tannaim

There are Tannaim who state, rest is Shilo, inheritance is Jerusalem. There are Tannaim who state, rest is Jerusalem, inheritance is Shilo. He who says that rest is Shilo, because up to now you did not come to the rest. Inheritance is Jerusalem, My inheritance is a vulture, a hyena for Me. He who said, inheritance is Shilo, My inheritance like a lion in the forest; rest is Jerusalem, this is My rest forever, etc.; like one who made a bundle and rested with it. At the Tent of Meeting private altars were forbidden. At Gilgal private altars were permitted. At Shilo private altars were forbidden. At Nob and Gibeon private altars were permitted. At Jerusalem private altars were forbidden. {A parable of} a king who said to his slave, drink wine neither from Tiberias, nor from Caesarea, nor from Sepphoris. Therefore from in-between is permitted. So at the Tent of Meeting they spent 39 years. At Gilgal they spent fourteen years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed. At Shilo they spent 369 years, at Nob and Gibeon they spent 57, thirteen at Nob and 44 at Gibeon. But in Jerusalem they spent 410 years at the first Temple and 420 at the last Temple, to confirm what has been said, the glory of this last Temple will be greater than that of the first.

HALAKHAH: “On Pentecost, seven weeks.” There are Tannaim who state, in the third month “And on New Year’s Day, and in the Seventh month.” There are Tannaim who state, and the Eternal counted Sarah. “On the Day of Atonement, after the death. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa, to teach you that the world only exists by the sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “On Pentecost, seven weeks.” There are Tannaim who state, in the third month “And on New Year’s Day, and in the Seventh month.” There are Tannaim who state, and the Eternal counted Sarah. “On the Day of Atonement, after the death. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa, to teach you that the world only exists by the sacrifices.

“But they may not count it in the series.” There are Tannaim who state, “they may count it in the series.” Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows him whom said, they may not count it in the series; as the Mishnah.

There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, rolls up, and recites the benediction. There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel, Practice follows him who said, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. And what is the reason? When he opened it, the entire people stood up. What is written afterwards? Ezra praised the Eternal, the Great God. In what did he declare Him great? Rebbi Giddul said, by the explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the men of the Great Assembly? Because they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses instituted the prayer formula, the God, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome. Jeremiah said, the Great and Strong God; he did not mention “the Awesome”. Why is He strong? He is appropriately called strong since He sees the destruction of His Temple and is silent. Why did he not mention “Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is written, God Awesome in Your Sanctuary. Daniel said the Great and Awesome God. Why did he not mention “the Strong”? His sons are delivered to iron collars; where is His strength? But why does he say, Awesome? He is appropriately called awesome by the awesome deeds he made for us in the fiery oven. But when the men of the Great Assembly arose they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory: But now, our God, the Power, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome, keeper of Covenant and grace, may it not be little in Your eyes, etc. But does flesh and blood have the power to state limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is truthful and they do not flatter him.

There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, rolls up, and recites the benediction. There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel, Practice follows him who said, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. And what is the reason? When he opened it, the entire people stood up. What is written afterwards? Ezra praised the Eternal, the Great God. In what did he declare Him great? Rebbi Giddul said, by the explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the men of the Great Assembly? Because they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses instituted the prayer formula, the God, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome. Jeremiah said, the Great and Strong God; he did not mention “the Awesome”. Why is He strong? He is appropriately called strong since He sees the destruction of His Temple and is silent. Why did he not mention “Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is written, God Awesome in Your Sanctuary. Daniel said the Great and Awesome God. Why did he not mention “the Strong”? His sons are delivered to iron collars; where is His strength? But why does he say, Awesome? He is appropriately called awesome by the awesome deeds he made for us in the fiery oven. But when the men of the Great Assembly arose they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory: But now, our God, the Power, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome, keeper of Covenant and grace, may it not be little in Your eyes, etc. But does flesh and blood have the power to state limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is truthful and they do not flatter him.

