakish said, Every one who turneth aside the judgment of the stranger is as though he turned aside the judgment of God; for it is written "ומטי the stranger" (ibid.), and the word is מטי.

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.

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.

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.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

Ola said that Resh Lakish said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. R. Jochanan said, When he has finished, he cannot bring again. R. Abba said, But they do not really differ. The one is the case where he keeps silence, the other where he declares his intention. This expression, When he keeps silence—explain it. Perhaps there was not time in the day to bring them. In that case they are not brought, because there was not time in the day. But perhaps he has none to eat with him. In that case they are not brought, because he has none to eat with him. No; this is not such a case; and so far as this goes, it is necessary that he should bring them. For there is time in the day, and he has people to eat with him. Inasmuch as he did not bring them at the earlier time, learn from this that he left them behind intentionally; and this also is the purport of the story, how when Rabbin came, R. Jochanan said, If a man set apart ten beasts for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first high holiday, and may again bring five on the second high holiday. They are in appearance difficult to reconcile, but in reality not. For learn from this that the one is the case when he keeps silence, the other when he declares his intention. Learn from this that the point has been also distinctly settled. R. Shemen bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said,

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. ii. 4). The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to your words a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house: and the heavens are the upper story, as it is said, "It is he that buildeth in the heavens his upper stories, and hath founded his vault upon the earth" (Amos ix. 6). The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to your words a man makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne: and the heavens are a throne, as it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool" (Is. lxvi. 1). But wise men say, The one and the other were created together, as it is said, "Yea, mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together" (Is. xlviii. 13). And the others—what do they say of the word "together"? for they cannot be separated the one from the other. The passages are difficult to reconcile. Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.

R. Jehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, "Behold, unto the Lord thy God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens" (Deut. x. 14). Resh Lakish said, There are seven, and these be they, Vilon, Rakia', Sh'chakim, Z'bul, Ma'on, Makhon, Araboth. Vilon serves no purpose whatever save this, that it enters in in the morning, and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of Creation, as it is said, "That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Is. xl. 22). Rakia' is that in which are set sun and moon, stars and constellations, as it is said, "and God set them in the firmament (Rakia') of the heaven." Sh'chakim is that in which the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous, as it is said, "Yet he commanded the clouds (Sh'chakim) above and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down manna upon them to eat, etc." (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24) Z'bul is that in which is the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple, and the altar is built there, and Michael the great prince stands and offers upon it an offering, as it is said, "I have surely built thee an house of habitation (Z'bul), a place for thee to dwell in for ever" (1 Kings viii. 13). And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "Look down from heaven and behold from the habitation (Z'bul) of thy holiness and thy glory" (Is. lxiii. 15). Ma'on is that in which are companies of ministering angels, who utter His song in the night and are silent in the day for the sake of the glory of Israel, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives His merciful command and by night His song is with me" (Ps. xlii. 8).

Resh Lakish said, Every one who studies in the Law by night,—the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him the thread of grace by day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command." And what is the reason that by day the Lord gives his merciful command? Because of what follows, viz., "and by night his song is with me." And there are some who say that Resh Lakish said, Everyone who studieth in the Law in this world which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches over him the thread of grace for the future world which is like the day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me."

Resh Lakish said, Every one who studies in the Law by night,—the Holy One, blessed be He, draws over him the thread of grace by day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command." And what is the reason that by day the Lord gives his merciful command? Because of what follows, viz., "and by night his song is with me." And there are some who say that Resh Lakish said, Everyone who studieth in the Law in this world which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches over him the thread of grace for the future world which is like the day, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me."

Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage "I will sing unto the LORD, for he is highly exalted" (Exod. xv. 1)? It means a song to Him who takes His place proudly above the high, as the Mishnah teacher said, The king among living creatures is a lion, the king among domestic beasts is an ox, the king among birds is an eagle, but man takes his place proudly above them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, takes His place proudly above them all, and above the whole world in its entirety.

A certain passage says, "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, etc." (Ezek. i. 10) and it is written, "And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14). And lo, the ox is not reckoned in. Resh Lakish said, Ezekiel besought the Merciful One with regard to him, and He changed him into a cherub. He addressed Him thus, Lord of the Universe, shall an accuser become an advocate? What is the meaning of cherub? R. Abohu said, It is equivalent to a growing child. For so in Babylon a young child is called Rabya. R. Papa said to Abohu, But, as it is written, "The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14), this shews that the face of a cherub is the same thing as the face of a man. There are large faces and there are small faces.

Resh Lakish said, R. Meir was reading the Scriptures. He came upon this passage and expounded thus, "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge" (Prov. xxii. 17). It is not said, unto their knowledge, but "unto my knowledge." R. Chănina said, From this passage we learn it, "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house, etc." (Ps. xlv. 10) It would appear that the passages are difficult to reconcile. But no, there is no difficulty. The one is the case of an adult, the other of a young person.

