xvi

To shine (but when it is said “the face of Moses,” the mother is understood), according to that passage, 1 Sam. xvi. 13: “And Samuel took the horn of oil” (where by the oil, the wisdom, by the horn, or the splendour of the oil, the understanding is denoted). For there is no anointing except by the horn (that is, every descent of unction is through the mother). Hence it is said, Ps. lxxxix. 18: “And in thy favour our horn shall be exalted.” (Also) Ps. cxxxii. 17: “There shall the horn of David flourish” (that is, the queen shall receive the influx from the mother). This is the tenth of the kings (that is, the path of the kingdom), and originateth from jubilee, who is the mother.

And that dew distilleth upon the ground of the holy apple trees. This is that which is written, Exod. xvi. 14: “And when the dew was gone up, behold upon the face of the desert a small round thing.”

In the seventh disposition the hair terminateth, and there are seen two apples in the places of copious fragrance, beautiful and joyful in aspect, because (in that aspect) is the universe maintained. And this is that which is said, Prov. xvi. 15: “In the light of the king's countenance is life.”

“And concerning them is that passage (to be taken in), Prov. xvi. 15: ‘In the light of the countenance of the King is life.’

Adam, truly, is the interior conformation, wherein consisteth the RVCh, Ruach, Spirit; like as it is said, 1 Sam. xvi. 6: “Because Adam seeth according to the eyes, but Tetragrammaton seeth according to the heart,” which is within the interior parts.

As it is written, Lev. xvi. 30: “Since in that day he shall atone for you.”

This is the same which is said, Exod. xvi. 4: “Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven.” And also that passage where it is thus written, Gen. xxvii. 28: “And the Elohim shall give unto thee of the dew of heaven.”

"Ahitophel " was the counsellor, for thus it is stated, "Now the counsel of Ahitophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man inquired of the word of God" (2 Sam. xvi. 23).

R. Johanan said to him : It is quite right with Torah and benevolent acts ; for it is written, "By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated" (Prov. xvi. 6) "mercy" means benevolent acts, as it is said, "He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth life, prosperity and honour" (ibid. xxi. 21), and "truth" means Torah, as it is said, "Buy the truth, and sell it not" (ibid, xxiii. 23); but how know we that this is true of one who buries his children?

A certain Elder taught in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai : It is to be derived from the occurrence of the same word 'awon "iniquity" in the following passages : "By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated" (ibid. xvi. 6) and "Who recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children" (Jer. xxxii. 18).

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

There is a teaching to the same effect : "The Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night" (Deut. xvi. 1). Was it in the night they went out? Surely they went out during the day ; as it is said, "On the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand" (Num. xxxiii. 3) ! But this teaches that the redemption began for them at even.

Rabbah b. Hinnana the Elder also said in the name of Rab : Whoever commits a transgression and is filled with shame thereby, all his sins are forgiven him; as it is said, "That thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame; when I have forgiven thee all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. xvi. 63).

It is said, "That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life" (Deut. xvi. 3). [Had the Scriptures stated] "the days of thy life" [it would have meant] the days only ; but "all the days of thy life" [must be intended to include] the nights.

And Grace after meals. This too is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "When the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full" (Exod. xvi. 8), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [that it is obligatory].

How is this implied? As Rabbanai, the brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba, taught : We draw an analogy from the occurrence of the word "among." It is written here, "But I will be hallowed among the children of Israel" and it is written elsewhere "Separate yourselves from among this congregation" (Num. xvi. 21). As in the latter circumstance there were ten, so here also there must be ten.

The master said above, "If his children or members of his household are minors, it is permitted." Up to what age? Rab Hisda said: With females, three years and one day; with a male, nine years and one day. Others declare : With females, eleven years and one day ; with a male, twelve years and one day — i.e. with both of them until the age when "the breasts were fashioned and the hair grown" (Ezek. xvi. 7).

"And concerning the morning continual offering that it was brought in the first four hours." Who is the authority for the following teaching : "And as the sun waxed hot, it melted" (Exod. xvi. 21) — this refers to the fourth hour of the day?

Mar b. Rab Ashe said : A man can comply with the requirements of the law therewith on the Passover. On what ground ? We may apply to it the term "bread of affliction" (Deut. xvi. 3).

Rab Pappa said : All agree that on Passover one should place the piece together with the whole and break them both. What is the reason ? "Bread of affliction" (Deut. xvi. 3) it is written.

R. Abba said : On the Sabbath one should break bread over two loaves. What is the reason ? "Twice as much bread" (Exod. xvi 22) it is written.

Who dreams of shaving should on rising say, "And [Joseph] shaved himself and changed his raiment" (Gen. xli. 14), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "If I be shaven, then my strength will go from me" (Judges xvi. 17). Who dreams of a well should on rising say, "A well of living waters" (Cant. iv. 15), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a cistern welleth with her waters, so she welleth with her wickedness" (Jer. vi. 7). Who dreams of a reed should on rising say, "A bruised reed shall he not break" (Is. xlii. 3), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed" (ibid, xxxvi. 6).

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

Women and slaves who are not manumitted etc. This is all right as regards women, as we have said, but slaves—how do we get them here? R. Hunna says, The scripture says "before the LORD God" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). This expression can only apply to him who has but one Lord. He is excluded who has another lord. But why do I need a verse for it? Surely by every precept by which a woman is bound a slave is bound, and by every precept by which a woman is not bound a slave is not bound. The teacher learns it from the case of a woman through the double occurrence of the words "unto her." Rabena said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. This is precisely too what the teaching of the Mishnah is, women and slaves who are not manumitted. What is the meaning of the addition, who are not manumitted? If I should say that it means, who are not manumitted at all, then the words ought to be simply, slaves, but do you not think that it means, those who are not completely manumitted? and who are such? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this the meaning.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

Abai said to him, Of course. For otherwise the question would arise, Which of them wilt thou cause to be sinners, and which of them wilt thou cause to be obedient? But wherefore then does the passage come? It is to correspond to the saying of others. For there is a Baraitha, viz., Others say, The cordwainer, and the smelter in bronze and the tanner, are exempt from the holocaust, for it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who can go up with all thy males. These are excluded, for they cannot go up with all thy males.

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings. Our Rabbis have taught thus, "And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast" (Deut. xvi. 14). This means to include in the word joy all kinds of joy. Hence wise men have said, Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the priests by the eating of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and by the firstborn, and by the wave breast and heave shoulder. I should have thought that they might have done it also with birds and meal-offerings. The teaching says, And thou shalt rejoice in thy Feast, meaning

I. (5) He who has many to eat with him and few possessions, brings many peace-offerings and few burnt-offerings. He who has many possessions and few to eat with him, brings many burnt-offerings, and few peace-offerings. If a man have little of both, to his case applies the saying about the meah of silver and the two pieces of silver. If he have much of both, to his case apply the words, "every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God, which he hath given thee" (Deut. xvi. 17).

Whence do you gather this? R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Ishmael, The same word, Restraint, is used of the seventh day of Passover, and of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. What is true of the former as regards postponement of payments, the same is true of the latter. The word is used in an unrestricted way. For if it were not used in an unrestricted way, the force of the argument drawn from it might have been broken by saying, Whereas the seventh day of Passover is not separated from those that precede it, you may say that the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from those that precede it. Assuredly, it is used in a wholly unrestricted sense. What does restraint really mean? That one is restrained from acts of work. But we have the passage, "Thou shalt do no work" (Deut. xvi. 8). Why then has the Merciful One written me Restraint? But learn from it that it was to give the unrestricted sense of the word. And a Baraitha brings out the same thing thus. For there is a Baraitha, "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 41). One might have thought from this passage that one was to go on sacrificing all seven days. No, for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it," and thou art not to sacrifice all seven days. If so, why have we seven stated as the number of the days of the Feast? For postponements of payments; and whence do you gather that if a man has not observed the Feast on the first high holiday of the Feast, he is to go and sacrifice during any part of its extent, even including the last high holiday? Because the teaching says, "Ye shall keep it in the seventh month" (Lev. xxiii. 41). If it had merely said, In the seventh month, one might have thought that one was to go and sacrifice the whole month. No; for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it" and thou art not to sacrifice further.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

R. El'azar said that R. Oshaia said, How is it that in regard to Pentecost offerings are transferable all seven days? It is because it is said, "In the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles" (Deut. xvi. 16). Holy Writ compares the Feast of Weeks with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As in the Feast of Unleavened Bread offerings are transferable all seven days, so in the Feast of Weeks offerings are transferable all seven days. But, it is objected, I might say by parity of reason, Holy Writ compares it with the Feast of Tabernacles. As in the Feast of Tabernacles offerings are transferable all eight days, so in the Feast of Weeks offerings are transferable all eight days. But then the eighth day in the Feast of Tabernacles is a festival apart. Yes, they say indeed that the eighth day is a festival apart, but this only applies to matters connected with the lots, season, festival, korban, psalm, blessing.

Because it is written, "and thou shalt turn in the morning and go to thy tents" (Deut. xvi. 7).

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.

There is another Baraitha, viz., "Six days thou shalt eat blistered cakes, and on the seventh day there shall be a prohibition of work to the Lord" (Deut. xvi. 8). As on the seventh day work is prohibited, so on the six days work is prohibited. I should have thought perhaps, as on the seventh day there is a prohibition from all work, so on the six days there is a prohibition from all work. But no; for the teaching says, And on the seventh day there is a prohibition, thus indicating that on the seventh day there is a prohibition from all work, and that on the six days there is not a prohibition from all work. Behold, Holy Writ has communicated it only to wise men, to tell thee which is a forbidden day and which is a lawful day, which is forbidden work and which is lawful work.