sages

Why is it not stated in any other place that whosoever transgresses the words of the Sages is worthy of death, but here a distinction is made and it is so stated?

For Rab Pappa went to the house of an Aramaean woman, who brought out a couch for him and told him to be seated. He said to her, "I will not sit down until thou raisest up the couch." They lifted it up and found a dead child there. On this account the Sages say : It is forbidden to sit upon the bed of an Aramaean woman.

The Sages explain the verse thus : "The days of thy life" signifies [thy life-time] in this world; "all" is to include the days of the Messiah.

GEMARA There is a teaching : Ben Zoma said to the Sages : Will the exodus from Egypt be mentioned in the days of the Messiah ? Has it not long ago been declared, "Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say. As the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; but, as the Lord liveth, that brought up and that led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them" (Jer. xxiii. 7f.)?

Our Rabbis have taught : The Shema' must be read as it is written: These are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages say : may be read] in any language.

And what is the reason of the Sages? The text states, "Hear, O Israel" (ibid. v. 4); i.e. in any language which thou hearest.

And the Sages ? They agree with him who says that if one does not read [the Shema'] audibly, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

But for the Sages also it is written "And these words shall be" ! They require it to establish the rule that one must not read [the sentences of the Shema'] out of order.

Whence does Rabbi find authority for the rule that the Shema' may not be read out of order? He derives it from the fact that the text states "these words shall be" and not "the words shall be." And the Sages [what do they make of this distinction between "these words" and "the words"]?

It is likewise possible to say that the Sages hold that the whole Torah must be read in the holy tongue. For if thou maintainest that it can be read in any language, what are we to make of the phrase "Hear, O Israel" which the All-merciful wrote?

"Who talks after the bier of disciples of the wise" ; where is this to be found ? There is a Mishnaic teaching : ['Akabya b. Mahalalel] used to say : We may not administer the waters of a woman suspected of adultery to a female proselyte or freed woman ; but the Sages say : We may do so. And they said to him, "It happened with Karkemit, a [handmaid] freed handmaid of Jerusalem, and Shemayah and Abtalion did administer the waters to her!" 'Akabya said to them, "It was for show that they made her drink." Thereupon the Sages excommunicated him and he died under the ban, and the Bet Din stoned his coffin.

"Who talks after the bier of disciples of the wise" ; where is this to be found ? There is a Mishnaic teaching : ['Akabya b. Mahalalel] used to say : We may not administer the waters of a woman suspected of adultery to a female proselyte or freed woman ; but the Sages say : We may do so. And they said to him, "It happened with Karkemit, a [handmaid] freed handmaid of Jerusalem, and Shemayah and Abtalion did administer the waters to her!" 'Akabya said to them, "It was for show that they made her drink." Thereupon the Sages excommunicated him and he died under the ban, and the Bet Din stoned his coffin.

Is there none in the Mishnah ? Yes, there is ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : If one has cut [a portable earthenware oven] into layers and placed sand between each layer, R. Eliezer declares it clean, but the Sages declare it unclean ; and this is what is known as "the oven of the serpent."

Why "serpent"? Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : This teaches that the Sages wound it round with discussions as a serpent [winds itself round something] and proved that the oven was unclean.

Come and hear : It has indeed been stated : A son [who is a minor] may say Grace for his father, a slave for his master, and a woman for her husband ; but the Sages declare : May a curse alight upon the man for whom his wife or his son says Grace !

R. Samuel b. Nahmani also said in the name of R. Jonathan : What means that which is written, "Guard thy foot when thou goest to the house of God" (Eccles. iv. 17)? Guard thyself so that thou sinnest not; but if thou sinnest, bring an offering into My presence. "And be ready to hearken " (Eccles. iv. 1 7) — Raba said : Be ready to hearken to the words of the Sages ; for if they sin, they bring an offering and repent. "It is better than when fools give sacrifices" (ibid.) — be not like the fools who sin and bring an offering without repenting.

