verse

Abaye slept [by day] as long as it takes to go up from Pumbeditha to Be Kube. R. Joseph applied to him the verse, "How long will you sleep, O sluggard, when will you arise out of your sleep" (Proverbs 6:9).

The verse says, "At evening you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) Scripture sets it as an obligation.

And what does R. Eliezer do with "All that are homeborn"? It is needed [to include] a convert who had converted in the meantime or a minor who had reached majority age in the meantime. And the Rabbis [how do they derive this]? Since they said that one may make a Sukkah during the Intermediate Days of the Festival no [special] verse is needed.

The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.

Which is based on a Scriptural verse and which on a tradition? And, moreover, what is the necessity for a Scriptural verse or for a traditional law? Is not a Sukkah a positive time-bound commandment and women are exempt from all positive commandments which have a set time?

Which is based on a Scriptural verse and which on a tradition? And, moreover, what is the necessity for a Scriptural verse or for a traditional law? Is not a Sukkah a positive time-bound commandment and women are exempt from all positive commandments which have a set time?

the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah? Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one's permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.

And now that you say that Sukkah is a traditional law, what is the verse for? To include converts. Lest I would have said "the homeborn in Israel," the Torah said, but not converts, therefore it informs us that it is not so.

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, "What does the verse, 'For I am G-d, loving of justice, hating of thievery greatly (Isaiah 61:8)' mean? It is compared to an allegory of a flesh-and-blood king, who was passing by a tollbooth and said to his servants, 'Give the tax to the collectors.' They said to him, 'And is not the whole tax yours?' He said to them, 'From me should all the travelers learn, and not distance themselves from the tax.' So too the Holy One, Blessed be he, says, 'I am G-d, hater of thievery in elevation-offerings- from Me should all my children learn and distance themselves from thievery.'"

But perhaps it is the oleander? Abaye said, "Its ways are the ways of pleasantness" and [with the oleander] this is not the case. Raba said [the same] from the following verse, "Therefore love truth and peace."

Our rabbis taught: "willows of the brook" those that grow by the brook excluding the tzafzefah which grows on the mountains. R. Zera said: What is the verse [that proves this]? "He planted and set it beside the waters, he set it as a tzaftzefah" (Ezekiel 17:5).

Some teach this verse in connection with the baraitha: "He placed it beside many waters, he set it as a tzaftzefah." R. Zera raised a difficulty: Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation: "He placed it beside many waters" and what was it? A tzaftzefah? If so, what is meaning of ‘he set it’? R. Abbahu said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before me as something placed beside many waters, that is, a willow, but they have made themselves as a tzaftzefah of the mountains.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year. A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."

And R. Eleazar, what does he do with the verse of R. Yohanan? He needs it in accordance with what has been taught, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12) just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is sold] assumes the same sanctity.

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

What [in this context] could be meant by Torah? R. Hamnuna said: Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. What [in this context] is meant by the Shema? The first verse.

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

GEMARA. How do we know this? As our Rabbis taught, The verse], “And you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15) includes the night of the last day of the Festival. But perhaps it only refers to [the night of] the first day of the Festival? When it says, “akh” it divides.

GEMARA. From where do we know this? R. Ena said, As the verse says, “You shall draw water with rejoicing” (Isaiah 12:3).

You may even say that it agrees with R. Nehemiah. Say that R. Nehemiah’s ruling referred to ordinary use, but for divine use, did he really say this? Does not R. Nehemiah uphold [the lesson of the verse,] “Just offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?—said the Lord of hosts” (Malakhi 1:8).

Abaye stated: Alexander of Macedonia slew them all. Why were they so punished? Because they transgressed this verse: “You shall not return and come back on this way” (Deuteronomy 17:16) and they did return.

Rav said: They found a verse and expounded it:

What is the cause of the mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse]? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ on this point. One said: Over the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, over the slaying of the Evil Inclination.

R. Yohanan said, Were it not for following three Scriptural verses, the feet of the enemies of Israel would have sunk. One is the verse, “And her that I have afflicted”; the other is the verse, “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O House of Israel” (Jeremiah 18:6); and the third, “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

R. Yohanan said, Were it not for following three Scriptural verses, the feet of the enemies of Israel would have sunk. One is the verse, “And her that I have afflicted”; the other is the verse, “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O House of Israel” (Jeremiah 18:6); and the third, “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

R. Papa observed: The following verse as well, “And I will put My spirit into you” (Ezekiel 36:27)....

He said to him: ] Go to the end of the verse: “These have come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horns against the Land of Judah, to scatter it. He said to him: Why should I argue with Hana in Aggada?

