states

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

How close is “near”? Rav said, four cubits. Rebbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory, here in practice. “Rebbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.” Samuel agrees with Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [states]: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced”, support is on him.

“As a slave girl.” Only as a slave girl: this teaches that he may sell her on condition that he not have the right of allotment over her, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he did not do anything, for he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, “and the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid.” But does Rebbi Meïr not agree that “the stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid”? He accepts it if it is impossible to keep the stipulation in the end, but here it is possible to keep the stipulation in the end. Do the rabbis not agree about a stipulation which it is possible to keep in the end? They agree to it in money matters, but this is a personal matter. But did we not state: A person may marry a woman and stipulate with her that she have no claim on him for food, clothing, or marital relations? One understands food and clothing. But are marital relations not a personal matter? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, explain it for an underage girl. How can that Tanna explain “as a slave girl”? He may sell her as a widow to the High Priest, as a divorcee or one who received ḥălîṣah to a common priest. How can that Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by a widow from preliminary marriage. But was it not stated: A person may sell his daugher into marriage and repeat, into servitude and repeat, into marriage after servitude, but not into servitude after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are different Tannaïm. He who states “a widow to the High Priest” agrees to servitude after marriage; he who does not state “a widow to the High Priest” does not agree to servitude after marriage. How does the latter Tanna explain “as a servant”? Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if [the master] was married to her sister.

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.”

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.”

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.”

“On condition that my father agree; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; if the father does not agree, she is not preliminarily married;” silently he does not agree. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” silently he agreed. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” silently he agreed. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai, can the Mishnah say so? He answered him, do you ask wretched Yannai to explain Qiddušin? Rebbi Yannai returned and explained the Mishnah: “On condition that my father agree; if the father agreed, she is preliminarily married; otherwise she is not preliminarily married,” he said on condition that [the father] express his opinion but he did not. “If the father died, she is preliminarily married;” as if he had given his opinion. “If the son died, one instructs the father to say that he does not agree;” as if he had given his opinion. Rebbi Ze‘ira said [before Rebbi Yasa]: Can Rebbi Yannai explain the Mishnah as he wishes? He answered him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, Rebbi does not refrain from stating generality and detail simultaneously. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states thus: “On condition that I have a bet kor of arable land”, a generality; “at place X”, a detail.

“He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly.” Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simon: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which in itself is not worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭah. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. As it was stated: “From its tithe,” except what is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless itself is worth a peruṭah. Another Tanna states: “From its tithe, its fifths” except if it is worth less than a peruṭah. This means, not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah. Rebbi Abin bar Mamal said, our Mishnah follows neither one since we have stated “there are five peruṭot”, but we did not state “not unless itself is worth a peruṭah”; we have stated “there are five fifths”, but we did not state “not unless the fifth is worth a peruṭah”.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that there, one states: If somebody opens a window in the wall of somebody else’s courtyard in the presence of the other (four cubits), [Rebbi says] he takes down with his left hand and closes with his right. Think of it, was he not standing there? He may tell him, I wanted to enjoy myself. If he handed him stones? He may tell him, I was making fun of this man.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita states this: Both committed an abomination. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties,” etc. There it was stated that one states: “Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.” How is this? His mother-in-law who then became a married woman is [executed] by burning. As a married woman who later became his mother-in-law it is by strangulation, if he copulated with his mother-in-law. How with his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law? How can this be? A man married a woman, and her brother’s daughter, and the woman’s daughter. If he copulated with the old woman he is liable for her because of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. If his mother-in-law is simultaneously his daughter-in-law, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Yose treat this?

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

HALAKHAH: “If a baker works in impurity,” etc. One states about this: One does not moisten, nor grind, nor mix with him. Rebbi Hila said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues: one if he moistens, the other if he does not moisten. But did we not state: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”

What is Rabbi's reason [for declaring there are four watches] ? R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : One verse states, "At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto Thee because of Thy righteous ordinances" (Ps. cxix. 62) and another verse states, "Mine eyes forestalled the night-watches" (ibid. 5:148). How is this? There must be four watches in the night.

What is Rabbi's reason [for declaring there are four watches] ? R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : One verse states, "At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto Thee because of Thy righteous ordinances" (Ps. cxix. 62) and another verse states, "Mine eyes forestalled the night-watches" (ibid. 5:148). How is this? There must be four watches in the night.