What did he expound? Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. xxxiii. 2). He is clearly marked among His ten thousand. And R. Abohu said, "The chiefest among ten thousand" (Cant. v. 10). He is a sign among His ten thousand. And Resh Lakish said, "The LORD of hosts is His name" (Is. xlviii. 2). He is LORD amid His host. And R. Chia bar Abba said that R. Jochanan said, "The LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the LORD passed by" (1 Kings xix. 11, 12).

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded the saying, Every one who gazes upon three things, his eyes grow weak, viz., upon the bow, and the prince, and the priests: upon the bow, for it is written, "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was ... the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD;" (Ezek. i. 28) upon the prince, for it is written, "And thou shalt put of thine honour upon him" (Numb. xxvii. 20). He that gazeth upon the priests—this has to do with the time that the House of the Sanctuary was in existence, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel in the Ineffable Name.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded this question, viz., What is the meaning of that which is written, "Trust ye not in an evil one, put ye not confidence in a guide?" (Mic. vii. 5) It means, if the evil imagination say to thee, Do thou sin and the Lord will forgive, be not persuaded, as it is said, "Thou shalt not trust in an evil one," and "an evil one" is nothing but the evil imagination, as it is said, "for that the imagination of man's heart is evil," (Gen. viii. 21) and there is no "guide" but the Lord, as it is said, "Thou art the guide of my youth" (Jer. iii. 4). Perhaps thou wilt say, Who witnesseth against me? The stones of a man's house and the timbers of his house, these witness against him, as it is said, "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it" (Hab. ii. 11). And wise men say, The spirit of a man witnesseth against him, as it is said, "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Mic. vii. 5). What is this that lieth in a man's bosom? One says, This is his spirit; R. Zarika says, The two angels of the ministry which lead him, these witness against him, as it is said, "For he shall give his angels charge of thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Ps. xci. 11). And wise men say, A man's limbs testify against him, as it is said, "Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and I am God" (Is. xliii. 12).

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

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

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

In Judea, yes; but in Galilee, no. What is the reason? Resh Lakish said, Because there is a strip of Cuthites making a separation between them. But, says some one, let us bring it in a box, a chest, or a balloon. Nay, what Mishnic authority is there for so doing? It is the teaching of Rabbi. For he said, A tent projected is not a real tent. And there is a Baraitha, That which enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, a chest, or a balloon, Rabbi declares unclean, but R. Jose bar Jehudah clean. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread. For R. Eliezer said, They teach in a Baraitha, Hallowed things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. But against this view of R. Eliezer is another Baraitha, viz., the ashes of the heifer are not preserved by a line of thread. What? are they not? Then hallowed things are preserved. No, says another, but the water destined to receive the ashes, but not yet consecrated, is preserved by a line of thread. And yet Ola said, Learned and observant men purify in Galilee. Yes, but they leave the hallowed things alone, and when Elijah returns, then he will cleanse them.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

There is a Baraitha. Men are believed as regards small earthen vessels for hallowed things. Resh Lakish said, And provided that they are such as are taken in one hand; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they are such as are not taken in one hand. Resh Lakish said, They do not teach this except as regards empty vessels, but full ones not; but R. Jochanan said, Even though they be full, and even though its veil be within it; and Rabba says and R. Jochanan admits it, even in the case of drinkables which are actually unclean. And be not surprised at this; for lo, in the case of bowls full of drinkables the bowls may be unclean with an uncleanness of seven days, while the drinkables are clean.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the merciful One calls it wood, as it is written, "The altar was of wood, three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the LORD" (Ezek. xli. 22). He began with "altar," and he ended with "table." R. Jochanan and Resh Lakish say both of them, At the time that the Holy House was set up, an altar made atonement for a man; now a man's table makes atonement for him.

R. Abohu said that R. Eliezer said, As to the disciples of the wise, the flame of Gehenna has no power over them. For this is shewn by an a fortiori argument drawn from the salamander. And what is the salamander? It is a creature of fire. He that anoints himself with its blood, flame has no power over him. How much more the disciples of the wise, whose whole body is fire, as it is written, "Is not my word like as fire, saith the LORD?" (Jer. xxiii. 29) Resh Lakish said, The flame of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors of Israel. How much less over the altar of gold! As in the case of the altar of gold, upon which is only about the thickness of a denarius of gold, for ever so many years the flame has had no power over it, how much less can it have power over the transgressors of Israel, who are full of the commandments as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written, "Thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate" (Cant. iv. 3). Read not, "thy temples" but, the vain fellows that are in thee.