The question was asked : Does R. Judah mean the middle of the first afteraoon-tide or the middle of the latter afternoon-tide? Come and hear : For there is a teaching : R. Judah says : [The Sages] mean the middle of the latter afternoon-tide, and that is eleven hours less a quarter.

When the shield-bearers had assembled, the questioner stood up and asked, "Is the evening-Tefillah voluntary or obligatory ?" Rabban Gamaliel replied, "It is obligatory." Rabban Gamaliel said to the Sages, "Is there anyone who has a different opinion on this matter?" R. Joshua said to him, "No" Then Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "But has it not been reported to me in thy name that it is voluntary ?"

Our Rabbis have taught : Simeon the Cotton-dealer arranged the eighteen benedictions in order in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel at Jabneh. Rabban Gamaliel asked the Sages, "Is there anyone who knows how to word the benediction relating to the Minim?" Samuel the Small stood up and worded it.

MISHNAH R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says : The additional Tefillah is only to be said with the local Congregation. The Sages say: Whether with or without the local Congregation. R. Judah says in his name: In any place where there is a local Congregation, the individual is exempt from the additional Tefillah.

and is not a kind of corn, or if a kind of corn it has not been made into bread, Rabban Gamaliel declares three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], but the Sages declare: Only one benediction. And any food which does not belong to the seven species and is not a kind of corn, for instance, bread of rice or millet, Rabban Gamaliel declares: One benediction which is an abstract of three, but the Sages declare : None at all.

and is not a kind of corn, or if a kind of corn it has not been made into bread, Rabban Gamaliel declares three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], but the Sages declare: Only one benediction. And any food which does not belong to the seven species and is not a kind of corn, for instance, bread of rice or millet, Rabban Gamaliel declares: One benediction which is an abstract of three, but the Sages declare : None at all.

Let us say that this is like [the following controversy of] the Tannaim : If one sees bread and exclaims, "How fine is this bread ; blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has complied with the requirements of the law. If he sees a fig and exclaims, "How fine is this fig, blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has likewise complied. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : Whoever changes the form which the Sages assigned to the benedictions has not fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that Rab Huna is in agreement with R. Jose and R. Johanan with R. Meir!

If there were several kinds of food before him, R. Judah says: Should there be among them one of the seven species, he pronounces the benediction over that. The Sages declare: He may say it over whichever of them he pleases.

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

Our Rabbis have taught : The following is the order of the Grace after meals : The first benediction is "Who feedest" ; the second, the benediction of "the land"; the third, "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" ; the fourth, "Who art kind and dealest kindly." On the Sabbath, one begins and ends with consolation and refers to the sanctity of the day in the middle. R. Eliezer says: If he wishes to include [the reference to the Sabbath] in the "consolation," he may do so ; in the benediction of "the land," he may do so ; in the benediction instituted by the Sages in Jabneh, he may do so. The Sages, however, say : He should only include it in the "consolation."

Our Rabbis have taught : The following is the order of the Grace after meals : The first benediction is "Who feedest" ; the second, the benediction of "the land"; the third, "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" ; the fourth, "Who art kind and dealest kindly." On the Sabbath, one begins and ends with consolation and refers to the sanctity of the day in the middle. R. Eliezer says: If he wishes to include [the reference to the Sabbath] in the "consolation," he may do so ; in the benediction of "the land," he may do so ; in the benediction instituted by the Sages in Jabneh, he may do so. The Sages, however, say : He should only include it in the "consolation."

Then the Sages agree with the first Tanna! There is a point of difference between them, viz. : the post factum.

We may not say the benediction over wine until water has been added to it. These are the words of R. Eliezer ; but the Sages say : The benediction may be pronounced [over wine without dilution].

We may not say the benediction over wine. Our Rabbis have taught : [wine] Until water has been added, we do not say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the vine" over the wine, but "...Who createst the fruit of the tree" ; and we may wash the hands therewith. From the time that water has been added, the benediction is "...Who createst the fruit of the vine," and we may not wash the hands therewith. These are the words of R. Eliezer ; but the Sages say : In either case the benediction is "...Who createst the fruit of the vine," and we may not wash the hands therewith.

R. Jose b. R. Hannina said: The Sages agree with R. Eliezer that over a cup of wine intended for the Grace we do not say the benediction until water is added. What is the reason ? Rab Osha'ya answered : We require a commandment to be performed with the choicest.

There are three Sages [to dream of whom has significance]. Who dreams of Rabbi may hope for wisdom ; of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, may hope for wealth ; of Ishmael b. Elisha, he should be concerned about punishment.

Our Rabbis have taught : Who beholds the Sages of Israel should say, "Blessed... Who hast imparted of Thy wisdom to them that fear Thee" ; but [on beholding] the wise men of other peoples, he says "Blessed... Who hast given of Thy wisdom to Thy creatures." Who beholds the kings of Israel should say, "Blessed... Who hast imparted of Thy glory to them that fear Thee"; but [on beholding] the kings of other peoples he says, "Blessed... Who hast imparted of Thy glory to Thy creatures."

Our Rabbis have taught : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he should not face East or West but North or South ; if in Galilee, he should only face East or West. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction] because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple], when there is no barrier, and at the time when the Shekinah rests [upon the Sanctuary]. But the Sages prohibit it.

Then the Sages agree with the first Tanna! The question of the side divides them.

And If you will answer [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical decree, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical decree, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’.

While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four amos square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is kosher. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and put skhakh on top of them: R. Jacob declares it valid and the sages declare it invalid.

R. Huna stated: The dispute relates only [to poles erected] on the edge of a roof: R. Jacob holds that we apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’ while the sages hold that we do not apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’. But [if they were] in the middle of the roof, all agree that [the sukkah is] invalid. R. Nahman said: there is a dispute if [the poles are] in the middle of the roof.

An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the sages declare it invalid.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

‘R. Eliezer? As we have learned: One who builds his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or if he propped it up against a wall, R. Eliezer declares it invalid, since it has no roof’, and the sages declare it valid.

Can we say that [their dispute matches the dispute of] the following tannaim?: If one transgressed and plucked them, [the hadas is] invalid, the words of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak. But the Sages declare it valid.

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid? If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

A bed can become unclean [only] when it is assembled and be rendered clean only when it is assembled, the words of R. Eliezer, but the sages say it can become unclean when it is in parts and become clean when in parts. What are [these parts]? — R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi, The long board and two legs or the short board and two legs.

Mishnah: One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.

He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’ [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’

— He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Natan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.'

We have learned elsewhere: All [hotzlot] mats are [liable to become] impure by corpse impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: [Also by] midras impurity.

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,

It was objected: Mats of bamboo, of reed grass, of sackcloth or of goat's-hair are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness, the words of R. Dosa, But the sages say: they are also susceptible to midras uncleanliness. It goes well according to him who says [that hozlot means] ‘bags filled with foliage’, since those of bamboo and of reed-grass can be used for a basket fruit, while those of sackcloth and goat's-hair can be used for sacks or baskets,

But why does he not say, From the words of R. Gamaliel"? He informs us of something [else] by the way, like that which R Aha b. Ada, and others say, R. Aha b. Ada in the name of R. Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that even the casual conversation of disciples of the sages demands study? As it says, "And whose leaf does not wither" (Psalms 1:3).

but he should not hold the box, the words of R. Yaakov. The sages say: one may sleep casual sleep in his tefillin but not a regular sleep. And what constitutes a casual sleep? The time it takes to walk one hundred cubits.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night. But the sages say: there is no fixed number, except on the first night of the festival alone.

Furthermore Rabbi Eliezer said: if one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night of the festival, he may make up for it on the last night of the festival. But the sages say: there is no compensation for this, and of this was it said: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

"We don't leave from one Sukkah to another Sukkah, and we do not make Sukkot in the normal days of the festival." And the Sages say, "We do leave from one Sukkah to another Sukkah, and we do make Sukot in the normal days of the festival." And they are in agreement that if it fell, he can return and build it in the normal days of the festival.

