yitzchak

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table. R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)

Another version: R. Abba said to him: Who holds this opinion? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: ‘Beth Shammai, and do not change from it’. (I.E. to Bais Hillel)

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that we do not prohibit it?

The tradition comes to teach as did R. Yitzchak; for R. Yitzchak said:

The tradition comes to teach as did R. Yitzchak; for R. Yitzchak said:

R. Akiva said: They were Mishael and Elzaphan who were occupied with [the remains of] Nadav and Avihu. R. Yitzchak said, If they were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, they had time to cleanse themselves [before Pesah] and if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could [also] have cleansed themselves [before Pesah].

But is it so? But didn't R. Yitzchak say, From where do we know that a man is obliged to greet his master on the Festival? As it says, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither Rosh Hodesh nor Shabbat" (II Kings 4:23) from which it follows that on Rosh Hodesh and Shabbat one is obligated greet his master?’ There is no difficulty. The latter refers to where he can go and return [to his house] on the one day; the former to where he cannot go and return on the same day.

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

This was necessary [only in case] it is rebuilt at night, or [on the fifteenth] close to sunset. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: R. Yohanan b. Zakkai instituted this in accordance with a principle of R. Judah who holds that from the Torah the whole day is forbidden, since it is written,

Rava said to R. Yitzchak the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana: O Son of the Torah, come and I will tell you an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learned: Every day they circled the altar once, and on that day they circled it seven times, thus said your father in the name of R. Eleazar: with the lulav.

What might I have said? That that applies only where one does not lift [the lulav] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time [he would fulfill his obligation], therefore he teaches us that it is not so. R. Hisda said in the name of R. Yitzchak: One may fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

What is the blessing? — ‘Blessed [are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe] who has sanctified us by Your commandments, and commanded us to kindle the light of Hanukkah’. But where did He command us? “Do not turn aside” (Deuteronomy 17:11). R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: “Ask your father, and he will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32:7)

Which [blessing] does one omit? — The blessing on the time. Say that one omits the blessing of the miracle? The miracle occurred every day. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak taught this explicitly: Rav said: The commandment of the lulav applies to all seven days.

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: In this case it is written, “on the day”, in the other, “and on the day”.

But why the extra two? R. Yitzchak said: As a reward for the closing of the doors. But [why should not the outgoing watch] say to the other, "Take less for less"? Abaye said: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full grown one [in the field].

But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak, that the thirteenth was the time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text.

But say the twelfth and thirteenth? R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said: The thirteenth was a time of assembly for all, and does not require special indication. But say the sixteenth and the seventeenth? It is written, “And it shall not pass.”

R. Yitzchak said: “Ekron shall be rooted out”: this is Caesarea, the daughter of Edom, which was a metropolis of kings. There are those who say that this means that kings were brought up there. And there are those that say that kings were appointed from there.

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak derived the same lesson from here: “And the one nation shall be stronger than the other nation” (Genesis 25:23).

R. Yitzchak also said: What is the meaning of what is written, “Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:10)? Isaac said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let mercy be shown to Esau. He replied: He is wicked. He said to Him: “He has not learned righteousness.” He replied: “In the land of uprightness will he deal wrongfully” (Isaiah 26:10). He said: If so, “Let him not behold the majesty of the Lord” (Isaiah 26:10).

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:

R. Yitzchak also said: If one says to you, I have toiled and not found, do not believe him. If he says, I have not toiled but still have found, do not believe him. If he says, I have toiled and found, believe him.

R. Yitzchak also said: If you see a wicked man being favored by fortune, do not contend with him, as it says, “Do not contend with evildoers” (Psalms 37:1). Moreover, he will prosper, as it says, “His ways prosper at all times” (Psalms 10:5). Moreover, but he may even be declared right, as it says, “Your judgements are far above out of his sight.” Moreover, he may even triumph over his enemies, as it says, “As for all his adversaries, he hisses at them.”

R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught: R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.

R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught: R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.

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.

From where is this derived? — As R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak taught in front of R. Huna: “Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean” (Leviticus 13:6); he is clean at the outset from having been liable to rend garments and loosen the hair.

GEMARA. R. Yitzchak said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered in the Temple of Onias at the present day. He was of opinion that the Temple of Onias is not an idolatrous shrine, and that the first holiness [of Jerusalem] sanctified it or its time but not for all time,

Nor do they say the blessing of mourners nor the blessing of bridegrooms etc. What is the blessing of mourners? The blessing said in the public square, as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: The blessing of mourners requires the presence of ten, the mourners are not counted; the blessing of bridegrooms requires the presence of ten, and the bridegroom is counted.

as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out; and R. Yitzchak further said: To eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out is like eating untithed produce. The halakhah does not follow him.

as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out; and R. Yitzchak further said: To eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out is like eating untithed produce. The halakhah does not follow him.

His eyes become dim, as it says, “And it came to pass that when Yitzchak grew old that his eyes became dim, so that he could not see” (Genesis 27:1). Because he used to look at the wicked Esau.

But was that the cause? Did not R. Yitzchak say: Let not the curse of an ordinary person ever seem light in your eyes, for Avimelech cursed Sarah, and it was fulfilled in her seed, as it says, “Behold he is for you a covering [kesut] of the eyes” (Genesis 20:16). Read not “kesut” but “kesiyath” [blinding]?

“Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary [in the land into which they will go]” (Ezekiel 11:16). R. Yitzchak said: This refers to the synagogue and study houses Elazar says: This refers to the house of our teacher in Babylonia.

Nahman b. Yitzchak said: If one goes in without any intention of using it as a short cut, he may afterwards use it as a short cut. And R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: If one enters a synagogue to pray, he may afterwards use it as a short cut, as it says, “But when, the people of the land shall come before the Lord at the appointed times, he that enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate” (Ezekiel 46:9).

R. Yitzchak Nafha said: When Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, they take out three Torah scrolls and read them: from one the portion of the day, from one the portion for Rosh Hodesh, and from one “When you count.” R. Yitzckah b. Nafha also said: When Rosh Hodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, they take out three Torah scrolls and read them: one from one the portion of the day, one from the portion for Rosh Hodesh, and from one the portion for Hannukah.

Both statements are required. For if it had been stated only about the latter, [I might have thought that] in this case R. Yitzchak required [three scrolls], but in the other case he followed the view of Rav who said that the portion of Shekalim is “My sacrifice, my food,” and therefore two would be enough. Therefore we are told that this is not so.

It was stated: Rosh Hodesh Tevet that falls on a weekday, R. Yitzchak says that three read the portion of Rosh Hodesh and one the portion of Hanukkah. R. Dimi from Haifa, however, says that three read the portion of Hanukkah and one that of Rosh Hodesh.

It was stated: ‘If it [Shabbat Shekalim] falls when the portion “And you shall command” is read: R. Yitzchak Nafha said: Six persons read from “And you shall command” up until “When you count”, and one from “When you count” to “You shall make.” Abaye said:

This works for Abaye, but it is a difficulty for R. Yitzchak Nafha.

Yitzchak Nafha could say to you: And does it go so well with Abaye? It makes sense with the Shabbat before it, but does it make sense with the Shabbat after it?

Gemara: [The one who throws a stone] into the public domain is an intentional [sinner]! Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall. He should have been paying attention! [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall at night. At night also, he should have been paying attention!

If his judgment was finalized and subsequently the [high] priest was found to be the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who received chalitzah, the matter is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafkah. One says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood died, and one says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood got disqualified [retroactively].

Rebbi Yitzchak says liabilities of kares are included [in the punishment of malkus], but why is kares singled out by [the prohibition of cohabiting] with his sister? [To teach us that liabilities of kares] are only subject to kares but not malkus.

If so then not performing a positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? "If you do not guard yourself (תשמור)" was written, and [Rav Yitzchak holds] like what Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui, that Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui any place where the Torah uses the words, "השמר", "פן", or "אל", it's referring to a negative commandment.

Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted [as an answer], "According to his wickedness" according to one wickedness you can punish him, according to two wickednesses you cannot punish him. This rule it's only referring to punishments given by court [i.e. not kares].

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak [who uses kares b'achoso to teach us that kares is not subject with malkus] derive the principle of separating? He derives it from (Leviticus 18,19) "And to a woman (אשה) impure by her uncleanliness", to make one liable for each and every woman.

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn [re'shia bar re'shia]? He learns it out from a kal v'chomer (fortiori), That it was taught in a barasia, Rabbi Akiva says, I asked Raban Gmaliel ad Rebbi Yehosua [while] in the meat market of Iemus, (that they had traveled to to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel's son), If one had [inadvertently] cohabited with his sister, who was his father's sister, who his mother's sister, what would the halacha be? Would he only be liable one sacrifice for all of them, or would he be liable [a separate sacrifice] for each one?

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

And [as for where Rebbi Yitzchak derives the principle against deriving punishments] you can either say that he derives [the principle against deriving] punishment from [the principle against deriving] scriptural warnings, or you can say that he learns it out from

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak, Bikorim.

Rebbi Hoshiah said, One who breeds a disqualified sacrificial bull incurs two sets of malkus. Rebbi Yitzchak says, One who leads a disqualified sacrificial ox incurs malkus, because although it is one body, the Torah considers it like two distinct bodies.

Rebbi Yehudah said forty full... etc. between his shoulders.: Rebbi Yitzchak said, What is the reason of Rebbi Yehuda? That it is written (Zechariah 13,6) "What are these wounds between your hands? And he will say that I was hit in the house of those who loved me." And according to the Rabbis? [Who say that there is no fortieth lash which would be administered between the shoulders.] That verse is referring to the schoolchildren.

But it was taught in a different baraisa, Rebbi Yehuda says, both a man and a woman [are exempt] with excrement? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered,... [The second baraisa means that] both of them are equal with regards to excrement....

Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) says, Who is this tanna? Rabbi Yitchak who says that there is no kares by liabilities of malkus, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Yitzchak says, Liabilities of kares are included in the punishment of malkus, and why was kares bachoso singled out? To punish him with kares alone but not malkus.

Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) says, Who is this tanna? Rabbi Yitchak who says that there is no kares by liabilities of malkus, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Yitzchak says, Liabilities of kares are included in the punishment of malkus, and why was kares bachoso singled out? To punish him with kares alone but not malkus.

Yeshaya returned and established these on two, as it is said (Issiah 56,1) "So says, God, guard justice, and do righteousness". Amos came and established these on one, as it is said (Amos 5,4) "Thus said Hashem to the house of Israel: Seek me Me, and live." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged this, maybe it means to seek out the entire Torah? Rather, Chabakuk came and established these on one as it said (Habakkuk 2,4) "The righteous shall live by his faith."