HALAKHAH: “And on the Day of Atonement six.” There are Tannaim who state, seven. He who says six, because of the prayer. He who says seven, following what was stated, on a Sabbath one comes early and leaves early; on a holiday one comes late and leaves early, on the Day of Atonement one comes early and leaves late.

There are Tannaim who state, the mourners are not counted in the quorum. [There are Tannaim who state, the mourners are counted in the quorum.] Rebbi Abuna said, he who said, the mourners are not counted in the quorum, the mourners of this deceased. He who said, the mourners are counted in the quorum, the mourners of another deceased. But was it not stated, he leaves to be comforted but not to comfort?

There are Tannaim who state, the mourners are not counted in the quorum. [There are Tannaim who state, the mourners are counted in the quorum.] Rebbi Abuna said, he who said, the mourners are not counted in the quorum, the mourners of this deceased. He who said, the mourners are counted in the quorum, the mourners of another deceased. But was it not stated, he leaves to be comforted but not to comfort?

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

We have stated: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was Patriarch, and Simeon ben Shetaḥ President of the Court; there are Tannaim who switch. What happened in Alexandria supports him who said, Jehudah ben Tabbai was Patriarch. [The people of Jerusalem] wanted to appoint him Patriarch in Jerusalem. The people from Jerusalem did write: From the great Jerusalem to the small Alexandria: How long still will my betrothed live in your midst and I am sitting sorrowful about him? He took leave and started on a ship. He said, I remember the lady of the house who received us; what is she missing? One of his students told him, her eye is damaged. He told him, you have sinned twice; first that you suspected me, and second that you looked at her. Did I say that she was beautiful in looks? I only said that about her deeds. He was taking offense and he left.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

Mustachios and cutting fingernails. There are Tannaim who state, permitted on a holiday and forbidden in mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden on a holiday and permitted in mourning. He who said permitted on a holiday, if there happens to be a holiday; and forbidden in mourning, if there is no holiday. He who said forbidden on a holiday, if it involves trickery; and permitted in mourning, without trickery. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: practice follows him who is lenient at both occasions. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows him who is lenient in the rules of mourning. Rav said, the lips follow cutting fingernails in all respects. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only if they interfere. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A pair came before Rebbi about lips and cutting fingernails and Rebbi permitted it to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: There were two pairs, one from Amatheh and one from Yedid-Aleh, one about lips and one about cutting fingernails, and Rebbi permitted to them. As the following. The sister of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba died and he was sitting cutting his fingernails. Rebbi Eleazar visited him and he did not cover them. Rebbi Nathan bar Abba visited him and he was covering them. He said to him, you did not cover them in front of Rebbi Eleazar; but in front of me you are covering them? He answered him, do you think that you are as dear to me as Rebbi Eleazar?

In case one carries him from place to place, as those who bury in Bet-Shearim. There are Tannaim who state, those here count from when the deceased left; those there count from when the cover plate was laid. There are Tannim who state, these and those count from when the cover plate was laid. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everything goes after the head of the family. Rebbi Jacon bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi: As restriction. What means “as restriction”? If the head of the family was here, those here count from when the deceased left; those there count from when the cover plate was laid. If the head of the family is there, these and those count from when the cover plate was laid. As the following: The sister of Gamaliel the twin died. His brother Hillel came down to him. Rebbi Mana said to him, since you are the head of the family, when you come down to your brother take off your shoes.

If they moved him from one grave to another. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jonah. He asked Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, who said to him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jeremiah. He asked Rebbi Ze`ira; Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Immi. He said to him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. He came to him; he said to him, he instructed you by a restriction. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, this you are saying within the Seven {days}. But after Seven mourning already passed. If they intended it from the start. But if there was no intent from the start to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. As the following: The people of Bursa buried Gamliel from Yakontia with them. After three days they changed their mind to return him. They went and asked Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon said to them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Since you had no intention to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Jesua the brother of Dorai. He came to ask Rebbi Abbahu who told him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when we asked this from Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa who said, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. He told him, I did not hear. If you heard, go out and instruct.

