shmuel

He who writes two letters, whether with his right hand or with his left hand, whether the same letter or two different letters or in two pigments, in any language, is liable. Rabbi Jose said: they made one liable for writing two letters only because [he makes] a mark, since this is how they would write on each board of the tabernacle, to know which its companion was. Rabbi Judah said: we find a short name [forming part] of a long name: “Shem” as part of “Shimon” or “Shmuel”, “Noah” as part of “Nahor”, “Dan” as part of “Daniel”, “Gad” as part of “Gaddiel”.

These were the officers in the Temple: Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals. Ahiyah over the libations. Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots. Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues). The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels. Nehuniah, the digger of ditches. Gevini, the crier. The son of Gever over the locking of the gates. The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah]. The son of Arza over the cymbal. Hugras the son of Levi over the song. The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread. The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense. Elazar over the curtains. And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.

The officer said to them: “Go out and see whether the time for slaughtering [the morning sacrifice] has arrived.” If it had arrived then he who saw it said: “It is daylight!” Matitya ben Shmuel says: “The whole east is light.” Even unto Hebron? And he answered “Yes.”

For the first he says: He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who redeems Israel. For the second he says: He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who remembers all forgotten things. For the third he says: He who answered Joshua in Gilgal, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears a blast. For the fourth he says: He who answered Shmuel in Mitzpah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who listens to cries. For the fifth he says: He who answered Elijah on Mt. Carmel, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears prayer. For the sixth he says: He who answered Jonah in the belly of the fish, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who answers in time of trouble. For the seventh he says: He who answered David and Shlomo his son in Jerusalem, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord Who has mercy upon the land.

Shmuel Hakatan said: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from him” (Proverbs 24:17).

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

Another version: R. Abba said to him: Who holds this opinion? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: ‘Beth Shammai, and do not change from it’. (I.E. to Bais Hillel)

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He places it opposite the departing wall. And so they rule in the Bet Midrash: He places it opposite the departing wall.

When I repeated this in the presence of Shmuel he said to me: Even if from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are also not valid, because it is necessary that the weaving shall be done specifically for its purpose. Here too then we should require a sukkah be made specifically for its purpose?

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]. And Shmuel says,

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel, It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a Sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high.

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

R. Tahlifa b. Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema.

Another version: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted to sleep in a bridal-bed in a Sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it is ten [handbreadths] high

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel! R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads.

But does Shmuel hold that we do not say that their cutting is their making? But didn't Shmuel in fact teach in the name of R. Hiyya, If one attached [tzitzit] to two corners at one time and then cut the ends of these threads, the tzitzit are valid Does not this ,mean that he first knotted them and then cut them? No, he cut them first and afterwards knotted them.

But does Shmuel hold that we do not say that their cutting is their making? But didn't Shmuel in fact teach in the name of R. Hiyya, If one attached [tzitzit] to two corners at one time and then cut the ends of these threads, the tzitzit are valid Does not this ,mean that he first knotted them and then cut them? No, he cut them first and afterwards knotted them.

It was objected: If he hung them and did not cut their ends, they are invalid. Does not this mean invalid for ever,and is thus a refutation of Rav? [No!] Rav can answer: What is the meaning of ‘invalid’? Invalid until they are cut. Shmuel, however, says: They are invalid forever. And so said Levi: They are invalid forever. And so said R. Matanah in the name of Smuel: They are invalid forever

Another version: R. Matanah said: Such an incident happened to me, and when I came before Shmuel he told me: They are invalid forever.

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

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide]. One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use.

Another version: goes well according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid. What is meant by ‘combine’? That they combine to form four cubits at the side.

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?

And they said to me, this is no evidence since Rav and Shmuel both say that the reason it is valid is because [the roof is regarded as the continuation] of a ‘curved wall

In Sura they taught this passage in the above words; In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; While Rav says, whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide.

We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated: If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space; While Samuel said that it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?

No!] With regard to the opinion of Shmuel neither of them disagrees

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

Gemara. What is meant by "disarranged? Ravs said: a poor sukkah; And Shmuel said, one whose reeds are not all on the same level.

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two. Rav taught it as one: a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid; While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,] hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel? He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.

Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel? He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.

R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah is according to R. Tarfon. And Shmuel is consistent with his own opinion, or Shmuel said to those who sold hadasim, "Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon."

R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah is according to R. Tarfon. And Shmuel is consistent with his own opinion, or Shmuel said to those who sold hadasim, "Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon."

R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah is according to R. Tarfon. And Shmuel is consistent with his own opinion, or Shmuel said to those who sold hadasim, "Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon."

R. Papa raised a difficulty: his is well with regard to dough, since it is written, "The first of your dough" (Numbers 15:20). And with regard to the etrog also it is written, "To you" it must be yours. But with regard to matzah, does Scripture say, "your matzah"? Rabbah bar Shmuel, or as some say, R. Yemar bar Shelemia said: It can be deduced from the word "bread" which is common to both passages. It is written here, "The bread of affliction" (Deuteronomy 16:3) and there it is written,

And Shmuel said about this: The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? In the latter cases he is not performing a mitzvah and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a mitzvah and therefore he would not worry over it.