What is the reason of R. Judah? — Scripture says, “And you shall sound (utekatem) a teruah,” (Numbers 10:5) showing that the How is this so? tekiah and the teruah are regarded as one. What then is the reason of the Rabbis? — That verse is required to teach that the Teru'ah must be preceded and followed by a sustained blast. (From Where does R. Judah deduce the necessity for a sustained blast preceding and following the Teru'ah? — He deduces it from the expression, a second time (Numbers 6:6).

If [the omission is to be justified] on account of the omission of the eve of the Pesah, this is not really an omission, for this statement is made according to R. Judah who stated: Never did the third group reach the verse, “I love the Lord, for He hears my voice” (Psalms 116:1) for they were few in number.

But how is this learning made? Abaye said: The verse says, “And on your New Moons,” whereby all the months are compared with one another. R. Ashi answered: It is written, “Your month” and it is written “On the beginnings of.” What month is it that has two beginnings? It is, you must say, Rosh Hashanah, and the Torah nevertheless says, “your month” — it is to be regarded as one.

Now is not this a refutation of R. Aha b. Hanina? It is indeed a refutation. But did not R. Aha b. Hanina quote both a verse and a baraita [in support of his view]?

Scripture says, "They shall receive equal portions to eat," (Deuteronomy 18:8) meaning, as the division of the service [is equal for all], so is the division of the food. Now what food [could this mean]? If you will say that it means the sacrifices, do we not deduce that from a different verse, "It shall be the priest's that offers it?" (Leviticus 7:9). Rather this must refer to the showbread.

Said Rabbah bar R. Shila: The inference is made from the word ḥeḳer (search), used both in the verse just quoted and in a verse referring to the creation of the world; for here (Job, 5.9) Scripture says: "Who doeth great things and unsearchable" (ḥeḳer), while there (Is., 40.28) it says: "Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching (ḥeḳer) out." Furthermore, Scripture says (Ps., 65.7): "Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might."

Said Rabbah bar R. Shila: The inference is made from the word ḥeḳer (search), used both in the verse just quoted and in a verse referring to the creation of the world; for here (Job, 5.9) Scripture says: "Who doeth great things and unsearchable" (ḥeḳer), while there (Is., 40.28) it says: "Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching (ḥeḳer) out." Furthermore, Scripture says (Ps., 65.7): "Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might."

What is R. 'Aḳiba's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: In the order of sacrifices of the sixth day the expression used is: "and its drink-offerings" (plural). Scripture, therefore, has reference to two libations, the one being the libation of water and the other that of wine. May not both be of wine? On that point R. 'Aḳiba agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, who says that in the quoted verse water is alluded to..

But if he agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra, let him also have the rain mentioned on the second day! R. 'Aḳiba holds that the Scriptural allusion to an additional libation is found first in the verse referring to the sixth day.

A Baraita teaches: R. Nathan says: The verse (Num., 28.7): "In the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of strong drink unto the Lord," speaks of two libations, one of water and one of wine.

Whence do we know that winds are not withheld? Scripture says (Zech., 2.10): "For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the Lord." Now what did God mean to say? Did the Holy One, blessed be He, intend to say: I have scattered you to the four corners of the world? If so, why ke-arba' ("as the four")? He should have said be-arba' ("to the four")! The verse therefore means to intimate that just as the world cannot exist without the four winds, so it could not exist without Israel.

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

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

R. 'Ashi said: A scholar who is not hard like iron is not a real scholar, as it is said: "And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces." Said R. 'Abba to R. 'Ashi, you derive it from that verse, we derive it from the following (Deut. 8.9): "A land whose stones are iron"; do not read 'ābānēha (its stones), but bōnēha (its builders, i.e., the scholars). Said Rabina: It is nevertheless one's duty to train oneself to be gentle, as it is said (Eccl., 11.10): "Remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh."

