verse

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.

The Rabbis have taught: There were three men for whom the sun shone, namely Moses, Joshua, and Naḳdimon b. Gorion. The case of Naḳdimon was mentioned before; as to Joshua, it is written (Joshua, 10. 13): "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed," etc., but whence do we know it as regards Moses? Said R. Eleazar, it is derived from the analogous use of 'āḥēl (אחל = I will begin), for it is written with reference to Moses (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee" (upon the peoples), and it is written with reference to Joshua (Josh., 3. 7): "I will begin to magnify thee." R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said, it is derived through the analogous use of têt (תת = to give, put, deliver), for it is written (Deut., 2. 25): "I will begin to put the dread of thee," and again (Josh., 10. 12): "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites." R. Johanan said, it can be derived from the content of that verse (Deut., 2. 25) itself: "(the peoples) who shall hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee;" when did it happen that they trembled and were in anguish? At the time the sun was delayed for Moses.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

Similarly, if it did not rain upon a certain city, etc. Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: Both cities are here (in the verse of Amos quoted in the Mishnah) pointed out as being punished. "Jerusalem is among them as one unclean" (Lament., 1. 17). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse contains a promise of (future) blessing, for just as an unclean (menstruating) woman becomes clean again, so also Jerusalem. "She is become as a widow" (ib., 1. 1). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this verse also is meant as a blessing, for Scripture says, 'as a widow', not a 'widow', but as a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea and intends to come back to her. "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people" (Malachi, 2. 9). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this is also meant as a blessing, for (in thus despising us) they do not appoint us as overseers of rivers, and as bailiffs. "The Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water" (I Kings, 14. 15). Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, this too is meant in a good sense, for R. Samuel b. Naḥamani said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse (Prov., 27. 6): "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are importunate"? It means to say that the curse uttered by Ahijah the Shilonite against Israel was better than the blessing given them by the wicked Balaam; Ahijah the Shilonite cursed them by comparing them to a reed; now the reed rises in water, always drives young shoots and has many roots, so that even if all the winds of the world come and blow against it, the reed will move with the winds hither and thither, and when the winds have subsided the reed still stands firm in its place. Not so wicked Balaam. He blessed them by comparing them to a cedar tree, as is said (Numbers, 24. 6): "As cedars beside the waters;" now the cedar tree does not grow in water, does not drive young shoots and its roots are not many, and when the winds come and blow against it, it does not yield to them; hence when a strong southern wind arises, it uproots it and turns it upside down.

R. Huna had wine in a ruinous house and wanted to remove it. He therefore engaged R. Adda b. 'Ahabah in a learned discussion until the wine was removed. As soon as they left the house, it fell in. When R. Adda b. 'Ahabah noticed that he was used for such a purpose, he became angry, saying, "Is not this an instance with regard to which R. Jannai said, one should never stay in a place of danger and say, I shall be saved by a miracle, for it might be that no miracle will be performed for him, and even if one should be performed, such performance would be charged against his merits?" Said R. Hanan, where is the biblical verse to prove it? "I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth" (Gen., 32. 11).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

"He sent ambassadors to him, saying, what have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath given command to speed me; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not." [What God (did Pharaoh refer to)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, he referred to his idol. Josiah therefore thought, since Pharaoh relies on his idol, I shall prevail over him.] And it is further written (ib., 35. 23): "And the archers shot at king Josiah." [Said R. Judah in the name of Rab: This verse teaches us that they made his body (perforated) like a sieve. And R. Judah further said in the name of Rab: Why was Josiah so punished? Because he should have taken counsel with Jeremiah, but failed to do so.] On what verse did he base his attitude? On the verse (Lev., 26. 6): "And the sword shall not go through your land." What sword, Josiah asked himself, can here be meant? Does Scripture refer to the sword of an enemy? This can not be the case, because it is written (in the same verse), "And I will give peace in the land;" it must therefore mean even the sword of a friend. He did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of God). When Josiah was expiring, Jeremiah came to inquire about him. He then noticed that Josiah's lips were moving, wherefore he said, is it possible that in his agony he is uttering some blasphemy against God! He therefore bent over him and heard him justify God's verdict against him, saying (Lament., 1. 18): "The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against His word." Jeremiah then said of him: "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord" (ib., 4.20).

Said R. Johanan: All his life long this righteous man (Ḥoni) was troubled about this verse (Psalms, 126. 1): "When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream." Did anybody ever sleep seventy years (without interruption)? One day while walking on the road he noticed a man planting a carob-tree. Said Ḥoni to the man: "You know that it takes seventy years before a carob-tree bears fruit; are you so sure that you will live seventy years and eat therefrom?" "I found this world provided with carob-trees," the man replied, "as my ancestors planted them for me, so I plant them for my progeny." Thereupon Ḥoni sat down to eat and was overcome by sleep. As he slept, a grotto was formed around him, so that he was screened off from the human eye, and thus he slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a man gathering carobs from the carob-tree and eating them. "Do you know who planted this carob-tree?" Ḥoni asked. "My grandfather," the man replied. "I must have slept seventy years!" Ḥoni exclaimed. (He saw the many herds that had descended from his she ass.) He then went to his house and inquired whether the son of Ḥoni the Circle-drawer was still alive. He was told that the son was no longer among the living, but that his grandson was still alive. "I am Ḥoni," he said, but the people did not believe him. He betook himself to the Bet ha-Midrash where he heard the scholars say, "Our studies are as clear to us today as they used to be in the times of Ḥoni the Circle-drawer, for when he came to the Bet ha-Midrash he used to explain to the scholars all their difficulties." He then said to them: "I am Ḥoni," but they would not believe him nor would they show him the respect due him. [This grieved him very much], and he therefore prayed to God (that he should die), and he died. Said Raba, hence comes the popular proverb, "either a companion or death!"

The Patriarchal house once ordered a fast (during which they prayed for rain), but rain failed to come. 'Osha'yah, the younger from Ḥabraya, therefore, quoted to them the verse (Num., 15. 24): "Then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it being hid from their eyes," and illustrated it by the following simile: As long as a bride (in her paternal house) has beautiful eyes, the rest of her body needs no examination, but if her eyes are not beautiful, her entire body must be examined. Hearing this, the servants of the Patriarch seized 'Osha'ya, put a towel (sudary) around his neck and began to choke him, but some townspeople who saw it said to them: "Let him go, for he used to harass us too, but when we saw that all his deeds were for the sake of Heaven we let him alone."

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 day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the first day of the week they read Genesis, 1, verses 1-8. It was taught: The portion "In the beginning" (Gen., 1. 1-5) was divided between two readers, but the portion "Let there be a firmament" (ibid., 6-8) was read by one. It is quite correct that "Let there be a firmament" should be recited by one, because it contains only three verses, but how could "In the beginning," which has only five verses, be divided into two? Was it not taught in a Mishnah that no one who is called up to read in the Torah should read less than three verses? Rab answered this by declaring that the second reader goes back (repeats verse 3), while Samuel said that he divides the third verse into two halves. Why does Rab advise to go back instead of dividing? Because he holds that we must not divide any verse that has not been divided by Moses. Samuel, however, holds that we may divide. But did not R. Ḥanina, the Bible teacher, say: I had much difficulty with R. Ḥanina the Great, who did not allow me to divide a verse in two, except for little school children, because it was for educational purposes? Answer: Samuel is of the opinion that as division was allowed for children by reason of necessity, it is allowed here also by reason of necessity. But why does Samuel insist upon division, instead of advising to go back? Because of the apprehension that those who come in or leave the synagogue (while the third verse is being read) will misjudge the situation. An objection was raised from the following: A portion containing six verses must be divided between two readers, but if it contains only five verses, it should all be read by one person. If, however, the first reader reads only three, the second should read the two remaining verses and an additional verse from the immediately following portion. Others, however, say that the second reader must take three additional verses from the following portion, because one should never begin a portion unless he reads at least three verses. Now (according to Rab who advises to go back), this Baraita, too, ought to teach that the second reader should go back? Answer: This Baraita offers an entirely different case, where the second reader

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.

(On the ninth of Ab) the second Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said, fortunate events are assigned to a lucky day, but calamities are assigned to an unlucky day. It was reported that when the Temple was destroyed for the first time it was on the ninth of Ab which happened to be on a Sunday, while the year was one following immediately upon a sabbatical year; further it was in the week in which the division of priests from the house of Jehojarib was on duty; the Levites were standing on their platform. [What song did they intone? They sang the verse (Ps., 94. 23): "And He hath brought upon them their own iniquity, and will cut them off in their own evil;" but before they were able to add the words: "The Lord our God will cut them off," the heathen came in and subdued them.] All this happened also in the second Temple.

"To give you a future and a hope" (Jerem., 29. 11). Said R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilat in the name of Rab, this verse alludes to the palm-trees and linen garments.

Said R. Johanan: All of these three authorities base their opinions on one and the same verse (Hosea, 2. 13): "I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her appointed seasons." The authority that says: "from the first of the month to the day of the fast"

Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the Israelites never had such joyous holidays as the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. This is quite right so far as the Day of Atonement is concerned, which is a day of pardon and forgiveness, a day on which the second Tables were given, but why the fifteenth of Ab? Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the (twelve) tribes were given permission to intermarry. What was the Scriptural basis for this permission? The verse (Numb., 36. 6): "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad," etc., which means that 'this thing' (forbidding intermarriage) shall apply only to this generation (of Moses).

R. Shemen b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: The verse says, “To uphold these days of Purim in their times.” They established many “times” for them.

What then is implied by “their times”? A large number of times! But [the expression ‘their’ times’] is still required to indicate that the time of one is not the same as the time of the other? If so, the verse should have just said, “their time”. Why does it say “their times”? So that you may infer from this all of them.

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

But why not say that the unwalled cities are on the fourteenth, and the walled cities can [celebrate] if they like on the fourteenth or if they like on the fifteenth? The verse says, “In their times” (Esther 9:31) the time of one is not the same as the time of the other.

We have accounted for the celebration [of Purim]; how do we know that the reading [of the Megillah must be on these days]? The verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28). “Remembering” is compared to “keeping.”

But did Onkelos the convert compose the Targum to the Pentateuch? Did not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by the verse, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading?” (Nehemiah 8:8): “And they read in the book, in the law of God”: this refer to the [Hebrew] text; “with an interpretation”: this refers to Targum; “And they gave the sense” this refers to the verse stops; “And caused them to understand the reading”: this refers to the accent marks, or, according to another version,

But did Onkelos the convert compose the Targum to the Pentateuch? Did not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by the verse, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading?” (Nehemiah 8:8): “And they read in the book, in the law of God”: this refer to the [Hebrew] text; “with an interpretation”: this refers to Targum; “And they gave the sense” this refers to the verse stops; “And caused them to understand the reading”: this refers to the accent marks, or, according to another version,

Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means. [The Targum (in Aramaic) is as follows]: ‘On that day shall there be great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Ahab son of Omri who was killed by Hadadrimmon son of Rimmon in Ramot Gilead and like the mourning of Josiah son of Ammon who was killed by Pharaoh the Lame in the plain of Megiddo.”

Now that you have said that the words “city and city, town and town” are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words “family and family” [in the same verse]?. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.

as we learn from (the verse) “or for his sister” as it has been taught: “Or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7). What is Scripture saying? Suppose he was on his way to slaughter his pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a near relative had died, shall I assume that he should defile himself?

Abba b. Zavda said in front of him: Rabbi, this was not the case. Rather, what happened was that Tisha B’av [on that year] fell on Shabbat, and they postponed it till after Sabbath, and he said to them, Since it has been postponed, let it be postponed altogether, but the Sages would not agree. He thereupon applied to himself the verse: Better are two than one (Ecclesiastes 4:9).

R. Yitzchak also said: What is meant by the verse, “Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked man, do not further his plot, lest they exalt themselves, selah (Psalms 140:9)? Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, grant not to Esau the wicked the desire of his heart, do not further his plot:

Or if you like I may say that both refer to one’s own affairs, and still there is no contradiction: the one is addressed to one who is wholly righteous, and the other to one who is not wholly righteous, as R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look upon those who deal treacherously, and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habbakuk 1:13). He can swallow up one that is more righteous than himself, he cannot swallow up one that is completely righteous.

[And they refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this a memorial in a book” (Exodus 17:14) [which they expounded as follows]: “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.

Against the proof of R. Akiva it may be objected that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Elazar, who said that these words show that to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation.

Against the proof of R. Meir it may be objected that perhaps that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Hiyya b. Abba who said that Bigtan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis.

How is that implied [from the verse]? R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi replied: Since he has said “[I take] it upon myself,” it is as if he had taken it upon his shoulder.

And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy. If so let the verse say, “And when he that has an issue is cleansed” and no more. Why do I have “from his issue”? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days.

Abaye replied: The verse says: “And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of scale disease is healed in the metzora” (Leviticus 14:3); one whose scale disease is dependent upon healing, and excludes one whose scale disease is not dependent on healing but on days [of isolation].

for as it is written, “For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9). “Rest” here means Shiloh and “inheritance” means Jerusalem. The verse compares “inheritance” to “rest” [to show that] just as after the [destruction of the] “rest” it was again permitted, so after the [destruction of the] “inheritance” it is again permitted.

And R. Yohanan further said, What is the meaning of the verse, “And one came not near the other all the night? (Exodus 14:20) The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and you chant hymns?

Matanah made his introduction from this verse: “For what great nation is there that has God so near to them” (Deuteronomy 4:7). R. Ashi made it from here: “Or has God attempted to [take one nation from the midst of another nation] (Deuteronomy 4:34).

R. Levi said from this verse: “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you” (Numbers 33:55).

R. Hiyya said from this verse: “And it shall come to pass that as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you” (Numbers 33:56).

“Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”. R. Hisda said: At first he ruled over seven, then over twenty [more], and finally over a hundred [more]. But if so, [what did you do with the verse], “And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years?” (Exodus 6:20). How do you expound this? It is different here, because the whole text is superfluous, since it is written, “From Hodu to Cush,” what would I then do with, “seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”? You must conclude that it is for a special lesson.

Rava answered [The first verse] was for charging [pekidah] only, and this was fulfilled, as it is written, "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, "All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord, the God of the heavens, given to me, and he has charged [pakad] me to build him a house in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:2).

R. Nahman son of R. Hisda gave the following exposition. What is the meaning of the verse, "Thus says the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held" (Isaiah 45:1). Now was Cyrus the Messiah? Rather what it means is this: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I have a complaint on your behalf against Cyrus. I said, He shall build my house and gather my exiles, and he said, "Whosoever there is among you of all his people, let him go up" (Ezra 1:3).

R. Levi said: This whole verse speaks of the sacrifices

“Bore”: But she only brought him [Moses] up? This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse treats him as if he had bore him.

R. Elazar said: What is the meaning of the verse,

But what did you see to rely on this verse? Rely rather on the other! There is written another verse, “Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit”(Psalms 103:3-4). This implies that redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But it is written, “And he will repent and be healed”? That refers not to the healing of sickness but to the healing [power] of forgiveness.

But what did you see to rely on this verse? Rely rather on the other! There is written another verse, “Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit”(Psalms 103:3-4). This implies that redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But it is written, “And he will repent and be healed”? That refers not to the healing of sickness but to the healing [power] of forgiveness.

What did you see to rely on this verse? Why not rely on the other? It is reasonable that worship and thanksgiving are one.

Our Rabbis taught: If the reader omitted one verse, he must not say, I will finish reading it [the Megillah] and I will then read that verse, but he must read [again] from that verse. If he enters the synagogue and finds that the congregation has read half, he must not say, I will read half with the congregation and then I will read the other half, but he must read it from the beginning to the end.

Our Rabbis taught: If the reader omitted one verse, he must not say, I will finish reading it [the Megillah] and I will then read that verse, but he must read [again] from that verse. If he enters the synagogue and finds that the congregation has read half, he must not say, I will read half with the congregation and then I will read the other half, but he must read it from the beginning to the end.

Our Rabbis taught: If the reader omitted one verse, he must not say, I will finish reading it [the Megillah] and I will then read that verse, but he must read [again] from that verse. If he enters the synagogue and finds that the congregation has read half, he must not say, I will read half with the congregation and then I will read the other half, but he must read it from the beginning to the end.

If one was writing it, expounding it, or correcting it, if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation. How so? If he was arranging each verse and then writing it, what does it matter if he had intention? He is reciting it by heart! Rather he writes each verse and then recites it.

If one was writing it, expounding it, or correcting it, if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation. How so? If he was arranging each verse and then writing it, what does it matter if he had intention? He is reciting it by heart! Rather he writes each verse and then recites it.

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

R. Abbahu said: R. Meir is different, because to him could be applied the verse, "Let your eyes look in front, and gaze straight before you" (Proverbs 4:25). Rami b. Hama asked R. Jeremiah from Difti: What is the meaning of "Let your eyes [af'apekha] look in front, and gaze straight before you"? He replied: This refers to the words of the Torah, of which it is written, "Will your eyes fly over it [ta'if] and it is gone?" (Proverbs 23:5). And even so, they were produced correctly by R. Meir.

R. Yohanan said: All these rabbis derived their rule from the same verse: “Then Esther the queen and Mordecai the Jew wrote all the acts of power” (9:29). He who says the whole Megillah, this refers to the power of Ahashverosh;

Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28) by day, but not by night. Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said: One must read the Megillah by night and a second time by day? When the mishnah taught it, it referred to the day.

If any of these things is done after dawn has appeared, it is valid. From where is this rule derived? Rava said: For the verse says, “And God called the light day” something which gradually becomes light he called day.

Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days shall be mentioned and kept” (Esther 9:28). For reading the Hallel: As it is written, “From the rising of the sun to its going down” (Psalms 113:3). R. Joseph says: Because it is written, “This is the day which the Lord has made” (Psalms 118:24). For the taking of the lulav: As it is written, “And you shall take for yourself on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40).

How then do I fulfil verse, “Before me continually” (Exodus 25:3)? [This is to show that] the table of the Lord should not be without bread.

GEMARA: A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. From where does this rule come? R. Abbahu said: As the verse says, "But as for you, stand here with me" (Deuteronomy 5:28). R. Abbahu also said: Were it not written in the Scripture, it would be impossible for us to say it: as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, also was standing.

One verse says, "And I sat [va'eshev] on the mountain" (Deuteronomy 9:9), and another verse says, "And I stood on the mountain"(Deuteronomy 10:10): Rav says: He [Moses] stood when he learned and sat while he repeated [what he had learned]. R. Hanina said: He was neither sitting nor standing, but stooping. R. Yohanan said: Sitting here means only "staying", as it says, "And you stayed [teshvu] in Kadesh many days" (Deuteronomy 1:46). Rava said: The easy things [he learned] standing and the hard ones sitting

One verse says, "And I sat [va'eshev] on the mountain" (Deuteronomy 9:9), and another verse says, "And I stood on the mountain"(Deuteronomy 10:10): Rav says: He [Moses] stood when he learned and sat while he repeated [what he had learned]. R. Hanina said: He was neither sitting nor standing, but stooping. R. Yohanan said: Sitting here means only "staying", as it says, "And you stayed [teshvu] in Kadesh many days" (Deuteronomy 1:46). Rava said: The easy things [he learned] standing and the hard ones sitting

But that which R. Shimi taught, They do not read less than ten verses [of the Torah] in the synagogue, and the verse “And [God] spoke to [Moses saying]” counts as one of the ten:” What do these ten represent?

He who reads in the Torah should not read less than three verses.” Rav says he should repeat, and Shmuel says he should divide a verse.

Rav said he should repeat. Why did he not say “divide”? He was of opinion that any verse which Moses had not divided, we may not divide.

And Shmuel held that we may divide. But did not R. Hananiah the Bible teacher say: I was in great pain in the house of R. Hanina the Great, for he would not allow me to make [additional verse] divisions except for the school children, because they are there to be taught?

Rabbah the son of Raba sent to R. Joseph: What is the law? He sent him back: The law is that the verse is repeated, and it is a middle reader who repeats.

GEMARA. From where do we know this? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Because the verse says, "But I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32): every act of sanctification should not be done with less than ten.

How does the verse say this? As R. Hiyya taught: The word "among" is understood in reference to its use in another place. It is written here, "But I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" and it is written elsewhere, "Separate yourselves from among this congregation" (Numbers 16:21);

One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time],

And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. For instance, [the three verses], “For thus says the Lord, you were sold for nothing” … For thus says the Lord God, my people went down to Egypt in times of yore”…; Now therefore what is there for me here, says the Lord” (Isaiah 52:3-5).

The Rabbis, however, hold that he does derive benefit, like R. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Jose said: ... All my life I was troubled by this verse, “And you shall grope at noonday as the blind gropes in darkness” (Deuteronomy 28:29). Now why should a blind person care whether it is dark or light?

Hiyya said to R. Shimon b. Rabbi: f you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from [singing] on the platform, because your voice is thick. He went and told his father who said to him: Go and say to him, When you come to the verse, “And I will wait [vehikiti] for the Lord,” (Isaiah 8:17) will you not be a reviler and blasphemer?

If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed…”. In the school of R. Ishmael it was stated: The verse speaks of an Israelite who has intercourse with a Gentile woman and gives birth through a son for idolatry.

The following are read but not translated (Mnemonic: R’E’B’D’N’). The incident of Reuben is read but not translated. On one occasion R. Hanina b. Gamaliel went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read, “And it came to pass when Israel dwelled” (Genesis 35:22), and he said to the translator: Translate only the latter part of the verse, and the sages praised him.

The one who says Torah bases himself on the verse, “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness sake to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 45:21). The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse, “Tell me….the great things that Elisha has done” (II Kings 8:4); and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer.

The one who says Torah bases himself on the verse, “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness sake to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 45:21). The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse, “Tell me….the great things that Elisha has done” (II Kings 8:4); and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

Rava gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Lord, You have been our dwelling place” (Psalms 90:1)? This refers to synagogues and study houses. Abaye said: At first I used to study at home and pray in the synagogue, but when I heard the words of David, “O Lord, I love the dwelling place [me’on] of Your house” (Psalms 26:8), I began to study in the synagogue.

Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look askance [terazedun], mountains of peaks (gavnunim)” (Psalms 68:18). A bat kol (heavenly voice) went forth and said to them: Why do ye desire litigation [tirzu din] with Sinai? You are all full of blemishes as compared with Sinai. It is written here “gavnunim,” and it is written elsewhere “or humpbacked [gibben] or a dwarf” (Leviticus 21:20). Ashi observed: You can learn from this that if a man is arrogant, this is a blemish in him.

Tabi said in the name of R. Yoshayah: For the verse says, “This is the burnt-offering of each new moon in its renewal” (Numbers 28:14). The Torah says to us: Renew and bring an offering from the new contributions.

On fast days [the portion of] blessings and curses is read, and they may not break in [the reading of] the curses. How do we know this? Hiyya b. Gamda said in the name of R. Assi: As the verse says, “Do not reject the discipline of the Lord, My son” (Proverbs 3:11).

Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.

Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.

Sheftiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: If one reads [Scripture] without a melody or recites the Mishnah without a tune, of him the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.” (Ezekiel 20:25).

Abaye raised a difficulty: Just because he cannot produce a sweet voice, [you say] “For I gave them also statutes that were not good”? Rather this is like R. Mesharshya who said: If two scholars live in the same town and do not treat one another’s halakhah respectfully, of them the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.”