If they moved him from one grave to another. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jonah. He asked Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, who said to him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jeremiah. He asked Rebbi Ze`ira; Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Immi. He said to him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. He came to him; he said to him, he instructed you by a restriction. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, this you are saying within the Seven {days}. But after Seven mourning already passed. If they intended it from the start. But if there was no intent from the start to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. As the following: The people of Bursa buried Gamliel from Yakontia with them. After three days they changed their mind to return him. They went and asked Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon said to them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Since you had no intention to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Jesua the brother of Dorai. He came to ask Rebbi Abbahu who told him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when we asked this from Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa who said, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. He told him, I did not hear. If you heard, go out and instruct.

Some Tannaim state: Recent information is within thirty {days}, and deferred after thirty. Some Tannaim state: Recent information is within twelve months, and deferred after twelve month. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows the words of him who says, recent information is within thirty {days}, and deferred after thirty.

Some Tannaim state: Recent information is within thirty {days}, and deferred after thirty. Some Tannaim state: Recent information is within twelve months, and deferred after twelve month. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows the words of him who says, recent information is within thirty {days}, and deferred after thirty.

“And for Jerusalem, and for the Temple.” There came men from Sichem and from Shilo and from Samaria, eight men with shaved beards and torn garments, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. One who was informed that Jerusalem was destroyed like one who sees Jerusalem in its destruction has to tear. He who sees Jerusalem from Mount Scopus has to tear. There are Tannaim who state, he adds to the tear. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition three finger-breadths. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizkiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything.

“And for Jerusalem, and for the Temple.” There came men from Sichem and from Shilo and from Samaria, eight men with shaved beards and torn garments, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. One who was informed that Jerusalem was destroyed like one who sees Jerusalem in its destruction has to tear. He who sees Jerusalem from Mount Scopus has to tear. There are Tannaim who state, he adds to the tear. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition three finger-breadths. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizkiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything.

“And for Jerusalem, and for the Temple.” There came men from Sichem and from Shilo and from Samaria, eight men with shaved beards and torn garments, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. One who was informed that Jerusalem was destroyed like one who sees Jerusalem in its destruction has to tear. He who sees Jerusalem from Mount Scopus has to tear. There are Tannaim who state, he adds to the tear. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything. There are Tannaim who state, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition three finger-breadths. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizkiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the first tear is one hand-breadth, the addition anything.

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

A slave may be a permanent sojourner. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it.” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress, do not cheat, and he is exiled like an Israel, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

A slave may be a permanent sojourner. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it.” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress, do not cheat, and he is exiled like an Israel, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

Some Tannaim state, she leaves under thirteen disabilities, but some Tannaim state, she leaves under fourteen disabilities. He who says that she leaves under thirteen disabilities takes what she finds and what she earns as one case, but he who says under fourteen disabilities takes each one by itself.

Some Tannaim state, she leaves under thirteen disabilities, but some Tannaim state, she leaves under fourteen disabilities. He who says that she leaves under thirteen disabilities takes what she finds and what she earns as one case, but he who says under fourteen disabilities takes each one by itself.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel” to include converts. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel” to include converts. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the presence of two men it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid from two [judges].

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the presence of two men it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid from two [judges].

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the night is valid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the night it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid in the night.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the night is valid; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in the presence of two men is invalid. Does he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is valid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid, and he who says, ḥalîṣah in the night is invalid, hold that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid? Even he who holds that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid will agree that in the night it is invalid since judgments in civil matters are valid from converts but invalid in the night.

Some Tannaim state, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say. Some Tannaim stated, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say. He who said, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say, before they found a hint in Scripture, but he who said, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say, after they found a hint in Scripture: “You shall answer and say;” one answers only to a single person. Rebbi Yose said, and only from the mouth of the judge, but one does not follow this.