And He causeth to come down for you, etc. (Joel 2.23): Said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac: The former rain does not fall in Nisan, but in Marḥeshwan! For a Baraita reads (Sifrē, Deut., §42): The former rain falls in Marḥeshwan and the latter rain in Nisan! "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "this verse (Joel, 2.23) has proven true (only) in the days of Joel the son of Petuel, for it is written (Joel, 1.4): 'That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten,' etc. Now there is a tradition that in that year Adar had passed without rainfall, and the first rain did not appear until the first of Nisan. The Prophet then said to the Israelites: Go out and sow! But they replied: Should one who has a Ḳab of wheat or two Ḳabs of barley, eat it and live, or sow it and die? The prophet said: Nevertheless go out and sow! They then went out and sowed. Thereupon a miracle happened, that all the grain which was hidden (by mice) in the walls and in crevices (by ants) and in the holes of ants, appeared before their eyes. Again they went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth (of Nisan); on the fifth there was the second rainfall and on the sixteenth they offered the 'Omer. Thus, produce that used to ripen in six months ripened in eleven days, and the 'Omer which was usually offered from the crop that grew six months was now offered from one that grew in eleven days! With reference to that generation the Psalmist says (Ps., 126.5-6): 'They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Though he goeth on his way weeping, bearing forth the seed; he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.'"

R. Naḥman asked R. Isaac, what is the meaning of the verse (II Kings, 8.1): "For God hath called for a famine and it shall also come upon the land seven years?" What did the people eat during those seven years? "Thus said R. Johanan," R. Isaac replied, "the first year they ate what there was in the house, the second year they ate what was in the field, the third they ate the meat of clean animals, the fourth that of unclean animals, the fifth that of abominations and reptiles, the sixth the flesh of their sons and daughters, the seventh that of their own arms, so as to fulfil what is said (Is., 9.19): 'They shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.'"

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (Hos., 11.9): "The Holy One in the midst of thee, and I will not enter into the city?" Surely it can not mean, because the Holy One is in the midst of thee, I shall not enter into the city?! "Thus said R. Johanan," R. Isaac replied, "the Holy One, blessed be He, meant to say: I will not enter into the heavenly Jerusalem until I can enter into the earthly Jerusalem." But is there a heavenly Jerusalem? Yes, for it is written (Ps., 122.3): "Jerusalem, that art builded as a city that is compact together."

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (Jer. 10.8): "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the vanities by which they are instructed are but a stock"? "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "there is one thing that sweeps the wicked into Gehenna, and that is idolatry; for Scripture has here: 'the vanities by which they are instructed are but a stock,' and elsewhere (ib., 10, 15): 'They are vanity, a work of delusion.'"

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (ibid., 2.13): "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters?" Only two did they commit? Did they not commit also twenty-two other evils? Or did He remit twenty two? "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "(they committed) one that

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (I Sam., 8.1): "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old"? Did Samuel become old at all? Indeed, Samuel only reached the age of 52, for it is said (Mo'ed Ḳaṭan, 28a) that if one dies at the age of 52, he has attained to the age reached by Samuel the Ramathite. "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "Samuel grew old prematurely, for it is said (ibid., 15.11): 'It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night,' saying: Master of the world! Thou hast declared me equal to both Moses and Aaron, for it is written (Ps., 99.6): 'Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.' Now just as their work was not destroyed during their life-time, so should my work not be destroyed during my life-time. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to Himself, what shall I do? Shall I cause Saul to die? Samuel will not let me. Shall I cause Samuel to die? Seeing he is still young, people will speak ill of him. Shall I spare both Saul and Samuel? The time for the kingdom of the house of David has arrived, and the term set for one kingdom must not overlap that of another even by a hair's breadth. Immediately Samuel was overtaken by old age, and hence it is written (I Sam., 22.6): 'And Saul was sitting in Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree in Ramah.' Now what relation is there between Gibeah and Ramah? The idea therefore is that what had enabled Saul to sit (as king) in Gibeah two and a half years was the prayer of Samuel the Ramathite." But is the life of one man set aside (cut short) on account of that of another? Yes, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Hos., 6.5): "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth"? It is not said by the works of their hands, but "by the words of My mouth", which proves that one man may be set aside on account of another.