R. Manni said : Greater is he who reads the Shema' in its proper time than one who occupies himself with Torah ; for the Mishnah states : He who reads from that time onward incurs no loss, he is regarded as one reading in the Torah ; hence it is to be deduced that he who reads [the Shema'] in its proper time is superior.

[The Mishnah quoted above states :] Then they read the Decalogue, "Hear, O Israel," "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently," "And the Lord said," "True and firm," "Accept, O Lord our God," and the Priestly Benediction.

What is Rabbi's reason ? The text states, "And these words shall be" (Deut. vi. 6); i.e. as they are, so must they remain.

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.

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"]?

Behold it states,

If it is supposed because of fear, since he is allowed to greet, surely he ought to be permitted to respond ! But [the meaning is. He may return the salutation] out of respect. But that is the view of. R. Judah! For our Mishnah states: R. Judah says : In the middle of a section, he may greet a man because of fear for him and return a salutation out of respect ; and between the sections, he may greet a man out of respect and return the salutation of any person!

But how [do we know that the teaching in the quoted Mishnah] is R. Jose's? Perhaps it is R. Judah's, and he means to say with reference also to the reading of the Shema' that having read it inaudibly he has complied with the requirements of the law, but ab initio he should not read it so ? Thou mayest find proof for this in the fact that he states Who reads [the Shema' without making it audible], i.e. post factum it is valid, but not ab initio !

They answer that the fact that our Mishnah states Who reads is intended to show how extreme is the view of R. Jose, for he means to say that even post factum it is not valid; since were it R. Judah, even ab initio it would still be valid.

Dost thou suppose that R. Judah's reason is because the text states, "[And the priest] shall write"? His reason is because the text states, "[And the priest shall write] these curses," i.e. the curses shall be written, but not the words of the command.

Dost thou suppose that R. Judah's reason is because the text states, "[And the priest] shall write"? His reason is because the text states, "[And the priest shall write] these curses," i.e. the curses shall be written, but not the words of the command.

Rab Mari, the son of Samuel's daughter, asked Raba : Our Mishnah states : Workmen may read [the Shema'] on the top of a tree or on the top of scaffolding ; hence it is to be inferred that it does not require Kawwanah. I quote in refutation: Who reads the Shema' must direct his heart; as it is said, "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. vi. 4) and elsewhere, "Attend and hear, O Israel " (ibid, xxvii. 9) ; as here "attention" is required so also there !

He who states that he taught it, because of the nullifying of Torah and procreation ; he who states that he whispered it, so that disciples of the wise should not be constantly found in the company of their wives like cocks [with the hens].

He who states that he taught it, because of the nullifying of Torah and procreation ; he who states that he whispered it, so that disciples of the wise should not be constantly found in the company of their wives like cocks [with the hens].

To what, then, does the quoted statement refer? To the question of one handbreadth or two. For one teacher states : When a man relieves himself, he should uncover himself one hand-breadth behind and two in front; and there is another teaching: He should uncover himself one handbreadth behind and not at all in front.

If he had gone down to bathe, should he have time to ascend, clothe himself and read [the Shema'] before sunrise, he must ascend, clothe himself and read. It is possible to say that the Mishnah states the law anonymously in agreement with R. Eliezer who declares: He may finish it any time until sunrise. Thou mayest even say that it is in agreement with R. Joshua and perhaps it is here like the Wetikin ;

Thou sayest "the fourth hour"; but perhaps it means the sixth hour ! When the Bible states "In the heat of the day" (Gen. xviii. 1) it means the sixth hour. How, then, am I to understand "As the sun waxed hot, it melted" ? That refers to the fourth hour. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It can be neither R. Judah's nor the Rabbis'. If it were R. Judah's, up to [and including] the fourth hour is still morning ; and if it were the Rabbis', up to midday is still morning !

And Rab Assi said : Boser and Garua' and the white bean are the same. [The same as] the white bean, dost thou imagine ? Nay, the meaning is : The size [of Boser and Garua'] is like that of the white bean. Whom hast thou heard declaring that the Boser is [to be considered fruit] but not the grape-bud? The Rabbis. It states : "All other trees when they produce fruit."

Our Mishnah states : R. Judah declares : No benediction is to be pronounced over anything which comes under the category of a curse. That is quite right according to him who says nobelot means "Fruit scorched by the sun," for that may be called a kind of curse ; but according to him who says it means "Dates blown from the tree by the wind," how is this a kind of curse?

If men were sitting [at the meal], each one says Grace for himself. If they were reclining, then yes; but if they were not reclining. no ! Against this I quote the following : If ten were journeying by the way, although they all partake of one loaf, each of them says Grace for himself ; should they sit down to eat, although each eats of his own loaf, one may say Grace for all. Note that he here states "they sit," i.e. although they are not reclining !

Our Rabbis have taught : Whence do we derive the Grace after meals from the Torah? As it is said, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless" (Deut. viii. 10) — this refers to the benediction "Who feedest"; "the Lord thy God" (ibid.)— to the benediction of Zimmun; "for the land" (ibid.) — to the benediction of "the land" ; "the good" (ibid.) — to "Who. . . rebuildest Jerusalem," for so it states "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (ibid. iii. 25); "which He hath given thee" (ibid. viii. 10) — to "Who art kind and dealest kindly." I have here only the Grace after meals ; whence do we derive the Grace before meals ? Thou canst reason by a fortiori argument — if a man should bless God when satisfied, how much more so when he is hungry !

Rabbi says : "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless" refers to the benediction "Who feedest," but the benediction of Zimmun is derived from "Magnify the Lord with me" (Ps. xxxiv. 4) ; "for the land" — to the benediction of "the land" ; "the good"— to "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem," for so it states "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon"; the benediction "Who art kind and dealest kindly" was instituted in Jabneh. I have here only the Grace after meals ; whence do we derive the Grace before meals ? There is a teaching to state, "Which He hath given thee" — ie. as soon as He hath given thee.

R. Isaac said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary. Behold it states, "And He will bless thy bread and water" (Exod. xxiii. 25)— read not "And He will bless" [uberak] but "And bless thou" [ubarak]. When is it called "bread" ? Before one eats it.

R. Nathan said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary. Behold it states, "As soon as ye are come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat ; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice ; and afterwards they eat that are bidden" (I Sam. ix. 13).

I have here only the benediction for meals ; whence is the benediction over Torah derived? R. Ishmael said : By a fortiori reasoning — for temporal life one says a benediction ; how much more so for the life of the world to come! R. Hiyya b. Nahmani, the disciple of R. Ishmael, says in the name of R. Ishmael : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "For the good land which He hath given thee" (Deut. viii. 10) and elsewhere it is stated, "And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandments," etc. (Exod. xxiv, 12).

R. Judah b. Batyra said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "Good" (Deut. viii. 7) and "the good" (ibid. 5:10) — "good" i.e. Torah, as it is said "For I give you good doctrine" (Prov. iv. 2); "the good" i.e. the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as it is said "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (Deut. iii. 25).

One teacher states : For the heart, eyes and milt it is beneficial but injurious to the head, bowels and piles ; whereas there is another teaching : It is beneficial for the head, bowels and piles but injurious to the heart, eyes and milt ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to [a brew] with wine, the other to [a brew] with beer.

One teacher states : If he expectorates after drinking it he will be smitten [with illness]; and there is another teaching ; If he does not expectorate after drinking it he will be smitten ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to [a brew] with wine, the other to [a brew] with beer.

That cannot enter thy mind ; because it states "light and afterwards spices," and from whom hast thou heard that opinion? Bet Shammai; for there is a teaching : R. Judah said : Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that the benediction over food comes first and Habdalah afterwards ; in what do they differ ? About light and spices — Bet Shammai declare : Light and afterwards spices, whereas Bet Hillel declare : Spices and afterwards light.

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

But it states: "There is only sufficient for one cup"! There was not sufficient for two cups, but more than enough for one.

R. Hannina of Sura said : [In the sequel] he merely states the reason : What is the reason that we do not say a benediction over the light or spices of the gentiles ? Because the assumption is the banquet of gentiles is dedicated to idolatry.

This is obvious, because the Mishnah states "and forgot"!

For shooting stars, earthquakes, thunders, storms and lightnings he says, "Blessed...Whose strength and might fill the world." For mountains, hills, seas, rivers and deserts he says, "Blessed... Who hast made the creation." R. Judah states: He who beholds the ocean says, "Blessed... Who hast made the ocean," but only when he beholds it at intervals.

R. Judah states : He who beholds the ocean says, "Blessed...Who hast made the ocean" [but only when he beholds it at intervals.] At intervals of what length? Rammi b. Abba said in the name of R. Issac : Of thirty days.

But if he heard [that it had been raining] it is good tidings, and our Mishnah states : For good tidings one says, "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good"!

because of ventilation; but according to the ruling who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a small Sukkah? Rabbah bar Ada answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses.

And Beth Hillel? They need that [verse] for the statement of R. Shesheth, R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Akiba, How do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days f the Festival]? From Scripture which states, "The festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord."

How [do we know this]? Since it states, "it is as if he made it within the house."Now why did it teach, it is as if he made it within the house? Let it simply state ‘it is invalid’? Rather this is what it teaches us: the tree [referred to is] like a house, just as in a house the shade is more than the sunshine, so the tree has more shade than sunshine.

And R. Yohanan could say to you that here where it states, "One may not use them as skhakh" it means that only at the outset it is invalid,

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

Gemara: The mishnah states the law clearly. It does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the first day of the holiday, and it does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the second day of the holiday.

So it was also taught, “Acacia wood standing up”: that they should stand in the manner of their growth. Another interpretation: “Standing up” implies that they held their [gold] overlaying. Another interpretation: “Standing up.” Lest you may say, ‘Their hope is lost, their chances have disappeared” Scripture states, “Acacia wood standing up” implying that they will stand for ever and to all eternity.

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.

No, to exclude only the Second Passover which is similar to it. This is also reasonable, for we have learned, The bikkurim require a sacrifice, a psalm, waving and staying overnight. Now who is it that you heard saying that waving is required? R. Judah, and it states that it requires staying overnight.

ordained thirteen fast days, but the prayers were not answered. He therefore intended to ordain more fasts, but R. 'Ami said to him, has it not been said that it is not proper to trouble the community too much? Said R. 'Abba son of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba: R. 'Ami was thinking of his own convenience (because he did not want to fast), for thus said R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that statement (quoted by R. 'Ami) applies only to fasts ordained on account of lack of rain, but in the case of other calamities the people must continue fasting until their prayer is answered. The same was taught in a Baraita: When it was ordained that the people should fast (twice) three days and again seven days, it had reference to drought, but in case of other kinds of calamities they must continue fasting until their prayers are answered. Should we say that this Baraita is a refutation of R. 'Ami? Answer: R. 'Ami can defend himself by replying that the matter is the subject of dispute between different Tannaim, for a Baraita states: No more than thirteen fasts should be enjoined upon the community, as it is not proper to trouble the community too much; this is the opinion of Rabbi; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, this is not the reason, but it is because (after the thirteen fasts) the time for rainfall is passed.

The question was raised: What does this Mishnah teach? Does it mean to say that on Thursdays we leave the doors slightly open all day, or that we may keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath? Come and hear: A Baraita states: on Mondays toward evening we leave the doors slightly open, but on Thursdays we keep them wide open all day for the sake of the Sabbath; if the shop has two doors, one only should be opened and the other closed; if the owner had a stand before the door, he may open and close the latter as he pleases.

The text [above states]: R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city and all that is next to it and all that is visible with it is reckoned as city. It was taught: Adjoining, even if it is not visible, and visible even if it is not adjoining.

And should you reply that that is so, [how can this be] seeing that it states, There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes., from which it may be inferred that in the matter of being sent out [of the camp] and defiling by entrance they are on the same footing?

If that is the case, what is the reason that he is not required to shave and offer birds, as it states: There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzora except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.

The text [above states]: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan, It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. They objected: R. Shimon b. Elazar It happened that R. Meir went to intercalate the year in Assia, and there was no Megillah there and he wrote one out by heart.

(But perhaps the whole of the Mishnah states the opinions of R. Judah? — Is it possible that he should disqualify in the first and permit in the second?)

Rava said to him, Let the witnesses say if you had, would you be sold? So likewise we should not be sold. Rather R' Hamnuna meant to say If either the accused or the witnesses have, they are not sold, but if neither the accused nor the witnesses have, they are sold. Rava said to him, The Torah states, he is sold for his theft, meaning theft and not conspiring.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".