Some Tannaim state, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say. Some Tannaim stated, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say. He who said, only if the judges know how to instruct what to say, before they found a hint in Scripture, but he who said, even if the judges do not know how to instruct what to say, after they found a hint in Scripture: “You shall answer and say;” one answers only to a single person. Rebbi Yose said, and only from the mouth of the judge, but one does not follow this.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

Rebbi Eleazar said, in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he may go back. And in some cases they said that her ḥalîṣah is valid and if he wants to go back he may not go back. [If a woman] performed ḥalîṣah with felt slippers or for an underage boy, her ḥalîṣah is invalid and if he wants to go back he cannot go back. If she performed ḥalîṣah with a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. He who says that the ḥalîṣah is valid, with a leather slipper; he who says that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, with a textile slipper. A shoe in a slipper, some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is valid and some Tannaim state that the ḥalîṣah is invalid. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is valid, the slipper is textile but the shoe leather. For him who holds that the ḥalîṣah is invalid, the slipper is leather but the shoe textile. Some Tannaim state that one may wear a slipper of the Day of Atonement and some Tannaim state that one may not wear a slipper. Rav Ḥisda said, For him who holds that one leaves the house [wearing a slipper,] a textile slipper, he who says that one may not leave the house [wearing a slipper,] a leather slipper.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is shameful; there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful follows the early Mishnah, that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy follows the late Mishnah. Rebbi Yose said, you might even say, in both cases one follows the early Mishnah, or in both cases one follows the late Mishnah. He who says that ḥalîṣah is shameful, since he damaged one thing in the Torah he shall come and take his damage: “his house shall be called in Israel the house of the one stripped of shoe.” He who says that ḥalîṣah is praiseworthy, it mentions here “calling” and it is said there: “My name will be called about them”. Since “calling” there is a praise, so here it is a praise.

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.

An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) become forbidden for Heaven.

An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) become forbidden for Heaven.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” Rav stated in the name of the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever.

R. Meir has contradicted himself! There are two Tannaim in the sense of R. Meir.

There are two Tannaim in the sense of R. Eliezer. Or if thou wilt, I can say that the first part of the Mishnaic statement is not R. Eliezer's.

These Tannaim are like those other Tannaim; for there is a teaching : "There shalt thou offer the Passover-offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt" (Deut. xvi. 6).

These Tannaim are like those other Tannaim; for there is a teaching : "There shalt thou offer the Passover-offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt" (Deut. xvi. 6).

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

Note that all the Amoraim and Tannaim are at variance over the ordinance of Ezra, so let us see how Ezra ordained it.

Samuel could reply to thee: Is it right according to Rab Joseph's opinion? For lo, there is a teaching : If a man sleeps in a bed with his children or the members of his household, he may not read the Shema' unless a sheet separates between them ! What, then, is there for thee to say ? There are Tannaim [who are at variance] on Rab Joseph's view of the question of the wife, and there are also Tannaim [who are at variance] on my view.

Samuel could reply to thee: Is it right according to Rab Joseph's opinion? For lo, there is a teaching : If a man sleeps in a bed with his children or the members of his household, he may not read the Shema' unless a sheet separates between them ! What, then, is there for thee to say ? There are Tannaim [who are at variance] on Rab Joseph's view of the question of the wife, and there are also Tannaim [who are at variance] on my view.

is like [the following discussion of] the Tannaim : It is forbidden to read the Shema' by a vessel from which urine has been poured; but with urine which has been poured out, if it has been absorbed it is permitted, if it has not been absorbed it is forbidden. R. Jose says : So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten [it is forbidden].

We can say that this is like [the discussion of] the Tannaim. For two disciples were sitting in the presence of Bar Kappara, When there were set before him cabbage, Damascene plums and poultry. Bar Kappara gave one of the disciples permission to say the benediction. He sat up and said the benediction over the poultry. His companion laughed at him, and Bar Kappara became angry, saying, "Not with him who uttered the benediction, but with him who laughed, am I angry. If thy companion is like one who has never tasted meat, wherefore dost thou laugh at him?" Then he said, "Not with him who laughed am I angry, but with him who uttered the benediction" ; and he continued, "If there is no wisdom here, is there no old age here?"

R. Jeremiah b. Abba said : It is like [the discussion of] the Tannaim, viz.: We take Terumah with a whole onion, though small in size, but not with half of a large onion. R. Judah says : Not so, but we take it with the half of a large onion. Do they not differ on the following point : One maintains that which is of greater value is to be preferred, while the other maintains that which is whole is to be preferred ?

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!

Let us say [that their difference is] like that of the Tannaim ; for one taught : The Grace after meals [may be said by] two or three ; and there is another teaching : Three or four. They hold that everybody admits that "Who art kind and dealest kindly" is not ordained by the Torah. Are we, then, not to suppose that they differ on the following point : He who says, "[The Grace may be said by] two or three" holds that [the benediction of Zimmun extends] until "Who givest food unto all" ; and he who says "Three or four" holds that it extends until "We will bless"?

R. Zera said to Rab Hisda, "Let the master come and teach." He replied, "[The regulations concerning] Grace after meals have I not learnt, so shall I teach !" R. Zera asked him, "How is that?" He replied, "When I visited the house of the Exilarch and said the Grace after meals, Rab Sheshet stretched his neck over me like a serpent." "But why ?" "Because I made no reference to the Covenant, the Torah or the Kingship." "And why didst thou not mention them?" "In accord with the statement of Rab Hananel in the name of Rab, viz. : If one has not referred to the Covenant, the Torah and the Kingship, he has complied with the requirements of the law — 'the Covenant' because it does not apply to women ; 'the Tordh and the Kingship' because they apply neither to women nor slaves." "And thou didst abandon all these Tannaim and Amoraim and act according to the view of Rab!"

But R. Hiyya has taught : Bet Shammai declare : He says the benediction over the wine and drinks it, and after that says Grace ! Nay, there are two Tannaim who differ as to the teaching of Bet Shammai.

This matter is discussed by the Tannaim; for there is a teaching : Both he who says the benediction and he who responds "Amen" are implied, only he who says the benediction is more quickly [rewarded] than he who responds "Amen."

It is like [the discussion of] the Tannaim. R. Eliezer says : Because he eats with it. R. Joshua says : Because he writes with it. R. 'Akiba said : Because he points to the accents of the Torah with it.

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.

And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

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.

And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.

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.

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

This is like the following tannaim. “Write this” what is written here. For a memorial” what is written in Deuteronomy. “In a book,” what is written in the Prophet, the words of R. Joshua. R. Elazar HaModai says: “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; for a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.

Hisda said: Yes; the first clause follows the Sages and the second R. Meir. R. Joseph said: I t is the opinion of Rabbi, who combined the views of differing tannaim.

There is a difference of Tannaim on this point, as we have learnt. R. Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the hekhal [in the second Temple] they made curtains for the hekhal and for the courtyard, the difference being that in the hekhal they built [the walls] outside [the curtains] and in the courtyard they built [the walls] within [the curtains].

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently. Or if you like, I can say that the latter is from R. Elazar b. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Yose says: “That has [no] wall” (Leviticus 25:30) even though it does not have one now, but it had in previous times.

Rabbah said: [She said], “Pride goes before the fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Abaye and Rava both of whom said: [She said], “With their poison I will prepare their feast” (Jeremiah 51:39). Rabbah b. Abbuha found Elijah and said to him: Which of these reasons prompted Esther to act as she did? He replied: [All] the reasons given by all the Tannaim and all the Amoraim.

R. Ishmael is now a difficulty on R. Ishmael! Two tannaim in the name of R. Ishmael.

Rav Yehuda bar Chaviva says Three tannaim dispute in this matter. One says like a bean, one says enough to see the head, and one says two hairs, and there are those who take out "two hairs" and insert "like a lentil". And your mnemonic would be: "The white spot is like a bean, and the live skin like a lentil."