R. Naḥman further asked R. Isaac, how do you explain the verse (I Sam., 8.1): "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old"? Did Samuel become old at all? Indeed, Samuel only reached the age of 52, for it is said (Mo'ed Ḳaṭan, 28a) that if one dies at the age of 52, he has attained to the age reached by Samuel the Ramathite. "Thus said R. Johanan," replied R. Isaac, "Samuel grew old prematurely, for it is said (ibid., 15.11): 'It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night,' saying: Master of the world! Thou hast declared me equal to both Moses and Aaron, for it is written (Ps., 99.6): 'Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.' Now just as their work was not destroyed during their life-time, so should my work not be destroyed during my life-time. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to Himself, what shall I do? Shall I cause Saul to die? Samuel will not let me. Shall I cause Samuel to die? Seeing he is still young, people will speak ill of him. Shall I spare both Saul and Samuel? The time for the kingdom of the house of David has arrived, and the term set for one kingdom must not overlap that of another even by a hair's breadth. Immediately Samuel was overtaken by old age, and hence it is written (I Sam., 22.6): 'And Saul was sitting in Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree in Ramah.' Now what relation is there between Gibeah and Ramah? The idea therefore is that what had enabled Saul to sit (as king) in Gibeah two and a half years was the prayer of Samuel the Ramathite." But is the life of one man set aside (cut short) on account of that of another? Yes, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Hos., 6.5): "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of My mouth"? It is not said by the works of their hands, but "by the words of My mouth", which proves that one man may be set aside on account of another.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

R. Naḥman and R. Isaac were dining together; said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, tell me something haggadic, to which the latter replied: Thus said R. Johanan, one must not converse while eating, because the windpipe might open before the gullet and thus endanger one's life. After they had dined, R. Naḥman said again: Tell me something haggadic. R. Isaac then replied: Thus said R. Johanan, our father Jacob did not die. R. Naḥman thereupon asked, was it for nought that the embalmers embalmed and the wailers wailed? R. Isaac replied: Thus said R. Johanan, I am only interpreting a verse (Jer., 30.10): "Fear thou not, O Jacob My servant, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel, for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity." This verse compares Jacob to his seed—just as his seed will then be alive, so will he be alive.

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, Deut. § 42): The former rain is called yoreh (Deut., 11.14), because it teaches the people to plaster their roofs, to gather in their fruit, and to make all other preparations for the winter. Another opinion is that it is so called because it falls gently, not vehemently. Still another opinion is: because it saturates the earth and waters it to its very depth, as it is said (Ps., 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof. Thou makest her soft with showers; Thou blessest the growth thereof." But is it not possible that it is so called because of its damaging effect in making the fruit drop (from the trees) and in washing away the seeds? No, because Scripture has here also malḳōsh (the latter rain), and just as the latter rain comes as a blessing, so also the former rain. But may not the latter rain be called malḳōsh because it causes the houses to fall, breaks the trees, and brings the crickets? No, because Scripture has in the same verse also yoreh (the former rain), and just as the former rain comes as a blessing, so also the latter rain. But whence do you know that the former rain is a blessing? From the following verse (Joel 2.23): "Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He giveth you the former rain in just measure."

Our Rabbis have taught (Sifrē, Deut. § 42): The former rain is called yoreh (Deut., 11.14), because it teaches the people to plaster their roofs, to gather in their fruit, and to make all other preparations for the winter. Another opinion is that it is so called because it falls gently, not vehemently. Still another opinion is: because it saturates the earth and waters it to its very depth, as it is said (Ps., 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof. Thou makest her soft with showers; Thou blessest the growth thereof." But is it not possible that it is so called because of its damaging effect in making the fruit drop (from the trees) and in washing away the seeds? No, because Scripture has here also malḳōsh (the latter rain), and just as the latter rain comes as a blessing, so also the former rain. But may not the latter rain be called malḳōsh because it causes the houses to fall, breaks the trees, and brings the crickets? No, because Scripture has in the same verse also yoreh (the former rain), and just as the former rain comes as a blessing, so also the latter rain. But whence do you know that the former rain is a blessing? From the following verse (Joel 2.23): "Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He giveth you the former rain in just measure."

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. 'Abahu further said: The first rainfall is satisfactory if there is enough of it to enter the ground to the depth of a handbreadth; the second is satisfactory when the soil is fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask. R. Ḥisda said: If there is rainfall enough to make the soil fit to be used for sealing the mouth of a cask, the verse in Deuteronomy (11.17): "He will shut up (the heavens)," etc., has no application. R. Ḥisda further said: If rain fell before the reading of the verse just mentioned in the Shema', the verse in question no longer has application. Said 'Abbayi, this applies to the Shema' read in the evening, but if rain falls before the reading of the Shema' in the morning, the verse in question still has application, for R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said (Berakot, 59a): Those morning clouds have no real value, as it is written (Hos., 6.4): "Your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away." Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: But do not people say: "If there is rain at the opening of the doors (in the morning)—lay down thy bag, O ass-driver, and sleep"? That is no contradiction, for the proverb refers to a case when the rain pours down from a heavy cloud, while R. Samuel refers to a case when the rain comes from a light cloud.

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

R. Ḥisda further said: If rain falls in some parts of the country but not in others, the verse, "He will shut up the heavens," etc., does not apply. But is it not written (Amos, 4.7): "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered," which verse was interpreted by R. Judah in the name of Rab to the effect that both are meant as a punishment?! This is no contradiction, for the Bible speaks of over-abundant rain, while R. Ḥisda has in mind a rain that comes in normal quantity. R. 'Ashi thereupon remarked, this is indeed the meaning of Scripture, as can be proved from the word timmatēr, which means that the piece will be a place deluged by rain. Accept, therefore, this interpretation of the passage.

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27.17): "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend"? It indicates that just as one piece of iron sharpens the other, so do scholars sharpen one another's minds in the study of the Law.

R. Tanḥum b. Ḥanilai said: No rain falls unless the sins of Israel first have been forgiven, as it is said (Ps. 85.2-3): "Lord, Thou hast been favourable unto Thy land; Thou hast turned the captivity of Jacob. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people, Thou hast pardoned all their sin, Selah." Said Ze'iri of Dahabat to Rabina: You derive this teaching from that verse, we derive it from this verse (I Kings, 8.36): "Then hear Thou in heaven and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou teachest them the good way wherein they should walk; and send rain upon Thy land, which Thou hast given to Thy people for an inheritance."

R. Tanḥum b. Ḥanilai said: No rain falls unless the sins of Israel first have been forgiven, as it is said (Ps. 85.2-3): "Lord, Thou hast been favourable unto Thy land; Thou hast turned the captivity of Jacob. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people, Thou hast pardoned all their sin, Selah." Said Ze'iri of Dahabat to Rabina: You derive this teaching from that verse, we derive it from this verse (I Kings, 8.36): "Then hear Thou in heaven and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou teachest them the good way wherein they should walk; and send rain upon Thy land, which Thou hast given to Thy people for an inheritance."

R. Tanḥum son of R. Ḥiyya of Kefar 'Akko said: Rain is not withheld unless the enemies of Israel have been condemned to destruction, as it is said (Job, 24, 19): "Drought and heat consume the snow waters, so doth the nether-world those that have sinned." Said Ze'iri of Dahabat to Rabina: You derive this teaching from that verse, we derive it from this (Deut., 11.17): "And He will shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, etc., and ye perish quickly."

R. Ḳeṭina said: Rain is withheld only on account of the neglect of the Torah, as it is said (Eccl., 10.18): "By slothfulness the rafters sink in," that is to say on account of the indolence of the Israelites, who neglect the study of the Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, becomes impoverished; for mak means poor, as it is said (Lev., 27.8): "But if he be poorer than thy estimation," while meḳāreh denotes the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said (Ps., 104.3): "Who layest the beams of Thine upper chambers in the waters." R. Joseph said: I derive it from this verse (Job, 37.21): "And now men see not the light which is bright in the skies, but the wind passeth and cleanseth them," for or (light) means the Torah, as it is said (Prov., 6.23): "For the commandment is a lamp and the law is light."

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

Raba explained the above verse as follows: If thou seest a disciple to whom his studies are as tough as iron, it is due to his master's lack of kindness toward him, as it is said, "and one do not whet the edge." What is his remedy? He should send many friends to the master, as it is said, "then must he put to more strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct," which means to say that the intercession of the friends will prove the more profitable when prior to that the pupil's ways had been improved before his master.

R. 'Ami further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Eccl., 10.11): "If the serpent bite before it is charmed, then the charmer hath no advantage"? When thou seest a generation over whom the heavens are rust-colored like copper and do not let down dew or rain, it is because there are no whisperers in that generation. What is their remedy? They should turn to one who understands to whisper and he shall whisper. But if he who understands to whisper is unwilling to do it—what benefit will there accrue to him? Again, if he does whisper and obtains his desire, but then becomes presumptuous, he brings wrath upon the world, as it is said (Job, 36.33): "The cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up."