The other answered him: That case is different, for it has been said concerning it: R. Shmuel bar Hattai said in the name of R. Hamnuna Saba who said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said in the name of R. Huna who said in the name of Rav: For instance they brought it from a chamber that contained animals which had not been examined.

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The blessing is recited over] the lulav for seven [days] and over the Sukkah for only on one day. What is the reason? In the case of the lulav where the nights interrupt the days, each day is a separate commandment; in the case of the Sukkah where the nights do not interrupt the days, all seven days are regarded as one long day.

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.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

But Levi said: The etrog is forbidden even on the eighth day; And the father of Shmuel said The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, but permitted on the eighth. The father of Shmuel subsequently adopted the view of Levi. R. Zera adopted the [earlier] view of the father of Samuel, for R. Zera ruled:... It is forbidden to eat an etrog [even one] that has become invalid, all the seven days.

But Levi said: The etrog is forbidden even on the eighth day; And the father of Shmuel said The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, but permitted on the eighth. The father of Shmuel subsequently adopted the view of Levi. R. Zera adopted the [earlier] view of the father of Samuel, for R. Zera ruled:... It is forbidden to eat an etrog [even one] that has become invalid, all the seven days.

R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat said in the name of Rav: The eighth day which may be the seventh is regarded as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah and as the eighth in respect of the blessing. R. Yohanan said It is regarded as the eighth for this and that. Dwelling [in the Sukkah on the eighth day] all agree that one does dwell, they only disagree over

There are those who say that all agree that one does not recite the blessing [on the Sukkah], and that they only disagree over whether one must sit [in the Sukkah] according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the seventh day in respect of the Sukkah, we must indeed sit in it, while according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the eighth day in respect of both, we do not even sit in it. R. Yoseph said:... Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan. For who is the authority of the statement? R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilath, and he himself sat outside the Sukkah on the eighth day which might be the seventh. And the law is that we must indeed sit in the Sukkah but may not recite the blessing.

R. Shmuel ben Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan: The Evil Inclination entices man in this world and testifies against him in the world to come, as it is said, “He that delicately brings up his servant from a child shall have him become a ruler (manon) at the end” (Proverbs 29:21), and according to the Atbah of R. Hiyya a witness is called manon.

And this shall be peace: when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds and eight princes among men” (Micah 5:4). Who are the “seven shepherds”? — David in the middle, Adam, Seth and Methuselah on his right, and Abraham, Jacob and Moses on his left. And who are the “eight princes among men”? — Yishai, Shaul, Shmuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, the Messiah, and Elijah.

Levi used to juggle in the presence of Rabbi with eight knives, Shmuel before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine, and Abaye before Rabbah with eight eggs or, as some say, with four eggs.

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak, that the thirteenth was the time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text.

R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: The verse says, “As the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies” (Esther 9:22). “The days” [would have been enough.] “As the days” comes to include the eleventh and the twelfth.

But say the twelfth and thirteenth? R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said: The thirteenth was a time of assembly for all, and does not require special indication. But say the sixteenth and the seventeenth? It is written, “And it shall not pass.”

Why did R. Shmuel b. Nahmani not derive the rule from the phrase “in their times’? He does not accept the distinction [made above between] “time,” “their time” and “their times.”

his shows that he spent the night in the depths [omkah] of the halakhah. And R. Shmuel b. Unia also said: he study of the Torah is greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices, as it says, “I have come now.”

But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.

With regard to these they said that they should be pushed forward but not postponed. What is the reason? Abba said in the name of Shmuel: The text says, “And it shall not pass” (Esther 9:27).

And R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: From where do we know that years are not to be counted by days? Because it says, “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2) [which implies] that you reckon a year by months but not by days.

And what does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose do with this “second”? He requires it for the statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah. For R. Shmuel b. Judah said: At first they [Mordecai and Esther] decreed the observance of Purim only in Shushan, but afterwards throughout the world.

And what does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose do with this “second”? He requires it for the statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah. For R. Shmuel b. Judah said: At first they [Mordecai and Esther] decreed the observance of Purim only in Shushan, but afterwards throughout the world.

Shmuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the sages saying: Establish me for future generations. They replied: You will incite the jealousy of the nations against us. She sent back reply: I am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.

Judah said in the name of Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not defile the hands.

Is that to say that Shmuel was holds that Esther was not said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? But did not Shmuel say that Esther was said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It was composed to be recited [by heart], but not to be written.

Is that to say that Shmuel was holds that Esther was not said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? But did not Shmuel say that Esther was said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It was composed to be recited [by heart], but not to be written.

They objected: R. Meir says that Kohelet does not defile the hands, and that about the Song of Songs there is a dispute. R. Yose says that the Song of Songs defiles the hands, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Shimon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were lenient and Beth Hillel stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean. Shmuel concurred with R. Joshua.

Shmuel said: Had I been there, I would have given a proof superior to all, as it says, “They confirmed and they accepted” (9:26), they confirmed above what they accepted upon themselves below.

Rava said: They can all be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. Against the proof of R. Elazar it may be objected that it is reasonable [to suppose that Haman would think so] because there was no one who was so high in the esteem of the king as he was, and that when he spoke at length [to Ahashverosh], he was only speaking concerning himself.

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

From where is this derived? — As R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak taught in front of R. Huna: “Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean” (Leviticus 13:6); he is clean at the outset from having been liable to rend garments and loosen the hair.

Vayehi when Shmuel was old (I Samuel 8:1) — then, his sons walked not in his ways. And David had [vayehi] great success in all his ways (I Samuel 18:14) — then, And Saul had enmity with David. Vayehi when the king dwelt in his house (II Samuel 7:1) — then, Nevertheless you shall not build the house.

That which was said by R. Shmuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Yonathan: Every bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law is rewarded by having kings and prophets among her descendants. How do we know this? From Tamar, as it is written, “And Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). . Just because she covered her face did he think her to be a harlot?

Shmuel said from here: “I did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them utterly” (Leviticus 26:44). “I did not reject them” in the days of the Greeks; “neither did I abhor them” — in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; “to destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman; “and to break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians; “for I am the Lord their God” — in the days of Gog and Magog.

Shmuel said: The face of Israel was blackened (hushcharu) in his days like the sides of a pot. R. Yohanan said: Everyone who thought of him said “alas for my head (ah lerosho).” R. Hanina said: That all became poor (rash) in his days, as it says, “And the king Ahashverosh laid a tribute” (Esther 10:1).

“From Hodu to Cush”: Rav and Shmuel: One said that Hodu is at one end of the world and Cush at the other, and the other said that Hodu and Cush are right next to each other, and that just as he ruled over Hodu and Cush, so he ruled from one end of the world to the other.

Similarly you say, “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the River, from Tiphsah until Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel: One said that Tiphsah is at one end of the world and Gaza at the other, and the other said that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another [and that what is meant is that] just as he [Solomon] ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the whole world.

“And when these days were fulfilled” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel, One said he was a clever king, and the other said that he was a foolish king. The one who said he was a clever king said that he did well in entertaining his distant subjects first, because he could win over the inhabitants of his own city any time he wished. The one who held that he was foolish says that he ought to have entertained the inhabitants of his city first, so that if the others rebelled against him, these would have supported him.

“In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel— One said that those who were fit for the court were [entertained] in the court, and those who were fit for the garden in the garden, and those who were fit for the palace in the palace. The other said He first put them in the court, and it did not hold them — Then he took them into the garden and it did not hold them; and finally he had to take them into the palace, and it fit them. In a baraitha it was taught: He took them into the court and opened two doors for them, one into the garden and one into the palace.

White [hur], fine cotton [karpas] and blue. What is hur? Rav said: Fine lace-work (harei harei). Shmuel said: He spread for them carpets of white silk. Karpas: R. Yose b. Haninah said: [this means] cushions of velvet (karim shel pasim).

And shell [dar] and onyx marble [sohareth]. Rav said: This means rows [dari] upon rows. Shmuel says: There is a precious stone in the seaports called darah. He put it in the midst of the guests, and it lit up the place as at midday [Sahara] In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It means that he gave a remission of taxes [deror] to all merchants [sehorah].

Shmuel however said, it means that he gave her pieces of pork.

What modesty did Saul display? — As it is written, “But concerning the matter of the kingdom of which Shmuel spoke he told him not” (I Samuel 10:16).He merited that Esther should descend from him. R. Elazar further said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, assigns greatness to a man, he assigns it to his sons and his sons’ sons for all generations, as it says, “[With kings on the throne;] He sets them forever and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). If, however, he becomes arrogant, God humiliates him, as it says, “And if they be bound in fetters etc” (Job 36:8).

R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: This [Ramataim-Tzophim] means, a man who came from two heights (ramot) which faced (tzophot) one another. R. Hanin said: It means: a man who came from ancestors of the most exalted position (rumo). And who were they? The sons of Korah, as it says, And the sons of Korah did not die. A Tanna taught in the name of our Teacher: A special place was assigned to them in Gehinnom and they stood on it.

Rabbah b. Shmuel said: It means that she came with reference to blood that came from the hidden parts [setarim]. She brought some blood and showed it to him. He said to her: Is blood to be shown at night? She replied: Are capital cases tried at night? He said to her:

“Now when Mordecai knew all that was done” [etc.] (Esther 4:1). What did he cry out? Rav said: He said: Haman has raised himself above Ahashverosh. Shmuel said: The upper king has prevailed over the lower king.

“And Esther called Hatach”. Rav said: Hatach is the same as Daniel. Why was he called Hatach? Because he was cut [hatkhuhu] from his elevated position. Shmuel said: Because all affairs of state were decided [nehtakim] by his voice.