The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah

But could he not deduce [the answer] from his own statement, for we have learned: A window-shutter: R. Eliezer says if it is fastened or hung [on the window-frame] one may shut a window with it [on Shabbat], but if not, one may not shut a window with it; but the Sages say: in either case one may shut the window with it?

And the Sages [rule] according to their opinion, as they say, 'A person fulfills his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah, And land cannot be stolen, and so it is a borrowed Sukkah [which is allowed].'

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

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

Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.

It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

Come and hear: An etrog which is swollen, decayed, pickled, boiled, Ethiopian (black), white or speckled, is invalid. An etrog which is round as a ball is invalid. And some say: also if two are grown together. An etrog which is half-ripe, R. Akiva declares it invalid, and the sages valid. If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid.

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

Abaye said to him: But perhaps it is not so. R. Akiva may have stated his view only here, since the etrog must be "goodly," while [an unripe etrog] is not, but there he may agree with the sages

GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: They truly stated that a [minor] son may recite [Birkat Hamazon] for his father, a slave may recite it for his master, and a wife for her husband; but the Sages said, May a curse come upon that man whose wife and [minor] sons have to recite the benediction for him.

They asked of R. Hiyya b. Abba: If one listened but did not respond — what is the law? He answered them: The sages, the scribes, the leaders of the people and those who expound laid down that if one heard but did not respond he has fulfilled his obligation.

It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir. But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis have taught, "And you shall take" [implying] that there should be a "taking" in the hand of each individual. For yourself" implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav]. From this verse the Sages deduced that one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift.

The question is one in dispute between Tannas, as it has been taught, Whenever a man puts on his tefillin he must recite the blessing, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say, He recites the blessing in the morning only.

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

Mar Zutra said: I noticed that R. Papi recited the blessing whenever he put on his tefillin. The sages of the school of R. Ashi recited the blessing whenever they touched their tefillin.

Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah. But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.

They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat, the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

It was taught: And they were superior to the son of Martha bat Baytos It was said of the son of Martha the daughter of Boethus, that he could take two sides of a huge ox which cost one thousand zuz and walk with them, heel to toe, but the Sages would not permit him to do so because in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory.

Gemara. Shall we say that our mishnah represents the view of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], and not that of the other rabbis, since it has been taught: For the bull which is offered on the Eighth Day lots are cast as at first,the words of Rabbi. But the sages say: One of the two watches which did not have a third turn in the bulls offered it.

[The course of] Bilgah always divided it in the south. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah became an apostate and married an officer of the Greek kings. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, she stamped with her sandal upon the altar, crying out, ‘Lukos! Lukos! How long will you consume Israel’s money and not stand by them in the time of oppression! And when the Sages heard of the incident, they made her ring immovable and blocked up her alcove.

We read in a Baraita: The Sages did not make it obligatory to mention the dew and the winds in the prayer, but if one wishes to mention them, he may do so. What is the reason? Said R. Ḥanina, because dew and winds are never withheld. Whence do we know that dew is never withheld? It is written (I Kings, 17.1): "And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said unto Ahab: 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.'" Further on it is written (ib. 18.1): "Go show thyself unto Ahab, and I will send rain upon the land," but dew is not mentioned. Now, what is the reason for this omission? Certainly the reason is

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

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Our Rabbis have taught: If an individual separates from the community when the latter is in distress, the two ministering angels that accompany every man, place their hands upon his head and say, such and such a man who separated himself from the community shall not live to see the comfort of the community. Another Baraita reads: When the community is in distress one should not say, I will go home, eat and drink, and peace will be upon my soul. And if he does so, Scripture says of him (Is., 22.13): "And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine—'let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.'" Now, what are the words that follow this verse? "And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears, surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die." This is the way of the average people, but what is the way of the wicked? "Come ye (say they), I will fetch wine and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant" (Is., 56.12). But what are the words that follow? "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart" (ibid., 57. 1). One should therefore afflict himself with the community, for thus we find that Moses afflicted himself out of sympathy with the community, as it is said (Ex., 17. 12): "But Moses's hands were heavy and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon." Now, did not Moses have a cushion or a pillow to sit upon? But Moses said to himself, as Israel is in trouble I will also share it with them. If a person should say, however, Who is going to testify against me? Yea, the stones of a man's house and the beams of a man's roof testify against him, as it is said (Hab., 2.11): "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it." R. Shila said, the two ministering angels that accompany a man testify against him, for it is said (Ps., 91. 11): "For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." R. Ḥidḳa says, one's soul testifies against him, for it is said (Micah, 7. 5): "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom." The other sages said, one's own limbs testify against him, for it is said (Is., 43. 12): "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God."

in the days of R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin that one went before the ark, recited the benediction, and the congregation responded Amen.—"Blow, ye priests, blow!"—He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah may answer you and hear the voice of your cry this day.—"Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!"—He who answered our ancestors on the Red Sea, may answer you, and hear the voice of your cry this day; and so after each benediction. When the matter came up before the Sages they said this procedure was customary only before the eastern gates (of the Temple).

6. On the first three fast days the priests of the guard fast, but not to the end of the day, while the priests of the sub-division do not fast; on the second (intermediary) three fast days the priests of the guard fast to the end of the day, while those of the sub-division fast but part of the day; on the seven last fast days both divisions fast to the end of the day; this is the opinion of R. Joshua, but the Sages say: On the first fast days none of the divisions fasts; on the second fast day the priests of the guard fast but part of the day, while the sub-division does not fast at all; on the seven last fast days the priests of the guard fast to the end of the day, while the sub-division fasts but part of the day.

He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, namely, the eighteen that are read every day, to which he adds six more. You say six, are they not seven, as we read in the Mishnah: "The seventh he closes thus"? Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Do you know what "seventh" means? It means the seventh of the longer benedictions, as it is stated in a Baraita: The reader must prolong the benediction: "Redeemer of Israel" and, in closing it, he is to say: "He who answered Abraham our ancestor on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel"; the congregation responds: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Blow, ye priests, blow! He who answered our fathers on the Red Sea, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who rememberest things forgotten!" The congregation answers: Amen! and the sexton of the synagogue says, "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same order was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in one case he would say "blow!" and in the other "sound the alarm!" However, the rule (of responding Amen) applies only to services in the country, but in the Sanctuary it was not so, because it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary. Whence do we know that they did not respond Amen in the Sanctuary? It is said (Nehem., 9. 5): "Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting; and let them say: 'Blessed be Thy glorious Name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise.'" One might think that after all the benedictions there was one doxology, Scripture therefore says: "exalted above all blessing," which means to say: Give praise after each blessing (benediction). What then was said in the Sanctuary? The reader said: "Blessed is the Lord, Our God, the God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, redeemer of Israel," to which the congregation responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Blow, ye priests, blow!" whereupon the reader again said: "He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah, may answer you and hear the voice of your crying this day, blessed art Thou who rememberest things forgotten," to which they responded: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye!" The sexton of the synagogue then said: "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The same procedure was observed in all other benedictions, namely, that in connection with the one he would say "blow!" and with the other, "sound the alarm!" until he had finished them all. This procedure was introduced also by R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and by R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin, but when the matter came before the other Sages they said, this was customary only before the Eastern Gates and on the Temple Mount.

Some give the foregoing passage in the following version: As is stated in a Baraita, he recites before them twenty-four benedictions, namely, the eighteen daily benedictions, to which he adds six more. Where are the latter inserted? Between "Redeemer" and "Healer." The benediction of redemption is prolonged and Amen is responded after each benediction. This was the custom in the country, but in the Sanctuary they used to say: "Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who redeemest Israel," whereupon the congregation responded: "Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye," because it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary. And whence do we know that it was not customary to respond Amen in the Sanctuary? For it is said (Neh., 9. 5): "Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting; and let them say: 'Blessed be Thy glorious Name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise.'" One might think that there was one general doxology pronounced after all the benedictions, Scripture therefore says, "exalted above all blessing and praise", which means to say: Give praise after each blessing (benediction). Thus before closing the first he says: Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou, O Lord, who redeemest Israel, to which the congregation responds: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye!" The sexton of the synagogue then says: "Blow, ye priests, blow!", whereupon the reader repeats: "He who answered Abraham on mount Moriah", etc. They then blow, sound the alarm and blow again. The second he closes by saying: "Blessed is the Lord our God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, blessed art Thou who rememberest things forgotten," to which the congregation responds: "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and aye," whereupon the sexton of the synagogue says: "Sound the alarm, ye sons of Aaron, sound!" The reader then repeats: "He who answered our fathers on the Red Sea", etc. This order is observed in all benedictions, namely that in connection with one he would say first "blow!" and with the other "sound the alarm," until he had finished them all. R. Ḥalafta in Sepphoris and R. Ḥanina b. Teradyon in Siknin introduced the same order, but when the matter came before the other Sages they said, this was customary only before the Eastern Gates and on the Temple mount.

Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, etc. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim, but if the fasts began, etc. What constitutes a beginning? R. Aḥa said, three fasts, R. Jose said, even one fast. R. Judah said in the name of Rab, this view (that one should not fast to the end of the day) is the view of R. Meir, who offered it in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, but the other Sages say, one must fast to the end of the day. Mar Zuṭra lectured in the name of R. Huna that the law is, one must fast to the end of the day.

7. On the following occasions the alarm is sounded even on the Sabbath: When a city is surrounded by troops of the enemy, or is threatened with a flood, and when a ship is foundering on the sea; R. Jose says, in this case the alarm may be sounded only as a signal for help, but not as a form of supplication; Simeon the Temanite said (the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath) also on account of an epidemic, but the other Sages did not agree with him.

They further decreed a fast because wolves had devoured, etc. 'Ulla said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak, it once happened that wolves devoured two children beyond the Jordan and discharged them through the excretory canal. When the fact came before the Sages, they declared the excreted (digested) flesh as clean, but the excreted bones as unclean.

Simeon the Temanite said (the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath) also on account of an epidemic, but the other Sages did not agree with him, etc. The question was raised: Did the Rabbis disagree with Simeon only so far as the Sabbath was concerned, but agreed with him with regard to week-days, or did they disagree with him in both? Come and hear: Simeon the Temanite said, the alarm is sounded on the Sabbath for an epidemic, and all the more so on week days; Hanan b. Phineas, the disciple of R. 'Aḳiba, said in the name of R. 'Aḳiba, the alarm is not to be sounded either on the Sabbath or on week days.

is that "in their season" means that the rain will fall only on the eves of Wednesday and Friday, for thus we find that in the time of Simeon b. Shetaḥ the rain fell on the eves of Wednesday and Friday with the result that the wheat grains became as big as kidneys, and the barley grains as big as the kernels of olives, and the lentils as big as gold dinars. The Sages have preserved samples of them for future generations in order to demonstrate how much loss is caused by sin, as it is said (Jerem., 5. 25): "Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good from you." Similarly, we find that in the days of Herod, when they were rebuilding the Temple, rain fell during the night, and in the morning the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, and the sun shone, so that everyone would rise early for his work—all of which demonstrated to the people that their work was for the sake of Heaven.

7. With the beginning of Ab we should limit our rejoicing. During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls, one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes) but one may do so on Thursday in honor of the coming Sabbath. On the day before the ninth of Ab, one should not partake of two courses, nor eat meat or drink wine; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should merely modify (his usual way of living). R. Judah made it obligatory to turn over the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him.