Raba interprets the latter verse thus: If two scholars living in the same city are unpleasant toward one another because of differences in their interpretations of the law, they solicit wrath and bring it upon themselves, as it is said, "the cattle also concerning the storm that cometh up."

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

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

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

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Job, 37.13): "Whether it be for correction, or for His earth, or for mercy, that He cause it to come"? If the rain is 'for correction,' it falls on mountains and hills, but if 'for mercy,' He causes it to come (where it is needed).

In the days of R. Samuel b. Nahamani there was a famine accompanied with pestilence. Said the Rabbis, what are we to do? One cannot pray at once for the cessation of two afflictions; let us therefore pray for the staying of the pestilence and let us suffer famine. But R. Samuel b. Nahamani advised: Let us pray for the cessation of the famine, for when the Merciful gives plenty, He gives it to the living, as it is said (Ps., 145.16): "Thou openest Thy hand and satisfiest every living thing with favour." But whence do we know that it is not proper to pray for two things at the same time? It is written (Ezra, 8.23): "So we fasted and besought our God for this." The word "this" implies that there was yet another thing to pray for. In Palestine it was derived in the name of R. Zera from this verse (Dan., 2.18): "That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret." The implication of "this" is that there was also another thing to be desired.

R. Johanan said: The day of rain is as important as that of the gathering of the exiled (Israelites), for it is said (Ps., 126.4): "Turn our captivity, O Lord, as the streams in the dry land," the word 'afiḳim (streams) meaning rain, as it is said (Ps. 18.16): "And the channels of water appeared." R. Johanan further said: Great is the day of rain, for then even armies must stop fighting, as it is said (Ps. 65.11): "Watering her ridges abundantly, settling down the furrows thereof." R. Johanan further said: Rain is withheld only on account of those who subscribe to charity in public and refuse to pay, for it is said (Prov., 25.14): "As vapours and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of a false gift." R. Johanan further said: What is the meaning of the verse (Deut., 14.22):

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

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

Another time R. Johanan again met the same child and said to him: Tell me thy verse! The boy replied: "The foolishness of man perverteth his way; and his heart fretteth against the Lord" (Prov., 19.3). After pondering for a while over the matter R. Johanan said, is it possible that there is something in the Hagiographa to which Moses did not allude in the Pentateuch? Said the boy: "Is not this verse alluded to in the Pentateuch? Is it not written (Gen., 42.28): 'And their heart failed them, and they turned trembling one to another, saying, what is this that God hath done unto us?'" R. Johanan lifted his eyes and looked at the boy (in astonishment). The boy's mother then came in and took him away, saying: "Get away from him, that he may not do to you as he did to your father!"

Another time R. Johanan again met the same child and said to him: Tell me thy verse! The boy replied: "The foolishness of man perverteth his way; and his heart fretteth against the Lord" (Prov., 19.3). After pondering for a while over the matter R. Johanan said, is it possible that there is something in the Hagiographa to which Moses did not allude in the Pentateuch? Said the boy: "Is not this verse alluded to in the Pentateuch? Is it not written (Gen., 42.28): 'And their heart failed them, and they turned trembling one to another, saying, what is this that God hath done unto us?'" R. Johanan lifted his eyes and looked at the boy (in astonishment). The boy's mother then came in and took him away, saying: "Get away from him, that he may not do to you as he did to your father!"

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

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

whereupon he dreamt that he read the verse: "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month." The next morning, when they took leave from him, he said to them: Go ye scholars in peace!

We read in a Baraita ('Erubin, 45b): R. Eliezer said, the whole universe drinks from the ocean, as it is said (Gen., 2.6): "There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Said R. Joshua to R. Eliezer, is not the water of the ocean salty?! Said R. Eliezer, it gets sweetened in the clouds. R. Joshua said, the whole universe drinks from the waters above (the firmament), as it is said (Deut., 11.11): "A land that drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down." How then can one explain the verse: "There went up a mist from the earth"? This verse teaches that the clouds rise and soar upward, where they open their mouths like a leathern bottle and receive the rain water, as it is said (Job, 36.27): "They distil rain from His vapour." They (the clouds) are perforated like a sieve and distil water to the ground, as it is said (II Samuel, 22.12): "Gathering of waters, thick clouds of the skies." Between each drop of rain there is no more space than the breadth of a hair, which is to impress upon us the truth that the day of rain is as miraculous a phenomenon as the day on which heaven and earth were created, for it is said (Job, 5.9): "Who doeth great things and unsearchable, marvellous things without number," and further on (ib., 5.10): "Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields," and elsewhere (Is., 40.28): "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out."

We read in a Baraita ('Erubin, 45b): R. Eliezer said, the whole universe drinks from the ocean, as it is said (Gen., 2.6): "There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Said R. Joshua to R. Eliezer, is not the water of the ocean salty?! Said R. Eliezer, it gets sweetened in the clouds. R. Joshua said, the whole universe drinks from the waters above (the firmament), as it is said (Deut., 11.11): "A land that drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down." How then can one explain the verse: "There went up a mist from the earth"? This verse teaches that the clouds rise and soar upward, where they open their mouths like a leathern bottle and receive the rain water, as it is said (Job, 36.27): "They distil rain from His vapour." They (the clouds) are perforated like a sieve and distil water to the ground, as it is said (II Samuel, 22.12): "Gathering of waters, thick clouds of the skies." Between each drop of rain there is no more space than the breadth of a hair, which is to impress upon us the truth that the day of rain is as miraculous a phenomenon as the day on which heaven and earth were created, for it is said (Job, 5.9): "Who doeth great things and unsearchable, marvellous things without number," and further on (ib., 5.10): "Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields," and elsewhere (Is., 40.28): "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out."

Whose view is represented in the following Baraita (Bereshit Rabba, 4, 3): The upper waters are suspended (in the air) by a divine ordinance, and the rain is the fruit thereof, as it is said (Ps., 104.13): "The earth is full of the fruit of Thy work"? Whose view? Answer—that of R. Joshua! [R. Eliezer, however, refers this verse to the handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He.]

Whose view is expressed in the verse (Ps., 104.13): "Who waterest the mountains from Thine upper chambers,"—which was interpreted by R. Johanan to mean the upper waters of the Holy One, blessed be He? Whose view?—that of R. Joshua! But how does R. Eliezer explain this verse? He would say that inasmuch as the moisture first rises to the upper regions, it appears as if the rain came from the upper waters.

Whose view is expressed in the verse (Ps., 104.13): "Who waterest the mountains from Thine upper chambers,"—which was interpreted by R. Johanan to mean the upper waters of the Holy One, blessed be He? Whose view?—that of R. Joshua! But how does R. Eliezer explain this verse? He would say that inasmuch as the moisture first rises to the upper regions, it appears as if the rain came from the upper waters.

Whose view does R. Ḥanina follow who, commenting upon the verse (Ps., 33.7): "He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap, He layeth up the deeps in storehouses," says, that it is the deeps that cause the storehouses to fill themselves with grain? Whose view?—that of R. Eliezer! But how does R. Joshua explain this verse? According to him this verse

Whose view does R. Ḥanina follow who, commenting upon the verse (Ps., 33.7): "He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap, He layeth up the deeps in storehouses," says, that it is the deeps that cause the storehouses to fill themselves with grain? Whose view?—that of R. Eliezer! But how does R. Joshua explain this verse? According to him this verse

Whose view does R. Ḥanina follow who, commenting upon the verse (Ps., 33.7): "He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap, He layeth up the deeps in storehouses," says, that it is the deeps that cause the storehouses to fill themselves with grain? Whose view?—that of R. Eliezer! But how does R. Joshua explain this verse? According to him this verse

R. 'Osha'ya said, what is the meaning of the verse (Jerem., 51.13): "O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures"? The verse intimates that it is because she (Babylon) dwells upon many waters that her treasures are abundant. Rab said: Babylonia is rich because she harvests without rain. 'Abbayi said, it is generally accepted that a flooded (swampy) land is better than a dry land.

R. 'Osha'ya said, what is the meaning of the verse (Jerem., 51.13): "O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures"? The verse intimates that it is because she (Babylon) dwells upon many waters that her treasures are abundant. Rab said: Babylonia is rich because she harvests without rain. 'Abbayi said, it is generally accepted that a flooded (swampy) land is better than a dry land.

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

"My heritage is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; she has uttered her voice against Me; therefore have I hated her" (Jerem., 12. 8). Said R. Zuṭra b. Tobiah in the name of Rab or, as some report, said R. 'Aḥa in the name of R. Eleazar: This verse applies to an unworthy person, who goes before the ark as a messenger of the congregation.

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine