yohanan

It was stated: Rav, R. Hanina, R. Yohanan and R. Haviva taught:

(throughout all Seder Mo'ed when these pairs are mentioned together [some] substitute the name of R. Yonatan for that of R. Yohanan),

R. Yohanan said: A sukkah which was [round shaped] like a furnace: If twenty-four men can sit around its circumference, it is valid, and if not it is invalid

Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Do you think that a man occupies one cubit? . [The fact is that] three men occupy two cubits.. How much then does this [amount to for twenty-four men]?. Sixteen cubits; and we [really] demand here sixteen and four fifths. [Because, as has been said, R. Yohanan] gave only an approximate figure...

R. Assi said to R. Ashi: In truth, a man occupies a cubitspace, but R. Yohanan does not include the space occupied by the men.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

When Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Scripture says, "When you gather in from your threshingfloor and your winepress" (Deuteronomy 16:13). The verse thus speaks of the waste from the threshing-floor and the waste from the wine-press. But perhaps it means the actual threshing-floor product and the actual wine-press product?

GEMARA. R. Yaakov said: I heard from R. Yohanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.

R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.

And R. Yohanan could say to you that here where it states, "One may not use them as skhakh" it means that only at the outset it is invalid,

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

R. Hiyya b. Abba answered in the name of R. Yohanan, The former mishnah deals with planed boards and they forbade them as a decree lest he comes to use vessels

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: R. Judah spoke according to the view of R. Yose who said that a hanging partition validates.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: it was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade. What might one have said? That this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not]. What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah.

R. Mesharsheya raised a difficulty: Does not ‘Your guarantor need a guarantor ? Rather Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan, This refers to where the person puts his head between his knees. Rava said: There is no set amount for sleep.

It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.”

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

R. Yohanan answered in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak: It was stated with regard to Sukkot, "The fifteenth," and it was stated with regard to the Festival of Matzot, "The fifteenth." Just as there the first night only is obligatory but from then on it is optional, so too here the first night is obligatory, but from then on it is optional. And from where do we know [that the first night of Pesah it is obligatory to eat matzah]?

Our rabbis have taught: It happened that R. Eliezer spent Shabbat in the Upper Galilee in the sukkah of R. Yohanan son of R. Ila'i in Caesarea or, as some say, in Caesarion and when the sun reached the Sukkah he said to him: Can I spread a cloth over it?’ He said to him, "There was no tribe in Israel which did not produce a judge."

When the sun reached the middle of the Sukkah, he said to him "Can I spread a cloth over it?" He answered him, "There was no tribe in Israel which did not produce a prophet, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin appointed their kings based on the words of the prophets." When the sun reached the feet of R. Eliezer, R. Yohanan took a cloth and spread it over [the Sukkah]. R. Eliezer tied up his cloak, threw it over his back, and went out. It was not in order to evade an answer [that he answered as he did] but because he never said anything which he had not heard from his master.

Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. 2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

R. Papa asked: What is the rule if the central leaf is split? Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. Is this also true if it is split? No, if it is removed the law is different,

since it is entirely lacking There are those that say: R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi:

R. Marion said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, and others say that Rabbah b. Mari taught in the name of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai: here are two palms in the valley of Hinnom, and smoke goes up between them, and it is in that connection that we have learned the thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid, and it is the entrance to Gehenna.

And R. Parnakh said in the name of R. Yohanan, The spine of the lulav should extend a handbreadth beyond the hadas.

Let him derive this question from that which we have learned: If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it again. If the wind covered it, he must cover it again. And Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught this only where it subsequently became uncovered, but if it did not subsequently become uncovered, he is exempt from [the duty of] covering it.

And the rabbis from where to they derive [the law of the willow] for the Temple? They learned a received tradition; for R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan, the laws of ten plants, the aravah and the water libation—are all a halakhah from Moses from Sinai.

He asked in accordance with the statement of Ulla in the name of R. Yohanan who said: If the [contents of the] lung pour out as from a ladle [the animal] is fit to be eaten, and Raba explained that this applies only when the arteries are still whole, but if the arteries are rotted [the animal is] terefah. What is the ruling here? Is it possible that in that case where the air does not affect it, it could become healthy again, but in this case where the air does affect it, it decays, or is it possible that there is no difference?

R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong. In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews. R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that

He raised the objection and he himself solved to it: They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for one's food (mano) [may be bought]. And so said Rabbah b. bar Hana in the name of R. Yohanan. They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for food (mano) [may be bought]. How do we know that "man" means food? Since it is written: "And the king appointed (vayaman) for them a daily portion of the king's food" (Daniel 1:5).

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

And what is the reason of R. Yohanan? — Since it is written, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12); just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange.

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

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

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir. But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for even days in memory of the Temple,

From where do we know that we must perform [ceremonies] in memory of the Temple? R. Yohanan said: Since Scripture says, "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord, Because they have called you an outcast. She is Zion, there is none that seek for her" (Jeremiah 30:17). ‘There is none that see for her,' implies that she should be sought.

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,

But does he hold like him? Does he not in fact disagree with him, as we have learnt When the Temple was destroyed, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai enacted that on the whole of the Day of the Waving it should be forbidden [to eat of the new grain]. R. Judah said to him, But is it not forbidden from the Torah, since it is written, ‘Until the very day’ [which means] until the very day itself?

It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.

The aravah for seven days. How so? Why does the [ritual of the] aravah on the seventh day override Shabbat? R. Yohanan said: In order to publicize the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah. But if so, let the lulav also override Shabbat in order to publicize the fact that it is a from the Torah?

According to whom? If you will say, According to Abba Shaul,did he not say: It is written, “willows of the brook” implying two, one referring to the [aravah in the] lulav and the other to [the aravah for use in] the Temple? If you will say it is according to the rabbis, did they not have it as an accepted tradition, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

Kohanim with physical blemishes enter between the Sanctuary and the altar in order to fulfil the mitzvah of the aravah. Rabbi Yohanan to him: ... Who said so? ‘Who said so?’ id he not himself say so, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai?

Kohanim with physical blemishes enter between the Sanctuary and the altar in order to fulfil the mitzvah of the aravah. Rabbi Yohanan to him: ... Who said so? ‘Who said so?’ id he not himself say so, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai?

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered: They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.

R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered: They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.

But did R. Yohanan really say this? Did not R. Yohanan in fact state What I said was yours was in fact theirs? Rather: This is no difficulty–

But did R. Yohanan really say this? Did not R. Yohanan in fact state What I said was yours was in fact theirs? Rather: This is no difficulty–

Aibu stated: I was standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok. A certain man came before him and said to him: I have cities, vineyards and olive trees, and the inhabitants of the cities come and hoe the vineyards and eat the olives [on the Sabbatical year]. Is this proper or improper? [R. Yohanan] rules that indeed it is improper As the man was about to leave him and depart, [R. Elazar] said I have now lived in the land for forty years, and I have never seen a man walking in the paths of righteousness as this man. The man went back and said to him: ‘What should be done?’ He answered him: Abandon the olives to the poor and pay the workers for hoeing the vineyards

1) As was its performance on a weekday, so was its performance on Shabbat, except that they would gather them on the eve of Shabbat and place them in golden basins so that they would not become wilted. 2) Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: they used to bring palm branches and they would beat them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that day was called “[the day of] the beating of the palm branches.” 3) Immediately after beating the willows (or palm branches) the children undo their lulavs and eat their etrogim.

“Bind the festival with myrtle branches up to the horns of the altar.” and R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon of Mahoz who said in the name of R. Yohanan of Makkut: Whoever makes an addition to the Festival by eating and drinking is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said, Make an addition to the Festival with fat cattle, even to the horns of the altar.

“Bind the festival with myrtle branches up to the horns of the altar.” and R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon of Mahoz who said in the name of R. Yohanan of Makkut: Whoever makes an addition to the Festival by eating and drinking is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said, Make an addition to the Festival with fat cattle, even to the horns of the altar.

As was its performance on a weekday. R. Huna said: What is the reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka? As it is written, “Branches” which implies two, one for the lulav and one for the altar. But the Rabbis say: The word “branches” is written defectively (כפת).

R. Levi said: [The reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka is that Israel is] compared to the date-palm; as the date-palm has but one heart also Israel has but one heart for their Father in Heaven.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: [The blessing is recited over] the Sukkah for seven days and over the lulav for one day. What is the reason? For the Sukkah which is a Toraitic commandment [the blessing must be recited all] seven [days]; in the case of the lulav which is only a rabbinical commandment [a blessing on] one day suffices.

When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Both this one and that one for seven days. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the decision of Rabbah b. Bar Hana, since with regard to Sukkah, all the amoraim adopt the same position as he.

Immediately the children [throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs]. R. Yohanan said: The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, and permitted on the eighth; the Sukkah is forbidden even on the eighth And Resh Lakish said: The etrog is permitted even on the seventh day.

Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Yohanan: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Does not this equally apply to adults also? No; specifically to children.

There are others who say that R. Yohanan raised the objection against Resh Lakish: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Children only, not adults! No; the same law applies to adults as well, and the reason that it mentions children is that it states what was customary.

R. Papa said to Abaye: To R. Yohanan what is the difference between the Sukkah and the etrog?

The following dispute is based on the same principles] as the one between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. For it was stated: If one set apart seven etrogs for the seven days: Rav said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it immediately. R. Assi said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it the next day. What do they argue about? One Master holds that it is set apart for its mitzvah while the other holds that it is set apart for the whole day.

R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat said in the name of Rav: The eighth day which may be the seventh is regarded as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah and as the eighth in respect of the blessing. R. Yohanan said It is regarded as the eighth for this and that. Dwelling [in the Sukkah on the eighth day] all agree that one does dwell, they only disagree over

the blessing. According to him who regards the day as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah, we also recite the blessing [of the Sukkah], while according to him who holds that it is regarded as the eighth in respect of both, we do not recite the blessing [of the Sukkah]. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan, since R. Huna b. Bizna and all the greats of his generation were in a Sukkah on the eighth day which may have been the seventh, they sat there, but they did not recite the blessing.

There are those who say that all agree that one does not recite the blessing [on the Sukkah], and that they only disagree over whether one must sit [in the Sukkah] according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the seventh day in respect of the Sukkah, we must indeed sit in it, while according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the eighth day in respect of both, we do not even sit in it. R. Yoseph said:... Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan. For who is the authority of the statement? R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilath, and he himself sat outside the Sukkah on the eighth day which might be the seventh. And the law is that we must indeed sit in the Sukkah but may not recite the blessing.

R. Yohanan said: We recite the blessing of the season (shehiyanu) on the Eighth Day of the Festival [of Sukkot], but we do not recite the blessing of the season on the seventh day of Pesah.

Can we say that [the following statement] supports [the view of R. Yohanan]: The bullocks, the rams and the lambs each prevent the fulfillment of the other. But R. Judah says, The bullocks do not prevent the fulfillment of the other, since they diminish in number progressively.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: The pits were created during the six days of creation, for it is said, “The roundings of your thighs are like the links of a chain the work of the hands of a skilled workman” (Song of Songs 7:2): “The rounding of your thighs” refers to the pits; “like the links of a chain (חלאים)” implies that they are carved out (מחוללים) and descend to the abyss; “the work of the hands of a skilled workman” means that they are the skillful handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Bereshit; read not bereshit but bara shit.

R. Shmuel ben Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan: The Evil Inclination entices man in this world and testifies against him in the world to come, as it is said, “He that delicately brings up his servant from a child shall have him become a ruler (manon) at the end” (Proverbs 29:21), and according to the Atbah of R. Hiyya a witness is called manon.

R. Yohanan said: There is a small organ in man. When he starves it, it is satisfied, when he satisfies it, it is starving, as it is said, “When they were starved they became full…” (Hosea 13:6).

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

He once saw a skull floating upon the face of the water. He said to it: Because you drowned others, they have drowned you, and they that drowned you shall be drowned too R. Yohanan stated: A man’s feet are his guarantors; they lead him to the place where he is wanted.

But is that so! For did not R. Yohanan say: [He who says], “I take an oath not to sleep for three days” is to be lashed and he may sleep immediately? Rather, this is what he meant: We did not enjoy the taste of sleep’, for they dozed on one another’s shoulder.

Fifteen steps. R. Hisda said to a certain rabbi who was arranging his aggadot before him. Have you heard concerning these fifteen Songs of Ascent, what did David compose them to correspond to? — He said to him: Thus said R. Yohanan: When David dug the Pits the Deep (tehom) rose up and threatened to submerge the world. David recited the fifteen Songs of Ascent and caused it to subside.” But if so Songs of Ascent, it should be of Descent?

What might you have thought? That it is also in agreement with the view of the rabbis, and that it excludes the view of R. Yohanan who said that if a man heard the nine tekiahs in nine hours during the day he has still fulfilled his obligation.

R. Yohanan said: To let people know that the New Moon has been fixed at its proper time. Do we then use this as a distinguishing sign? Do we not in fact use another distinguishing sign, as we have learned: “The fats of the Morning Tamid offering were placed on the lower half of the Ascent [of the altar] on its east side, while those of the additional offerings were placed on the lower half of the Ascent on its west side; while those of the New Moon were placed beneath the rim of the altar below,”

and in connection with this R. Yohanan stated that [the reason for this was] that to let people know that the New Moon has been fixed at its proper time? Two distinguishing signs were made, so that some might see the one while others might see the other.

R. Yohanan said: Woe to the idolaters, for they had a loss and do not know what they have lost.When the Temple was in existence the altar atoned for them, but now who shall atone for them?

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.

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.

Rather, it must be according to the Rabbis, and [even according to them] we read [on the other days] at any rate when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil! This is refutation of R. Yohanan.

There are those who say: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day.

He said to him: This evening you neglected the regular afternoon sacrifice, and now you have neglected the study of the Torah. Joshua replied: For which of them did you come? He answered: I have come now. Straightway, “Joshua spent that night in the midst of the valley [ha-emek]” (Joshua 8:9), and R. Yohanan said:

R. Yohanan said: When I was a boy, I said something which I afterwards questioned the old men about,

And if you were to say that [even so] his is not as good as his brothers, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: I myself have seen the flowing of milk and honey of the whole land of Israel, and it extends [altogether] about as far as from Be Kubi to the Fort of Tulbanke, twenty-two parasangs in length and six parasangs in breadth?

Is this so? But did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world, as it says, “They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4). Also it has been taught: R. Dostai b. Maton says: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. And if one should whisper to you saying, “Do not contend with evildoers, neither be envious against those that do acts of unrighteousness,” one whose conscience smites him is saying this.

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who said it in the name of R. Yose.

R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text, In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:

Rav and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan and R. Haviva teach [the above statement in this form]: in the whole of the Order Mo’ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Yohanan is replaced by R. Jonathan): Esther sent to the sages saying, “Write an account of me for the ages. They sent back: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20) — three times and not four?

Rav and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan and R. Haviva teach [the above statement in this form]: in the whole of the Order Mo’ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Yohanan is replaced by R. Jonathan): Esther sent to the sages saying, “Write an account of me for the ages. They sent back: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20) — three times and not four?

We have learned elsewhere: If any who has incurred the penalty of karet is flogged — they are exempt from karet, as it says, “Lest your brother should be dishonored in your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3) once he has been flogged, he is like thy brother, the words of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan said: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel’s colleagues disagreed with him on this point.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Now does the Holy One, blessed be He, rejoice in the downfall of the wicked? Is it not written, “As they went out before the army, and say, Give thanks unto the Lord, for his mercy endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21), and R. Yohanan said, Why are the words “for he is good” omitted from this thanksgiving? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked?