# snc

lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k8b_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k8b_2:" Lit., 'his 'erub is an 'erub &hellip; his 'erub is not an 'erub.' On the Sabbath one may not go more than two thousand cubits out of the town. This, however, may be extended by placing some food (called an 'erub) at any spot within the two thousand cubits on Friday; by a legal fiction that spot becomes the Sabbath abode, since he can now eat his meal there, and from there he is permitted to walk a further two thousand cubits in any direction. This food must so be placed that it is permissible to take it on the Sabbath."
,k8b_3:" E.g., he placed a small board on the bottom and the food upon it."
,k8b_4:" E.g., by removing some of the earth at the bottom."
,k8b_5:" The whole of that pit being ten deep, it is private ground (<i>supra</i> 6a), and no object in it, even if raised to the very edge, may be taken out into the thoroughfare. Hence the 'erub is inaccessible, and therefore invalid.-'He is in one place' &mdash; sc. in public ground, 'and his 'erub in another,'-in private ground."
,k8b_6:" 'Above' and 'below' referring to the bottom of the pit."
,k8b_7:" For otherwise it would not be regarded as public ground."
,k8b_8:" E.g., the pit was in a plain; <i>supra</i> fol. 6a."
,k8b_9:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 6b."
,k8b_10:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This includes carrying between public ground and a <i>karmelith</i>."
,k8b_11:" On Friday, because it is doubtful whether twilight belongs to the day (Friday) or night (the Sabbath), while a shebuth itself is not a stringent prohibition. Hence be could have taken out his food at twilight, which is just the time when the 'erub acquires that spot for him as his resting place for the Sabbath,"
,k8b_12:" Viz., that service with difficulty is not regarded as public use."
,k8b_13:" I.e., it travels four cubits before it alights."
,k8b_14:" Hence it is open for public use."
,k8b_15:" Through travelling."
,k8b_16:" As when the public road traverses a pool."
,k8b_17:" This is deduced from the emphasis on 'traversing'."
,k8b_18:" Thus moving it: yet he does not actually lift it entirely from the ground at any moment."
,k8b_19:" Lit., 'removes it' completely from the ground."
,k8b_20:" Rashi: e.g., one leading to an alley."
,k8b_21:" Being four handbreadths square but less than ten high, so that it does not rank as private ground."
,k8b_22:" Of carrying between a <i>karmelith</i> and public or private ground, though its infringement is not punishable."
,k8b_23:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k8b_24:" Using it as a means of transport between public and private ground."
,k8b_25:" Lit., 'from the beginning of four to the end of four.' "
}

txt:
<p>
If one intends to take up his Sabbath abode in a public ground, and places his 'erub<a id="k8b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in a pit above ten handbreadths, it is a valid 'erub; if below ten handbreadths, it is not a valid 'erub.<a id="k8b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this meant? Shall we say, [he placed it] in a pit ten [handbreadths] in depth, and 'above' means that he raised [the bottom] and set it [the 'erub] there;<a id="k8b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'below' means that he lowered it<a id="k8b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and set it there: what is the difference between above and below? He is in one place and his erub in another!<a id="k8b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must surely refer to a pit not ten deep,<a id="k8b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is taught, it is a valid 'erub, which proves that use with difficulty is regarded as use?<a id="k8b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Sometimes he answered him: Both he and his 'erub were in a <i>karmelith</i>,<a id="k8b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and why is it called public ground? Because it is not private ground.<a id="k8b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And sometimes he answered him: He was on public ground while his 'erub was in a <i>karmelith</i>, this agreeing with Rabbi, who maintained: Whatever is [interdicted] as a shebuth<a id="k8b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was not forbidden at twilight.<a id="k8b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And do not think that I am merely putting you off, but I say it to you with exactitude.<a id="k8b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: If there is a water pool and a public road traverses it, if one throws [an object] four cubits therein, he is liable. And what depth constitutes a pool? Less than ten handbreadths. And if there is a pool of water traversed by a public road, and one throws [an object] four cubits therein,<a id="k8b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable. Now, as for mentioning this pool twice, it is well; one refers to summer and the other to winter, and both are necessary. For if we were informed [this about] summer, [it might be said the reason] is because it is the practice. of people to cool themselves;<a id="k8b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but in winter I would say [that it is] not [so]. And if we were informed this of winter, [it might be id the reason] is because becoming mud-stained<a id="k8b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it may happen that he goes down [into the water]; but in summer [I would say that it is] not [so]; thus both are necessary. But why mention traversing, twice? Hence. it must surely follow that a passage under difficulties<a id="k8b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as a [public] passage, whereas use under difficulties is not regarded as [public] use.<a id="k8b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it. Rab Judah said: In the case of a bundle of canes: if one repeatedly throws it down and raises it,<a id="k8b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not liable unless he lifts it up.<a id="k8b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'A man standing on a threshold may take [an object] from or give [it] to the master of the house, and may take an object] from or give [it] to the poor man.' What is this threshold? Shall we say, a threshold of a public road?<a id="k8b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [How state that] he 'may take [an object] from the master of the house'? Surely he [thereby] carries [it] from private to public ground! Again, if it is a threshold of a private domain-[how state that] 'he may take [an object] from the poor man'? Surely he [thereby] carries [it] from public to private ground? Or again if it is a threshold of a <i>karmelith</i>,<a id="k8b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [how state that] 'he may take or give' [implying] even at the very outset? But after all, the prohibition does exist.<a id="k8b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather it must mean a threshold which is merely a place of non-liability, e.g., if it is not four [handbreadths] square. And [it is] even as what R. Dimi, when he came,<a id="k8b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; said in the name of R. Johanan: A place which is less than four square, the denizens both of public and private ground may rearrange their burdens upon it, provided that they do not exchange.<a id="k8b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'Providing that he does not take from the. master of the house and give to the poor man or the reverse, and if he does take and give [from one to the other], the three are exempt.' Shall we say that this refutes Raba? For Raba said: if one carries an object full four cubits<a id="k8b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; in the street, even if he carries it
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k9a_1:" Rashi: above his hand; i.e., through space more than ten handbreadths from the ground, which is a place of non-liability. R. Han. and Tosaf.: from the right to the left hand, i.e., across his body."
,k9a_2:" On Rashi's interpretation the difficulty is obvious: carrying an object via a place of non-liability is the same as transferring it from public to private ground by way of a threshold, which is a similar place, yet Raba rules that the former imposes liability, whereas the Baraitha states that the three are exempt. According to R. Han. and Tosaf. the difficulty appears to be this: when a person passes an object from one hand to another, his own body not moving, he is in a similar position to this man who stands on the threshold and takes the one and gives to the other, himself not moving, and its passing his stationary body in the former case is the same as when in the latter case it is laid down on the threshold; so, at least, one might argue. (Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] and in 'Er. 98a s.v. [H])"
,k9a_3:" Hence in the case posited by Raba we disregard the method of its passage and condemn him for carrying an object four cubits in the street."
,k9a_4:" Rashi: this is now assumed to refer to a threshold lying at the opening of a blind alley between it and the public road. An alley was made fit for carrying by planting a stake at the side of the opening, which by a legal fiction was regarded as a complete partition stretching right across, and it is understood that this threshold is excluded from the partitioning influence of a stake, which was fixed at the inner side of the threshold. Tosaf. explains it somewhat differently."
,k9a_5:" On the outer side; v. preceding note."
,k9a_6:" 'That which &hellip; opening' is understood to mean the threshold, it being assumed that the stake is fixed on its inner side, so that the threshold does not come within its influence and therefore it must be enclosed, as it were, and converted into private ground before carrying therein is permitted. This contradicts the Baraitha."
,k9a_7:" This alley was rendered fit for carrying not by a stake but by a beam across its front (v. 'Er. 11b); and it was also furnished with a door or gate at its opening. Now, the threshold referred to here lies in front of the door, while the beam overhead covers the inner half of the threshold. If the door is open (it opened inwards) the whole threshold is counted as part of the alley, and so it is permitted; if it is closed, the threshold is shut out, and even the portion under the beam is forbidden."
,k9a_8:" The entrance was covered over from above; if the cover was a single beam four handbreadths wide, everything beneath it, including the threshold, is permitted, as imaginary partitions are assumed to descend from the sides of the beam parallel to the house and enclose the entrance. But this assumption is not made when the beam is less than four in width. Again, when two beams are less than three handbreadths apart, the whole, including the space, is regarded as one, on the principle of labud, providing that there is nothing between them to break their imaginary unity. Now, the reference here is to a threshold in the middle of which the door is set. If this entrance is open, nothing breaks the unity above, and since the width of the two beams plus the space between is four cubits, the threshold is permitted. But if it is shut, the door coming between the two beams above forbids the assumption that they are united, and by corollary, the imaginary existence of partitions; hence the threshold remains forbidden."
,k9a_9:" Who is the 'others' mentioned as authors of this teaching, v. <i>supra</i> p. 11, n. 3."
,k9a_10:" Of the same size; since such constitutes private ground, one may not move an article from it into the street, and so even when situated in private ground it is also forbidden, lest one lead to the other. "
}

txt:
<p>
across [or, over] himself,<a id="k9a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable.<a id="k9a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There it does not come to rest [in the place of non-liability], whereas here it does.<a id="k9a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Others state, A threshold serves as two domains: if the door is open, it is as within; if the door is shut, it is as without.'<a id="k9a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Even if it has no stake?<a id="k9a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Hama b. Goria said in Rab's name: That which lies within the opening requires another stake to permit it.<a id="k9a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer that [the reference is to a threshold which] is not four square: surely R. Hama b. Goria said in Rab's name: That which lies within the opening, even if less than four square, requires another stake to permit it!-Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: The reference here is to the threshold of an alley, half of which [threshold] is covered and half uncovered, the covering being toward the inner side: [hence] if the door is open, it is as within; if the door is shut, it is as without.<a id="k9a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: After all, it refers to the threshold of a house, and e.g., where it is covered over with two beams, neither being four [handbreadths wide], and there are less than three [handbreadths] between them, while the door is in the middle: if the entrance is open, it is as within, if shut, it is as without.<a id="k9a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'But if the threshold is ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, it is a separate domain.' This supports R. Isaac b. Abdimi. For R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, R. Meir<a id="k9a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; used to teach: Wherever you find two domains which are really one, e.g., a pillar in private ground ten high and four broad, one may not re-arrange a burden thereon, for fear of a mound in a public domain.<a id="k9a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k9b_1:" The afternoon service."
,k9b_2:" Lest he forget about the service. This refers to weekdays, and is taught here because of its similarity to the next Mishnah on 11a."
,k9b_3:" For the service &mdash; providing that there will still be time when they finish."
,k9b_4:" The <i>Shema'</i>('hear') is the name of the Biblical passages Deut. VI, 4-9; XI, 13-21; Num. XV, 37-41 the first of which commences with that word <i>shema'</i> (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One). The 'prayer' par excellence is the 'Eighteen Benedictions.' Both the <i>shema'</i> and the service must be recited daily, but the former is regarded as a Biblical obligation whereas the latter is a Rabbinical institution (v. Elbogen, Judische Gottesdienst, 27ff; J.E. art. Shemoneh Esreh); hence the activities mentioned in the Mishnah must be interrupted as soon as it is time to recite the <i>shema'</i>, even though it can be recited later, but not for the 'service.'"
,k9b_5:" The Talmud distinguished two times for <i>minhah</i>: the major, i.e., first <i>minhah</i>, at 12:30 p.m. and the minor, i.e., the late <i>minhah</i>, from 3:30 to sunset, which was calculated as at 6 p.m. but the service was not generally delayed after the minor <i>minhah</i>, i.e., after 3:30. V. Elbogen, <i>op. cit</i>. pp. 98ff; J. E. XVIII, 59b."
,k9b_6:" Lit., 'taste'."
,k9b_7:" The son-in-law of R. Judah ha-Nasi; he cropped his hair closely in the manner of the High Priest, v. Sanh. 22b. This was a long process and if one commenced it even before the major <i>minhah</i> he might be too late for the service."
,k9b_8:" For descriptions of long meals and short meals v. T.A. III, pp. 28f."
,k9b_9:" And by the time another pair is procured it may be too late for the service."
,k9b_10:" Or, be overcome by weakness."
,k9b_11:" Even not to superintend the whole process."
,k9b_12:" And make him forget about the service."
,k9b_13:" Which will necessitate starting afresh."
,k9b_14:" So that it shall be unneccesary to break it off for the service."
,k9b_15:" I.e., when he starts undressing."
,k9b_16:" Rashi: the Babylonians were tightly belted, so they loosened the girdle before eating; but for the Palestinians this was unnecessary. R. Han. reverses it."
,k9b_17:" It is disputed in Ber. 27b whether the evening service is compulsory or voluntary."
,k9b_18:" To refrain from their meal until they have prayed. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MUST NOT SIT DOWN BEFORE A BARBER NEAR MINHAH<a id="k9b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; UNTIL, HE HAS PRAYED: NOR MAY HE ENTER THE BATHS OR A TANNERY, NOR TO EAT NOR FOR A LAWSUIT,<a id="k9b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; YET IF THEY BEGAN, THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF.<a id="k9b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MUST BREAK OFF FOR THE READING OF THE <I>SHEMA'</I>, BUT NOT FOR PRAYER.<a id="k9b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Near what <i>minhah</i>?<a id="k9b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say, near the major <i>minhah</i>? But why not, seeing that there is yet plenty of time in the day? But if near the minor <I>Minhah</I>: YET IF THEY BEGAN THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF? Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Joshua b. Levi? For R. Joshua b. Levi said: As soon as it is time for the <i>minhah</i> service one may not eat<a id="k9b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; anything before he has recited the <i>minhah</i> service. &mdash; No. After all [it means] near the major <i>minhah</i>, but the reference is to a hair-cut in the fashion of Ben' Elasah.<a id="k9b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [Similarly.] [NOR MAY HE ENTER] THE BATHS [means] for the complete process of the baths; NOR A TANNERY, for tanning on a large scale; NOR EAT at a long meal [of many courses]:<a id="k9b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR FOR A LAWSUIT, at the beginning of the trial.
</p><p>
	R. Aha b. Jacob said: After all, it refers to our mode of hair cutting and why must he not sit down [for it] at the very outset? For fear lest the scissors be broken.<a id="k9b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [Similarly] NOR TO THE BATHS [means] merely for sweating; [and] why not [do this] in the first place? For fear lest he faint [there].<a id="k9b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR A TANNERY, merely to inspect it:<a id="k9b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] why not at the very outset? Lest he see his wares being spoilt, which will trouble him.<a id="k9b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR TO EAT [means even] a small meal: [and] why not at the very outset? Lest he come to prolong it. NOR TO A LAWSUIT, for the end of the trial; [and] why not [enter] at the very outset? Lest he see an argument to overthrow the verdict.<a id="k9b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is the beginning of a hair-cut?<a id="k9b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Abin: When the barber's sheet is placed on one's knees. And when is the beginning of a bath? Said R. Abin: When one removes his cloak.<a id="k9b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And when is the beginning of tanning? When he ties [an apron] round his shoulders. And when is the beginning of eating? Rab said: When one washes his hands; R. Hanina said: When he loosens his girdle. But they do not differ: the one refers to ourselves [Babylonians]: the other to them [Palestinians].<a id="k9b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: These Babylonian scholars, on the view that the evening service is voluntary,<a id="k9b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; once they have undone their girdle [to eat], we do not trouble them;<a id="k9b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but on the view that it is obligatory, do we trouble them? But what of the <i>minhah</i> service, which all agree is obligatory, and still we learnt, YET IF THEY BEGAN, THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF; whereon R. Hanina said, [That means] when he loosens his girdle?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k10a_1:" At minhah time."
,k10a_2:" It was not customary to drink much by day; but the evening meal was often prolonged through drinking; therefore, on the view that the evening service is obligatory, one must refrain from his meal even if he has removed his girdle."
,k10a_3:" Careful not to overstep it."
,k10a_4:" Surely you cannot maintain that by that slight act he has commenced his meal."
,k10a_5:" Amos IV, 12. When it is customary to wear a girdle, it is not fitting to pray without one."
,k10a_6:" Rashi: divested himself of his costly upper cloak as a mark of humility."
,k10a_7:" On these preparations for prayer cf. <I>MGWJ</I>. 1935 Vol. 4, pp. 330f."
,k10a_8:" Though the general order and contents of the service, e.g., the Eighteen Benedictions (v. Elbogen, <i>op. cit</i>. pp. 5, 27: [H] and [H] refer to these) was settled, the actual text was left to each individual (ibid, pp. 41 seqq.), and R. Hamnuna may have thus prayed at great length; or perhaps this length was due to devotional intensity."
,k10a_9:" They spend time in prayer which might be more usefully employed in study: the former, which is a petition for health, sustenance, etc., he called temporal life &mdash; not with great exactitude, as it also contains prayers for knowledge, repentance, and forgiveness. This is interesting as shewing the high place occupied by study as a religious observance in itself,"
,k10a_10:" Prov. XXVIII, 9."
,k10a_11:" In their praying shawls (<i>tallith</i>), that they might be duly impressed with the solemnity of dispensing justice,"
,k10a_12:" Having started earlier with a different suit."
,k10a_13:" Of the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>."
,k10a_14:" Rashi: they grieved at not being able to study. Or literally, because they had not eaten all day."
,k10a_15:" A town probably to be identified with Dibtha, in the vicinity of Wasit on the Tigris; Obermeyer, p. 197."
,k10a_16:" Ex. XVIII, 13."
,k10a_17:" Lit., 'who judges a true judgment according to its truth'. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 27, n. 8."
,k10a_18:" Lit., 'work of the Beginning'."
,k10a_19:" Gen. 1, 5. The deduction is based on the similarity of the phrases used in both cases.-Thus, according to Rashi's first reason for their faintness (v. n. 4) he comforted them with the assurance of great reward. According to the second, he told them that they were not bound to sit and judge all day."
,k10a_20:" Eccl. X, 16f."
,k10a_21:" Translating: thy princes, viz., judges, do not eat the first thing in the morning, but sit and judge until the proper time for eating."
,k10a_22:" Which was reckoned from six a.m. to six p.m."
,k10a_23:" Whose diet required special attention (Jast.); or perhaps, circus attendants."
,k10a_24:" Rashi in Pes. 12b: both are rapacious, hence they eat so early; but robbers, being awake all night, sleep during the first hour of the day."
,k10a_25:" Not having to earn a living, they can eat earlier than others."
,k10a_26:" In the field."
,k10a_27:" Rashi: no benefit is derived."
,k10a_28:" To postponing the main meal,"
,k10a_29:" In the outer chamber."
,k10a_30:" ) Lit., 'enquiring after one's Peace.'"
,k10a_31:" In Talmudic times these were worn all day, not only at the morning service as nowadays."
,k10a_32:" In the inner chamber."
,k10a_33:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k10a_34:" In the same connection."
,k10a_35:" I.e., which had never been used, but merely (designated for baths"
,k10a_36:" Does designation subject the place to the laws appertaining to a privy?"
,k10a_37:" But surely he could have solved it on the latest interpretation from R. Adda's ruling. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; There<a id="k10a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; drinking is rare; here it is usual.<a id="k10a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, as for minhah, since it has a fixed time, one is afraid<a id="k10a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and will not come to transgress; but as for the evening service, since there is time for it all night, he is not afraid, and may come to transgress.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth demurred: Is it any trouble to remove the girdle!<a id="k10a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; moreover, let him stand thus [ungirdled] and pray? &mdash Because it is said, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.<a id="k10a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba son of R. Huna put on stockings and prayed, quoting, 'prepare to meet etc.' Raba removed his cloak,<a id="k10a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; clasped his hands and prayed, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' R. Ashi said: I saw R. Kahana, when there was trouble in the world, removing his cloak, clasp his hands, and pray, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' When there was peace, he would put it on, cover and enfold himself and pray, quoting, 'Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.'<a id="k10a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba saw R. Hamnuna prolonging his prayers.<a id="k10a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he, They forsake eternal life and occupy themselves with temporal life.<a id="k10a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But he [R. Hamnuna] held, The times for prayer and [study of the] Torah are distinct from each other. R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera engaged in study; as it was growing late for the service, R. Jeremiah was making haste [to adjourn]. Thereupon R. Zera applied to him [the verse], He that turneth away from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.<a id="k10a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When is the beginning of a lawsuit? R. Jeremiah and R. Jonah one maintains: When the judges wrap themselves round;<a id="k10a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other says: When the litigants commence [their pleas]. And they do not differ: the latter means when they are already engaged in judging;<a id="k10a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the former, when they are not already engaged in judging.
</p><p>
	R. Ammi and R. Assi were sitting and studying between the pillars;<a id="k10a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; every now and then they knocked at the side of the door and announced: If anyone has a lawsuit, let him enter and come. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna were sitting all day [engaged] in judgments, and their hearts grew faint,<a id="k10a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [whereat] R. Hiyya b. Rab of Difti<a id="k10a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; recited to them, and the people stood about Moses from the morning into the evening;<a id="k10a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; now, can you really think that Moses sat and judged all day? when was his learning done? But it is to teach you, Every judge who judges with complete fairness<a id="k10a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; even for a single hour, the Writ gives him credit as though he had become a partner to the Holy One, blessed be He, in the creation.<a id="k10a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [For] here it is written, 'and the people stood about Moses from the morning into the evening'; whilst elsewhere it is written, and there was morning, and there was evening, one day.<a id="k10a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Until when must they [the judges)sit at judgment? &mdash; R. Shesheth said: Until the time of the [main] meal [of the day]. R. Hama observed, What verse [teaches this]? For it is written, Woe to thee,  land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! Happy art thou,  land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!<a id="k10a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [i.e.,] in the strength of the Torah and not in the drunkenness of wine.<a id="k10a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The first hour [of the day]<a id="k10a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is the mealtime for gladiators;<a id="k10a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the second, for robbers;<a id="k10a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the third, for heirs;<a id="k10a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the fourth, for labourers,<a id="k10a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the fifth, for all [other] people. But that is not so, for R. Papa said: The fourth [hour] is the mealtime for all people? &mdash; Rather the fourth hour is the mealtime for all [other] people, the fifth for [agricultural] labourers, and the sixth for scholars. After that it is like throwing a stone into a barrel.<a id="k10a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: That was said only if nothing at all is eaten in the morning; but if something is eaten in the morning, there is no objection.<a id="k10a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Adda b. Ahabah said: One may recite his prayers [the Eighteen Benedictions] at the baths. An objection is raised: If one enters the baths in the place where people stand dressed,<a id="k10a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; both reading [the <i>shema'</i>] and prayer [the Eighteen Benedictions] are permissible, and a greeting of 'Peace'<a id="k10a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; goes without saying; and one may don the phylacteries there,<a id="k10a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and it goes without saying that he need not remove them [if already wearing them]; in the place where people stand undressed,<a id="k10a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; a greeting of 'Peace' is not permissible there<a id="k10a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and reading and praying goes without saying; the phylacteries must be removed, and it goes without saying that they must not be donned!-When R. Adda b. Ahabah made his statement it referred to baths in which no one is present. But did not R. Jose b. Hanina say: The baths of which they [the Rabbis] spoke are even those in which none are present; the privy closet of which they spoke<a id="k10a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; means even such as contains no excrement? &mdash; Rather, when R. Adda stated [his ruling] it was in reference to new [baths].<a id="k10a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely [this is just what] Rabina propounded: What if a place is designated for a privy closet; is designation recognized or not?<a id="k10a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was not solved. Now did not the same [query of his] apply to baths?<a id="k10a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; No. Perhaps
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k10b_1:" Hence mere designation may suffice there, yet be ineffective in respect to baths."
,k10b_2:" Judg. VI, 24. The form of the greeting was 'Peace unto thee,' 'What is thy peace?'"
,k10b_3:" By my word! A term of asseveration,"
,k10b_4:" Deut. VII, 9."
,k10b_5:" 'Faithful' is an adjective; 'peace' is a predicative substantive referring to God."
,k10b_6:" Ex. XXXI, 13."
,k10b_7:" To the child, that his mother may know."
,k10b_8:" Lit., 'fill',"
,k10b_9:" A powder used for painting the eyelids.-His mother, seeing this, will enquire who did it, and so the child will tell her about the loaf too."
,k10b_10:" The mother may think that the child was put under a spell."
,k10b_11:" Of whatever he gives him."
,k10b_12:" Ex. XXXIV, 29."
,k10b_13:" And this Moses was bidden to do."
,k10b_14:" He was a priest, v. Ber. 44a. The 'gifts' are the priestly dues, viz., the shoulder, jaws and the maw."
,k10b_15:" And you, being Rab's disciple, cherish his sayings."
,k10b_16:" Lit., 'distinguish'."
,k10b_17:" Lit., 'and the matter was rolled on and our forefathers descended' etc."
,k10b_18:" Gen. XIX, 20."
,k10b_19:" Likewise expressed by kerobah."
,k10b_20:" Gen. XIX, 20."
,k10b_21:" Heb. [H]; every letter in Hebrew is also a number. "
}

txt:
<p>
a privy is different, because it is offensive.<a id="k10b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'A greeting of 'Peace' is not permissible there'. This supports the following dictum of R. Haninuna on 'Ulla's authority: A man may not extend a greeting of 'Peace' to his neighbour in the baths, because it is said, And he called it, The Lord is peace.<a id="k10b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, let it also be forbidden to mention, By faith!<a id="k10b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in a privy, for it is written, the faithful God?<a id="k10b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, that indeed is so: but R. Hama b. Goria said in Rab's name, By faith! may be mentioned in a privy? &mdash; There the Name itself is not so designated, as we translate it, God is faithful; but here the Name itself is designated 'Peace,' as it is written, and he called it, The Lord is Peace.<a id="k10b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: If one makes a gift to his neighbour, he must inform him [beforehand], as it is written, that ye may know that I the Lord sanctify you:<a id="k10b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught likewise: That ye may know that I the Lord sanctify you: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, I have a precious gift in My treasure house, called the Sabbath, and desire to give it to Israel; go and inform them. Hence R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one gives a loaf to a child, he must inform his mother. What shall he do to him?<a id="k10b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye, He must rub him with oil and paint<a id="k10b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; him with kohl.<a id="k10b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But nowadays that we fear witchcraft what [shall be done]?<a id="k10b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Papa: He must rub him with the self-same kind.<a id="k10b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so, for R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: If one makes a gift to his neighbour, he need not inform him, as it is said, and Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone by reason of his speaking with him?<a id="k10b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one refers to a matter which is likely to be revealed; the other, to one which is not likely to be revealed. But the Sabbath is a matter which stood to be revealed!-Its reward did not stand to be revealed.<a id="k10b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda was holding two [priestly] gifts of oxen in his hand.<a id="k10b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he, 'Whoever will come and tell me a new dictum in Rab's name, I will give them to him.' Said Raba b. Mehasia to him, Thus did Rab say: If one makes a gift to his neighbour he must inform him, as it is said, 'that ye may know that I the Lord sanctify you'. Thereupon he gave them to him. Are Rab's dicta so dear to you? asked he. Yes, he replied. That illustrates what Rab said, he rejoined, A garment is precious to its wearer.<a id="k10b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Did Rab indeed say thus! he exclaimed; I rate the second higher than the first, and if I had another [priestly gift] I would give it to you.
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: A man should never single out<a id="k10b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; one son among his other sons, for on account of the two sela's weight of silk, which Jacob gave Joseph in excess of his other sons, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter resulted in our forefathers' descent into Egypt.<a id="k10b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: A man should always seek to dwell in a city but recently populated, for since it is but recently populated its sins are few, as it is said, behold now, this city is near [kerobah] to flee to, and it is a little one.<a id="k10b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'kerobah'? Shall we say that it is near and small? But surely they could see that for themselves! Rather [he meant,] because it has been recently populated<a id="k10b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; its sins are few. R. Abin said: What verse [supports this]? Oh, let me [na] escape thither:<a id="k10b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the numerical value of na is fifty-one;<a id="k10b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas that of Sodom is fifty-two, whilst its peace
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k11a_1:" Ibid. XIV, 4f. During the twelve years of servitude, the thirteen of rebellion, and the fourteenth of war, they were not at peace; this leaves 26 years of peace before its destruction."
,k11a_2:" Ezra IX, 9. Thus, when 'the house of our God' is exalted, the ruins are repaired; the present saying is its converse."
,k11a_3:" A famous town near Sura on the Euphrates (Obermeyer, p. 188) which possessed an academy of which R. Ashi was the principal."
,k11a_4:" By not permitting houses to be built higher than the Synagogue."
,k11a_5:" There is evidence that Mehasia was still standing in the second half of the seventh; consequently the destruction mentioned here must have been a partial one; ibid. p. 290."
,k11a_6:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Edomite. Jast.: rather under Arabic dominion than under Byzantium."
,k11a_7:" Parsee, v. Git., Sonc. ed., p. 63, n. 2."
,k11a_8:" A scholar is quick to punish; and God himself punishes an affront to an orphan or widow."
,k11a_9:" Prov. XXV, 3."
,k11a_10:" Dreams were believed portents foreshadowing the future, though, as seen here, the evil they foretold might be averted. Cf. Ber. 55-58. B.B. 10a; Yoma 87b et passim. Though R. Meir said,' Dreams neither help nor harm,' (Hor. 13b) we find that he was warned against a certain innkeeper in a dream (Yoma 38b)."
,k11a_11:" Though otherwise fasting is forbidden on the Sabbath, a dream-fast is permitted."
,k11a_12:" So Rashi in 'Er. 63a."
,k11a_13:" If one vows to fast, he may 'borrow,' i.e., postpone it and subsequently 'repay,' i.e., keep it later."
,k11a_14:" Lit., 'words of Torah.'"
,k11a_15:" Who interrupt our studies for business."
,k11a_16:" The Jewish year consists of twelve lunar months. As this is about eleven days shorter than the solar year, an additional month was periodically intercalated, and when the Intercalatory Board deliberated the question of prolonging the year, they did not interrupt themselves for the shema or the service."
,k11a_17:" A town in immediate proximity to Nehardea on the Euphrates. By the middle of the fourth century Nehardea was already on the decline and many scholars preferred to live in Hagrunia, as shown by the phrase, the Elders (i.e., the leading scholars) of Hagrunia. Obermeyer, pp. 265-267."
,k11a_18:" The famous town N.W. of Jerusalem which R. Johanan b. Zakkai made the chief academical centre and the seat of the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Jewish state in 70 C.E."
,k11a_19:" Of the Sabbath."
,k11a_20:" In the evening."
,k11a_21:" Lest the light flickers and he tilts the lamp that the oil should flow more freely, which is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k11a_22:" Lit., 'supervisor.' In the Talmudic period the word did not denote synagogue reader, as in modern times, but was applied to various functionaries, e.g., the person who supervised children's studies in the synagogue, the beadle, the court crier, and the janitor at academical debates. Possibly the same man combined a number of these functions. V. Sot., Sonc. ed., p. 202, n. 4."
,k11a_23:" V. Gemara."
,k11a_24:" On <i>zab</i> and zabah v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k11a_25:" Viz., intimacy, which is forbidden."
,k11a_26:" On the Sabbath. He must not put his head into the other domain, lest he draw the drinking cup to himself, thus transferring an object from one domain to another. "
}

txt:
<p>
[lasted] twenty-six [years], as it is written, Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and thirteen years they rebelled. And in the fourteenth year, etc.<a id="k11a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Every city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed, as it is said, to exalt the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof.<a id="k11a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet that refers only to houses; but as for towers and turrets, we have no objection. R. Ashi said: I achieved for the town of Mehasia<a id="k11a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; that it was not destroyed.<a id="k11a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was destroyed!<a id="k11a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It was not destroyed as a result of that sin.
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: [Let one be] under an Ishmaelite but not under a 'stranger';<a id="k11a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; under a stranger but not under a Gueber;<a id="k11a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; under a Parsee but not under a scholar; under a scholar but not under an orphan or a widow.<a id="k11a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Rather any complaint, but not a complaint of the bowels; any pain, but not heart pain; any ache, but not head ache; any evil, but not an evil wife! 
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: If all seas were ink, reeds pens, the heavens parchment, and all men writers, they would not suffice to write down the intricacies of government. Said R. Mesharshia, What verse [teaches this]? The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.<a id="k11a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire against tow.<a id="k11a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hisda: Providing it is on that very day. R. Joseph added: And even on the Sabbath.<a id="k11a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua son of R. Idi chanced on the home of R. Ashi. A third grown calf<a id="k11a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; was prepared for him and he was invited, 'Master, partake somewhat.' 'I am engaged in a fast,' he replied. 'And do you not accept Rab Judah's ruling in Rab's name: One may borrow his fast and repay it?<a id="k11a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It is a fast on account of a dream,' he answered, 'and Raba b. Mehasia said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire against tow; and R. Hisda said, Providing it is on that very day; and R. Joseph added: And even on the Sabbath.'
</p><p>
	YET IF THEY BEGAN, THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF. ONE MUST BREAK OFF FOR THE READING OF THE <I>SHEMA'</I>, [BUT NOT FOR PRAYER]. But the first clause teaches, THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF? &mdash; The second clause refers to study.<a id="k11a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: If companions [scholars] are engaged in studying, they must break off for the reading of the <i>shema'</i>, but not for prayer. R. Johanan said: This was taught only of such as R. Simeon b. Yohai and his companions, whose study was their profession; but we<a id="k11a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; must break off both for the reading of the <i>shema'</i> and for prayer. But it was taught: Just as they do not break off for the service, so do they not break off for the reading of the <i>shema'</i>? &mdash; That was taught in reference to the intercalation of the year.<a id="k11a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Adda b. Ahabah said, and the Elders of Hagrunia<a id="k11a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; recited likewise: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: When we were engaged in intercalating the year at Yabneh,<a id="k11a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; we made no break for the reading of the <i>shema'</i> or prayer.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A TAILOR MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIS NEEDLE NEAR NIGHTFALL,<a id="k11a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; LEST HE FORGET AND GO OUT,<a id="k11a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR A SCRIBE WITH HIS QUILL; AND ONE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS [FOR VERMIN, NOR READ BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.<a id="k11a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID, THE HAZZAN<a id="k11a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY SEE WHERE THE CHILDREN READ,<a id="k11a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT HE HIMSELF MUST NOT READ. SIMILARLY IT WAS SAID, A <I>ZAB</I> MUST NOT DINE TOGETHER WITH A ZABAH,<a id="k11a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; AS IT MAY LEAD TO SIN.<a id="k11a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. We learnt elsewhere: One must not stand in private ground and drink in public ground, or on public ground and drink in private ground;<a id="k11a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he inserts his head and the greater part [of his body] into the place where he drinks, it is permitted;
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k11b_1:" This is now assumed to mean that one must not stand in either a public or private ground, as the case may be, and drink from the vat."
,k11b_2:" May one stand in public or private ground and drink in a <i>karmelith</i>, or vice versa?"
,k11b_3:" The prohibition of actually transporting an object between a <i>karmelith</i> and public or private ground."
,k11b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> 6a on <i>karmelith</i>."
,k11b_5:" Sc. the prohibition of standing in one domain and drinking in another."
,k11b_6:" Lit., 'for'."
,k11b_7:" Surely not."
,k11b_8:" The vat is the utensil into which the expressed juice of the grapes runs, whence it descends into the pit beneath. Once it is in the pit its manufacture as wine is complete, and it is liable to tithes, before the rendering of which nothing at all may be drunk. But while it is yet in the vat its manufacture is not complete, and so a little wine may be drunk even before the rendering of the tithes. That, however, is only if it is drunk directly over the vat; if it is taken out, that action itself confers upon it the status of finished wine, and the tithes, etc., must first be given. Thus, when it is taught, 'and the same applies to a wine vat', it means that if one drinks wine from the vat, he is regarded as taking it away, unless he has his head and greater part of his body in the vat, and must render the tithes before he drinks.-Wine was not drunk neat, but diluted with water; if it is diluted with cold water, the rest can be poured back into the vat; if with hot water, it cannot, the hot mixture injuring the rest. R. Meir holds that in both cases, since he does not take it away from the vat, he can drink a little without tithing; R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok rejects this view. The Sages agree with R. Meir if it is diluted with cold water; if it is diluted with hot, since the rest cannot be returned into the vat, it is as though it were carried away, and therefore may not be drunk."
,k11b_9:" Then even carrying it out on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden as a preventive measure, lest one carry in general, and yet he must also not go out before the Sabbath as a preventive measure lest he go on the Sabbath itself. Thus we have one preventive measure to safeguard another in respect to the Sabbath."
,k11b_10:" This is Biblically forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k11b_11:" And this is such; thus he regards it as Biblically forbidden."
,k11b_12:" Rashi: this was the sign of his trade, and he wore it that he might be recognized and offered employment."
,k11b_13:" Krauss in T.A. 1. p. 249 and p. 281 a.l. translates: a small distaff, carried behind the ear as an indication of a man's trade."
,k11b_14:" A coin."
,k11b_15:" He regards these as unnatural ways of carrying, whereas Scripture prohibits only the natural mode of any particular form of labour."
,k11b_16:" To receive his discharge."
,k11b_17:" Because he did not do it in a professional manner? Surely not, for if so only a skilled worker will be liable for doing something of his own trade. Hence it must be that a person is liable for doing any labour in the manner natural to himself, and the same applies to a <i>zab</i> and his pouch."
,k11b_18:" Lit., 'sights'-of discharge."
,k11b_19:" When a <i>zab</i> has had three attacks be must bring a sacrifice (Lev. XV, 13-15). Consequently, after two attacks he needs this pouch to see whether he has a third (which otherwise may pass unknown to him), and since he needs it that is the natural way for him to carry it, and therefore he is liable."
,k11b_20:" As in last note."
,k11b_21:" After he ceases to discharge he must count seven consecutive days of cleanness, i.e., in which there is no discharge (ibid.): a single attack during this period necessitates counting afresh from the following day. Hence he too needs this pouch for that period."
,k11b_22:" I.e., he is not liable only if he had the third attack on that Sabbath itself; he does not need the pouch then, as in any case he commences counting only on the next day."
,k11b_23:" I.e., when a thing is done not for its own sake but to prevent something from being soiled, it is not regarded as a positive act and involves no liability. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the same applies to a wine vat.<a id="k11b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The scholars propounded: What of a <i>karmelith</i>?<a id="k11b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Abaye said: It is precisely the same. Raba said: That itself<a id="k11b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is only a preventive measure:<a id="k11b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; are we to arise and enact a preventive measure<a id="k11b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to safeguard<a id="k11b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; another preventive measure!<a id="k11b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said, Whence do I say it? Because it is taught, and the same applies to a wine vat. Now what is this wine vat? If private ground, it has [already] been taught: if public ground, it has [also] been taught. Hence it must surely refer to a <i>karmelith</i>. Raba said: 'And the same applies to a wine vat' is [stated] in reference to tithes; and R. Shesheth said likewise, 'And the same applies to a wine vat' refers to tithes. For we learnt: One may drink [wine] over the vat in [a dilution of] both hot or cold [water], and is exempt [from tithing]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok holds him liable. But the Sages maintain: For a hot [dilution] he is liable; for a cold one he is exempt, because the rest is returned.<a id="k11b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: A TAILOR MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIS NEEDLE NEAR NIGHTFALL, LEST HE FORGET HIMSELF AND GO OUT. Surely that means that it is stuck in his garment?<a id="k11b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; No: it means that he holds it in his hand.<a id="k11b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment. Surely that refers to the eve of Sabbath? &mdash; No; that was taught with reference to the Sabbath. But it was taught, A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment on the eve of the Sabbath just before sunset? &mdash; The author of that is R. Judah, who maintained, An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade.<a id="k11b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: A tailor must not go out with a needle stuck in his garment, nor a carpenter with a chip behind his ear,<a id="k11b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; nor a [wool] corder with the cord in his ear, nor a weaver with the cotton<a id="k11b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in his ear, nor a dyer with a [colour] sample round his neck, nor a money-changer with a <i>denar</i><a id="k11b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; in his ear; and if he does go forth, he is not liable, though it is forbidden: this is R. Meir's view.<a id="k11b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade, but all other people are exempt. 
</p><p>
	One [Baraitha] taught: A <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch;<a id="k11b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; yet if he goes out he is not liable, though it is forbidden. And another taught: A <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch, and if he goes out he is liable to a sin-offering!-Said R. Joseph, There is no difficulty: the former is R. Meir; the latter R. Judah. Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]? For should you not say so, then if an unskilled worker hollows out a measure from a <i>log</i> on the Sabbath, would he indeed be exempt on R. Meir's view?<a id="k11b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Hamnuna, there is no difficulty; the one refers to a <i>zab</i> who has had two attacks,<a id="k11b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to a <i>zab</i> who has had three attacks.<a id="k11b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, why does a <i>zab</i> of two attacks differ in that he is liable? [Presumably] because he requires it for examination!<a id="k11b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But then a <i>zab</i> of three attacks also requires it for counting?<a id="k11b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; It holds good only for that very day.<a id="k11b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet still he needs it to prevent the soiling of his garments? &mdash; Said R. Zera, This agrees with the following Tanna, who maintains, The prevention of soiling has no [positive] importance.<a id="k11b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: If one overturns a basin on a wall, in order that the basin be washed [by the rain], it falls within [the terms of], 'and if it [water] be put [etc.]'; if in order
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k12a_1:" V. Lev. XI, 38. Foodstuffs, e.g., grain, fruit, etc., cannot become unclean unless moisture has fallen upon them after being harvested; also, this moisture must be such as the owner of the foodstuffs desires. Now, in the first instance the rain was desired; hence, even if it rebounds from the basin on to the fruit, it is regarded as desired moisture, though it was not wanted for the latter, and the fruit is henceforth liable to uncleanness. But in the second it was not wanted at all, and therefore does not render the fruit liable. This proves that an action to prevent another thing from being soiled (here, to save the wall from damage) has no positive value."
,k12a_2:" And precisely because he needs the pouch be should be liable."
,k12a_3:" Or kneading trough."
,k12a_4:" The latter is desired, and therefore if it comes into contact with fruit the fruit is liable to uncleanness, but the water that squirts or overflows is not desired. This shows that when a man's intentions are fulfilled, the action is of positive value; so here too, he carries the pouch with a definite intention, which is fulfilled. Hence he should be liable!"
,k12a_5:" R. Judah maintains that one is culpable for an act even if that which necessitates it is undesired; while R. Simeon holds that there is no liability for such. Thus, here the carrying of the pouch is necessitated by the discharge, but the discharge itself is certainly unwanted."
,k12a_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> phylacteries."
,k12a_7:" In Talmudic times the phylacteries were worn all day and in the street, but not on the Sabbath."
,k12a_8:" Lit., 'mention'."
,k12a_9:" Ex. XXVIII, 38."
,k12a_10:" And need not fear that he will go out with them after nightfall,"
,k12a_11:" Lit., 'feel'; to see whether there is anything attached to them or in them."
,k12a_12:" Lit., 'great'."
,k12a_13:" In general, steps must be taken before the Sabbath to avoid the desecration of the Sabbath."
,k12a_14:" I.e., it is a complete labour, and forbidden."
,k12a_15:" In which case HE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS at night only."
,k12a_16:" The same question of interpretation arises here."
,k12a_17:" V. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 13b."
,k12a_18:" Rashi: being idle, the men wear wide garments like women's."
,k12a_19:" Land workers."
,k12a_20:" Whose garments were more like those of men."
,k12a_21:" Even on the Sabbath (Rashi)."
,k12a_22:" Of their death?"
,k12a_23:" On marrying young v. T.A. II, pp, 28f."
,k12a_24:" I.e., for his elementary education. The obligation of a child's education lies primarily upon his father (Kid. 30a), and was left to him originally, public instruction being given to adults only. By the reforms of R. Simeon b. Shetah and Joshua b. Gamala elementary schools were set up for children from the age of six or seven and upwards (J. Keth VIII, ad fin.). From this passage we may conclude that the system of engaging private teachers was also in vogue in the education of girls, v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 141, n. 1 and Ned., p. 107, n. 2. It may be observed that only boys are referred to here."
,k12a_25:" This was definitely obligatory upon the father; Kid. 29a."
,k12a_26:" Both are too sad for the Sabbath."
,k12a_27:" The due observance of the Sabbath will bring recovery in its wake. "
}

txt:
<p>
that the wall be not damaged [by the rain], it does not fall within [the terms of] 'and if it be put [etc.]'<a id="k12a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But how compare! There he does not want that fluid at all, whereas here he needs this pouch to receive the discharge.<a id="k12a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This can only be compared to the second clause: If a tub<a id="k12a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is placed so that the dripping [of water] should fall therein, the water which rebounds or overflows is not within [the meaning of] 'and if [water] be put'; but the water inside it is within [the meaning of] and if [water] be put!<a id="k12a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rather, said both Abaye and Raba, There is no difficulty: the one is according to R. Judah; the other agrees with R. Simeon.<a id="k12a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The School of R. Ishmael taught: A man may go out with his tefillin<a id="k12a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; on the eve of Sabbath near nightfall.<a id="k12a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What's the reason? Because Rabbah son of R. Huna said: One must feel his tefillin every now and then, [inferring] a minori from [the High Priest's] headplate. If in the case of the headplate, which contained the Divine Name<a id="k12a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; only once, yet the Torah said, and it shall always be on his forehead,<a id="k12a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [i.e.,] his mind must not be diverted from it; then with the tefillin, which contain the Divine Name many times, how much more so! therefore he is fully cognizant thereof.<a id="k12a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: Hanania said: One must examine<a id="k12a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; his garments on Sabbath eve before nightfall. R. Joseph observed: That is a vital<a id="k12a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; law for the Sabbath.<a id="k12a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
    <A name="E6"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/6.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 6<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">


	ONE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS [FOR VERMIN] etc. The scholars propounded: [Does this mean], ONE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS by day, lest he kill [the vermin], and would this agree with R. Eliezer, (for it was taught, R. Eliezer said: If one kills vermin on the Sabbath, it is as though he killed a camel);<a id="k12a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; while ONE MAY NOT READ BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP, lest he tilt it? Or perhaps, both are [forbidden] lest he tilt [the lamp]?<a id="k12a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear: One may not search [his garments] nor read by the light of a lamp. But is it stronger than our Mishnah?<a id="k12a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: One may not search his garments by the light of a lamp, nor read by the light of a lamp, and these are of the halachoth stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon.<a id="k12a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves that both are on account lest he tilt [the lamp]; this proves it.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: [It is forbidden] even to distinguish between one's own garments and his wife's [by lamp light]. Said Raba: That was stated only of townspeople;<a id="k12a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but those of country folk<a id="k12a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; are easily distinguished. And [even] in the case of townspeople this was stated only of old women;<a id="k12a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but those of young women are readily distinguishable.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One must not search [his garments] in the street out of decency. In like way R. Judah-others state, R. Nehemiah-said: One must not cause himself to vomit in the street, out of decency.
</p><p>
	<font style="background-color:#A0FFFF">Our Rabbis taught: If one searches his garments [on the Sabbath] he may press [the vermin] and throw it away, providing that he does not kill it. Abba Saul said: He must take and throw it away, providing that he does not press it. R. Huna said, The <I>halachah</I> is, he may press and throw it away, and that is seemly, even on weekdays.</font> Rabbah killed them, and R. Shesheth killed them.<a id="k12a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba threw them into a basin of water. R. Nahman said to his daughters, 'Kill them and let me hear the sound of the hated ones.'<a id="k12a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Vermin must not be killed on the Sabbath: this is the view of Beth Shammai; while Beth Hillel permit it. And R. Simeon b. Eleazar said likewise on the authority of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: One must not negotiate for the betrothal of children [girls],<a id="k12a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; nor for a boy, to teach him the book<a id="k12a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and to teach him a trade,<a id="k12a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may mourners be comforted, nor may the sick be visited on the Sabbath:<a id="k12a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that is the ruling of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel permit it.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one enters [a house] to visit a sick person [on the Sabbath], he should say, 'It is the Sabbath, when one must not cry out, and recovery will soon come.' R. Meir said, [One should say] 'It [the Sabbath] may have compassion.'<a id="k12a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k12b_1:" I.e., pray for him as one of many."
,k12b_2:" Because both induce grief, which is contrary to the spirit of the Sabbath, which is 'a day of delight.'"
,k12b_3:" Angels were held to mediate between God and man, carrying the prayers of the latter to the Former (Tobit XII, 12, 15). This is not to be compared with prayer to or worshipping angels, from which Judaism is free. 'Not as one who would first send his servant to a friend to ask for aid in his hour of need should man apply to Michael, or Gabriel, to intercede for him; but he should turn immediately to God Himself, for 'whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered'. (Joel III, 5; Yer. Ber. IX, 13a. Many Rabbinical authorities disapprove even of invoking angels as mediators, as shown by the passage quoted; v. Zunz, S P. p. 148.)"
,k12b_4:" Ps. XLI, 4. &mdash; Hence he does not need the angel's intercession,"
,k12b_5:" In a spirit of reverence."
,k12b_6:" In Ned. 40a the reading is, 'upon the ground.'"
,k12b_7:" Probably twice the height of an ass and its saddle."
,k12b_8:" Though the lamp is inaccessible and cannot be tilted, the Rabbis enacted a general measure without distinctions."
,k12b_9:" This follows from the use of the singular in the Mishnah. But when two read, each may remind the other should he wish to tilt the lamp."
,k12b_10:" When both are reading the same subject in the scroll, each can remind the other. But if they are occupied with different subjects, neither thinks of his companion."
,k12b_11:" Each sits at a distance from the other, and any one may forget himself and stir up the fire."
,k12b_12:" Who is not accustomed even on weekdays to trim the lamp."
,k12b_13:" This shows that the prohibition applies even to a great man like R. Ishmael b. Elisha."
,k12b_14:" The former is more careful, and may tilt the lamp to see whether there is the least grease on the crockery; hence he must not examine them by a lamp."
,k12b_15:" The latter emits an unpleasant odour, and so one naturally refrains from tilting."
,k12b_16:" It is permitted, but this must not be publicly diffused."
,k12b_17:" R. Jeremiah's."
,k12b_18:" In R. Assi's house; he was not of course a permanent attendant."
,k12b_19:" The light of naphtha (or of a candle) is the same as the light of an oil-fed lamp,"
,k12b_20:" How then explain BUT HE HIMSELF MAY NOT READ?"
,k12b_21:" In ancient times the Pentateuch portion which was part of the Sabbath service was read by a number of worshippers (on Sabbaths, seven), whilst the hazzan prompted them. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Judah said, 'May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon the sick of Israel.' R. Jose said, 'May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you in the midst of the sick of Israel.' Shebna, a citizen of Jerusalem, on entering would say 'Peace'; and on leaving, 'It is the Sabbath, when one must not cry out and healing will soon come, His compassion is abundant and enjoy the Sabbath rest in peace.' With whom does this dictum of R. Hanina agree: One who has an invalid in his house should combine him with other Jewish sick?<a id="k12b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; With whom? &mdash; With R. Jose.
</p><p>
	R. Hanina also said: It was [only] with difficulty that comforting mourners and visiting the sick was permitted on the Sabbath.<a id="k12b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: When we followed R. Eleazar to inquire after a sick person. sometimes he would say to him, [in Hebrew], 'The Omnipresent visit thee in peace'; at others, be said, [in Aramaic], 'The Omnipresent remember thee in peace'. But how might he do thus: did not Rab Judah say, One should never petition for his needs in Aramaic; and R. Johanan said: When one petitions for his needs in Aramaic, the Ministering Angels do not heed him, for they do not understand Aramaic?<a id="k12b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; An invalid is different, because the Divine Presence is with him. For R. 'Anan said in Rab's name, How do you know that the Divine Presence supports an invalid? Because it is written, The Lord supports him upon the couch of languishing.<a id="k12b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught likewise: One who enters [a house] to visit the sick may sit neither upon the bed nor on a seat, but must wrap himself about<a id="k12b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and sit in front of him,<a id="k12b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for the Divine Presence is above an invalid's pillow, as it is said, The Lord supports him upon the couch of languishing. And Raba said in Rabin's name: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, sustains the sick? Because it is said, The Lord supports him on the couch of languishing.
</p><p>
	NOR MUST HE READ BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP. Raba said: Even if it is as high as twice a man's stature, or as two ox-goads [height],<a id="k12b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or even as ten houses on top of each other.<a id="k12b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	One alone may not read, but for two [together] it is well?<a id="k12b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: Neither one nor two! &mdash; Said R. Eleazar, There is no difficulty: the former refers to one subject; the latter to two.<a id="k12b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna said: But by [the light] of an open fire even ten people are forbidden.<a id="k12b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: If he is an important man,<a id="k12b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: One must not read by the light of a lamp, lest he tilt [it]. Said R. Ishmael b. Elisha, 'I will read and will not tilt.' Yet once he read and wished to tilt. 'How great are the words of the Sages!' he exclaimed, 'who said, One must not read by the light of a lamp.' R. Nathan said, He read and did tilt [it], and wrote in his note book, 'I, Ishmael b. Elisha, did read and tilt the lamp on the Sabbath. When the Temple is rebuilt I will bring a fat sin-offering.'<a id="k12b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Ishmael b. Elisha was different, since he treated himself as an ordinary person in respect to religious matters.
</p><p>
	One [Baraitha] taught: An attendant may examine glasses and plates by the light of a lamp; and another taught: He must not examine [them]! There is no difficulty: one refers to a permanent attendant, the other to a temporary one.<a id="k12b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, both refer to a permanent attendant yet there is no difficulty: one refers to [a lamp fed with] oil, the other to naphtha.<a id="k12b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: What of a temporary attendant and a [lamp fed with] oil? &mdash; Rab said: There is the <i>halachah</i>, but we do not teach thus.<a id="k12b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: There is the <i>halachah</i> and we teach it so. R. Jeremiah b. Abba chanced to visit R. Assi. Now, his<a id="k12b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; attendant arose and examined [the glasses] by candlelight.<a id="k12b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon his [R. Assi's] wife said to him [R. Assi], 'But you do not act thus!' 'Let him be,' he answered her, 'he holds with his master.'<a id="k12b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID, THE HAZZAN etc., But you say in the first clause, [HE] MAY SEE; Surely that means to read?<a id="k12b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; No: to arrange the beginnings of the sections.<a id="k12b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rabbah b. Samuel said likewise: But he may arrange the beginnings of the sections; But not the whole section?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k13a_1:" [This proves that children may read on Friday night by lamplight? Our Mishnah affords no such proof as it could refer to children who read in disregard of the prohibition, v. Tosaf. a.l.]."
,k13a_2:" But there was no need to interdict the first, because even Israelites ate their food only when it was ritually clean (though under no obligation) and would not dine together with an unclean woman, sc. a <i>niddah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) in any case."
,k13a_3:" Lit., 'separated,' v. text note."
,k13a_4:" Lit., 'people of the earth', 'the rural population'; the term is synonymous with ignoramous and law breaker, for living on the land they were only partially accessible to the teachings of the Rabbis, and in particular were negligent of ritual purity and the separation of tithes. Those who held aloof from them (separatists) were known as perushim (sing. parush), who were very particular in matters of purity and tithes; v. also <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. haber."
,k13a_5:" Whatever he eats is unclean, since his contact defiles food."
,k13a_6:" I.e., food from which the priestly and Levitical dues were not rendered,"
,k13a_7:" If he is a visitor, he will continue even when he becomes clean."
,k13a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k13a_9:" Taking precaution to avoid all bodily contact. Intimacy, of course, is forbidden: do we fear that this may lead to it?"
,k13a_10:" And the <i>halachah</i> is always as Beth Hillel. They may not be served lest they be eaten together, and by analogy the answer to our problem is in the negative."
,k13a_11:" There is no one to restrain the diner from eating the fowl and the cheese together. But here each may restrain the other."
,k13a_12:" Or travellers lodging at an inn."
,k13a_13:" The assumed reason is that each restrains the other."
,k13a_14:" Then one does not take from the other."
,k13a_15:" Lit., 'change'. There is nothing on the table to remind one diner that he must not eat of his neighbour's."
,k13a_16:" Viz., that they take care to avoid all bodily contact."
,k13a_17:" And the same applies here."
,k13a_18:" Ezek. XVIII, 6."
,k13a_19:" Lev. XVIII, 6. 'Incest' in the Talmud includes adultery. The same applies to a <i>niddah</i>."
,k13a_20:" The term Be Rab denotes either the great Academy founded by Rab or college in general."
,k13a_21:" With consanguineous relations, such as a sister."
,k13a_22:" A nazirite must not eat grapes or drink wine (v. Num. VI, 1-3); as a precaution he is forbidden even to approach a vineyard. The same reasoning holds good here."
,k13a_23:" This is the Midrash consisting of two parts, 'Seder Eliyahu Rabbah' and 'Seder Eliyahu Zuta'. According to the Talmud Keth. 106a the Prophet Elijah taught this Midrash, the Seder Eliyahu, to R. 'Anan, a Babylonian amora of the third century. Scholars are agreed that the work in its present form received its final redaction in the tenth century C.E., though they are not agreed as to where it was written. V. Bacher, Monatsschrift, XXIII, 267 et seqq.; in R.E.J. XX, 144-146; Friedmann, introduction to his edition of Seder Eliyahu."
,k13a_24:" Kara refers to the study of the Bible; shanah to the study of the Mishnah."
,k13a_25:" 'Serving scholars', i.e., being in personal attendance on scholars, was one of the requisites of an academical course."
,k13a_26:" Deut. XXX, 20. "
}

txt:
<p>
An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: School children used to prepare their [Biblical] portions and read by lamplight?<a id="k13a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: I can answer either [that it means] the beginnings of the sections; or that children are different: since they are in awe of their teacher, they will not come to tilt it.
</p><p>
	SIMILARLY &hellip; A ZAB MUST NOT DINE, [etc.]. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Come and see how far purity has spread in Israel! For we did not learn, A clean man must not eat with an unclean woman, but A ZAB MUST NOT DINE TOGETHER WITH A ZABAH, AS IT MAY LEAD To SIN.<a id="k13a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, a <i>zab</i>, a parush<a id="k13a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may not dine with a <i>zab</i>, who is an 'am ha-arez,<a id="k13a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; lest he cause him to associate with him. But what does it matter if he does cause him to associate with him? Rather say [thus]: lest he offer him unclean food to eat. Does then a <i>zab</i> who is a parush not eat unclean food?<a id="k13a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said Abaye: For fear lest he provide him with unfit food.<a id="k13a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: The majority of the 'amme ha-arez do render tithes, but [we fear] lest he associate with him and he provide him with unclean food in the days of his purity.<a id="k13a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: May a <i>niddah</i><a id="k13a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; sleep together with her husband, she in her garment and he in his?<a id="k13a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  Said R. Joseph, Come and hear: A fowl may be served together with cheese at the [same] table, but not eaten [with it]: this is Beth Shammai's view. Beth Hillel rule: It may neither be served nor eaten [together]!<a id="k13a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There it is different, because there are no [separate] minds.<a id="k13a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; It is reasonable too that where there are [separate] minds it is different, because the second clause teaches, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Two boarders<a id="k13a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; eating at the same table, one may eat meat and the other cheese, and we have no fear.<a id="k13a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But was it not stated thereon, R. Hanin b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: This was taught only when they do not know each other;<a id="k13a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they do, they are forbidden? And here too they know each other!-How compare! There we have [separate] minds but no unusual feature;<a id="k13a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but here there are [separate] minds and an unusual feature.<a id="k13a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Others state, Come and hear: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Two boarders may eat at the same table, one meat and the other cheese. And it was stated thereon, R. Hanin b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: This was taught only if they do not know each other, but if they do, it is forbidden; and these two know each other! &mdash; [No.] There we have [separate] minds but nothing unusual, whereas here there are [separate] minds and an unusual feature.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A <I>ZAB</I> MUST NOT DINE TOGETHER WITH A ZABAH, LEST IT LEAD TO SIN!<a id="k13a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here too there are [separate] minds but nothing unusual.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a woman who is a <i>niddah</i>:<a id="k13a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; thus a woman who is a <i>niddah</i> is assimilated to his neighbour's wife: just as his neighbour's wife, he in his garment and she in hers is forbidden, so if his wife is a <i>niddah</i>, he in his garment and she in hers is forbidden. This proves it. Now, this disagrees with R. Pedath. For R. Pedath said: The Torah interdicted only intimacy of incestuous coition, as it is said, None of you, shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.<a id="k13a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla, on his return from the college,<a id="k13a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; used to kiss his sisters on their bosoms; others say, on their hands. But he is self-contradictory, for 'Ulla said, Even any form of intimacy is forbidden,<a id="k13a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; because we say, 'Take a circuitous route, O nazirite, but do not approach the vineyard.'<a id="k13a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It is taught in the] Tanna debe Eliyahu:<a id="k13a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; It once happened that a certain scholar who had studied much Bible and Mishnah<a id="k13a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and had served scholars much,<a id="k13a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; yet died in middle age. His wife took his tefillin and carried them about in the synagogues and schoolhouses and complained to them, It is written in the Torah, for that is thy life, and the length of thy days:<a id="k13a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; my husband, who read [Bible], learned [Mishnah],
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k13b_1:" Elijah, the supposed author of the Tanna debe Eliyahu; v. n. 1."
,k13b_2:" Elijah was believed to visit the earth and speak to people."
,k13b_3:" When a niddah's discharge ceased, she donned white garments and examined herself for seven consecutive days, which had to pass without any further discharge of blood before she became clean. During this time she was forbidden to her husband."
,k13b_4:" He showed no unfair favoritism because of the man's learning."
,k13b_5:" Lev. XVIII, 19."
,k13b_6:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k13b_7:" But they were not actually in bodily contact."
,k13b_8:" Scholars are divided as to when this took place. Z. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah assigns it to the beginning of the division of the two schools. Graetz maintains that it took place about four years before the destruction of the Temple; Weiss favours the last generation before the destruction, not long after the death of Agrippa I. V. also Halevi, Doroth, 1, 3, 580 seq."
,k13b_9:" Lit., 'before us'. The actual eighteen were forgotten in course of time-hence Abaye's question."
,k13b_10:" Since the halachoth quoted are given in the previous Mishnah."
,k13b_11:" 'The scroll of fasting', containing a list of the days on which fasting is forbidden. Thirty five days are listed; on fourteen public mourning was forbidden, whilst fasting was prohibited on all. V. J.E. VIII, 427."
,k13b_12:" I.e., the days of victorious release from their troubles, and declared the minor festivals."
,k13b_13:" Every day marks the release from some trouble."
,k13b_14:" I.e., he does not perceive the troubles which surround him. So we too do not perceive our miraculous escapes."
,k13b_15:" Job XIV, 22."
,k13b_16:" Lit., 'for good'."
,k13b_17:" The technical term for exclusion from the Canon'"
,k13b_18:" E.g. Ezek. XLIV, 31; XLV, 20, q.v."
,k13b_19:" Lit., 'expounded them'."
,k13b_20:" For <i>terumah</i> v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> 'Unfit' denotes that it may not be eaten on account of defilement, but does not defile any other <i>terumah</i> by its contact; 'unclean' denotes that it defiles other food too by its touch."
,k13b_21:" Various degrees of uncleanness are distinguished. The greatest of all is that of a human corpse, called the prime origin (lit., 'father of fathers') of uncleanness; this is followed in successively decreasing stages by 'origin' (lit., 'father') of uncleanness, first, second, third and fourth degrees of uncleanness. When an object becomes unclean through contact with another, its degree of defilement is one stage below that which defiles it. By Biblical law unclean food or drink does not defile the person who cats it; but the Rabbis enacted that it does, and so he in turn renders <i>terumah</i> unfit by contact.-Ordinary unsanctified food (hullin) does not proceed beyond the second degree; i.e., if second degree hullin touches other hullin the latter remains clean; but if it touches <i>terumah</i>, it becomes a third degree. Again, <i>terumah</i> does not go beyond the third degree (hence it is then designated 'unfit', not 'unclean' in respect of other <i>terumah</i>); but if it touches flesh of sacrifices (hekdesh) it renders this unfit, and it is called 'fourth degree'."
,k13b_22:" Water which had passed through a vessel, as opposed to 'living water', i.e., well water, river water, or rain water collected in a pit."
,k13b_23:" 1 <i>log</i> = 549.4 cu. centimetres; v. J.E. Weights and Measures."
,k13b_24:" Any of the Books of the Bible."
,k13b_25:" Before washing."
,k13b_26:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k13b_27:" All these render <i>terumah</i> unfit-they are all discussed in the Gemara. "
}

txt:
<p>
and served scholars much, why did he die in middle age? and no man could answer her. On one occasion I<a id="k13b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was a guest at her house,<a id="k13b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and she related the whole story to me. Said I to her, 'My daughter! how was he to thee in thy days of menstruation?' 'God forbid!' she rejoined; 'he did not touch me even with his little finger.' 'And how was he to thee in thy days of white [garments]?'<a id="k13b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He ate with me, drank with me and slept with me in bodily contact, and it did not occur to him to do other.' Said I to her, 'Blessed be the Omnipresent for slaying him, that He did not condone on account of the Torah!<a id="k13b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; For lo! the Torah hath said, And thou shalt not approach unto a woman as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.'<a id="k13b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Dimi came,<a id="k13b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he said, It was a broad bed. In the West [Palestine] they said, R. Isaac b. Joseph said: An apron interposed between them.<a id="k13b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AND THESE ARE OF THE HALACHOTH WHICH THEY STATED IN THE UPPER CHAMBER OF HANANIAH B. HEZEKIAH B. GARON, WHEN THEY WENT UP TO VISIT HIM. THEY TOOK A COUNT, AND BETH SHAMMAI OUTNUMBERED BETH HILLEL.; AND ON THAT DAY THEY ENACTED EIGHTEEN MEASURES.<a id="k13b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Abaye said to R. Joseph: Did we learn, THESE ARE or AND THESE ARE? Did we learn AND THESE ARE [viz,] those that we have stated [in the former Mishnah]; or did we learn THESE ARE [viz.,] those that are to be stated soon?<a id="k13b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear: One may not search his garments by the light of a lamp, nor read by the light of a lamp; and these are of the halachoth stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon. This proves that we learnt, AND THESE ARE;<a id="k13b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this proves it.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Who wrote Megillath Ta'anith?<a id="k13b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they, Hananiah b. Hezekiah and his companions, who cherished their troubles.<a id="k13b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel observed: We too cherish our troubles, but what can we do? For if we come to write [them down], we are inadequate.<a id="k13b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Another reason is: a fool is not assailed.<a id="k13b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Another reason: the flesh of the dead does not feel the scalpel. But that is not so, for did not R. Isaac say, Worms are as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living, for it is said, But his flesh upon him hath pain, And his soul within him mourneth?<a id="k13b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Say: The dead flesh in a living person does not feel the scalpel.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: In truth, that man, Hananiah son of Hezekiah by name, is to be remembered for blessing:<a id="k13b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden,<a id="k13b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; for its words contradicted the Torah.<a id="k13b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were taken up to him and he sat in an upper chamber and reconciled<a id="k13b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; them.
</p><p>
	AND ON THAT DAY THEY ENACTED EIGHTEEN MEASURES. What are the eighteen measures? &mdash; For we learnt: The following render <i>terumah</i> unfit:<a id="k13b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; one who eats food of the first degree or the second degree, or who drinks unclean liquid;<a id="k13b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; one who enters with head and the greater part of his body into drawn water;<a id="k13b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; a clean person upon whose head and the greater part of his body there fell three logs<a id="k13b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of drawn water; a Book;<a id="k13b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; one's hands;<a id="k13b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; a tebul yom;<a id="k13b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and food or utensils which were defiled by a liquid.<a id="k13b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	which Tanna [holds that] one who eats food of the first or of the second degree [merely] renders unfit
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k14a_1:" 4. P. 55, n. 5."
,k14a_2:" Hence, when he eats defiled food in the first degree, he defiles <i>terumah</i>, not merely renders it unfit (v. p. 55, nn. 5, 6)."
,k14a_3:" Hence in both cases he merely renders <i>terumah</i> unfit."
,k14a_4:" Flesh of sacrifices."
,k14a_5:" If he touches hekdesh he defiles it in the third degree, being regarded himself as second degree in respect thereto; but he does not affect <i>terumah</i> at all."
,k14a_6:" People (particularly perushim, v. p. 51, n. 1) voluntarily treated hullin as <i>terumah</i>; then it could become unfit in the third degree, but not otherwise (v. p. 55, n. 6), and this is the only way in which it is possible for a person to eat hullin of the third degree, v. Hul. 33b."
,k14a_7:" For it may touch the food still in his mouth. Unfit <i>terumah</i> may not be eaten."
,k14a_8:" Both being based on the same reason, the second is a corollary of the first and need not be stated."
,k14a_9:" So that a Rabbinical measure is not required in the second case."
,k14a_10:" I.e., took a ritual bath to be purified of defilement."
,k14a_11:" The correct reading appears to be: three logs of drawn water; v. Marginal Gloss to cur. edd."
,k14a_12:" This would lead to the neglect of proper tebillah."
,k14a_13:" A general measure had to be enacted that three logs of drawn water defiled a person, whether it came upon him by his intention or accidentally. Had the Rabbis drawn a distinction, the former too would have remained unobserved."
,k14a_14:" Hence it is fitting that they be placed together."
,k14a_15:" The food attracted mice, which naturally injured the Books too."
,k14a_16:" To put an end to the practice."
,k14a_17:" They are active and apt to touch things. Hence unless their owner has taken care that they should not touch a ritually unclean object after he washed them, they are treated as unclean."
,k14a_18:" Lit., 'which come on account of a Book.'"
,k14a_19:" Without its wrapping."
,k14a_20:" ) As though he had never performed a good deed or fulfilled a precept."
,k14a_21:" Surely that act does not nullify all his meritorious deeds!"
,k14a_22:" If he took it for Study or to wrap it up after the public reading likewise a 'good deed'-it is not accounted to him (Tosaf.). Tosaf. also observes that presumably this applies to any of the Books of the Bible.-The reference is to the actual parchment; but there is no objection to the modern practice of elevating the uncovered Scroll whilst holding it by the rollers on which it is wound. The Sephardi Jews, i.e., the descendants of the Spanish Jews, have the entire parchment of the Scroll from end to end shielded with silk or cloth."
,k14a_23:" Viz., that hands in general are unclean. "
}

txt:
<p>
but does not defile?<a id="k14a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, It is R. Joshua. For we learnt: R. Eliezer said: One who eats food of the first degree is [himself defiled in] the first degree; of the second degree, is [defiled in] the second degree, of the third degree, is [defiled in] the third degree.<a id="k14a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua said: One who eats food of the first or of the second degree is [defiled in] the second degree;<a id="k14a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; of the third degree, [he enters] the second degree in respect of hekdesh,<a id="k14a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in respect of <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k14a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; this referring to hullin subjected to the purity of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k14a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When one eats food of the first or of the second degree, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? Because one may sometimes eat unclean food [hullin] and take a liquid of <i>terumah</i> and put it in his mouth and thus render it unfit.<a id="k14a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; When one drinks unclean liquid, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? &mdash; Because he may sometimes drink unclean liquid and take food of <i>terumah</i> and put it in his mouth, and thus render it unfit. But it is the same thing!<a id="k14a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; You might argue, The first is usual but not the second:<a id="k14a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. 
</p><p>
	And one who comes with his head and the greater part of his body] into drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? &mdash; Said R. Bibi in R. Assi's name: Because originally people performed tebillah<a id="k14a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; in collected pit water, which was stagnant [noisome], and so they poured drawn water upon them selves.<a id="k14a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [But when] they began to make this a fixed [law], the Rabbis imposed uncleanness thereon. What is meant by 'a fixed [law]?'Abaye said: They maintained, Not this [pit water] purifies, but both together purify. Said Raba to him, Then what did it matter, seeing that they did perform tebillah in this [the pit water]? But, said Raba, they maintained, Not this [the pit water] purifies but that [the drawn water].<a id="k14a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And a clean person upon whose head and the greater part of his body there fell three logs of drawn water, why did the Rabbis decree uncleanness in his case? For if not this, the other would not stand.<a id="k14a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon a Book? Said R. Mesharsheya: Because originally food of <i>terumah</i> was stored near the Scroll of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy.<a id="k14a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But when it was seen that they [the Sacred Books] came to harm,<a id="k14a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon them.<a id="k14a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'And the hands'? &mdash; Because hands are fidgety.<a id="k14a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught: Also hands which came into contact with a Book<a id="k14a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; disqualify <i>terumah</i>, on account of R. Parnok['s dictum]. For R. Parnok said in R. Johanan's name: One who holds a Scroll of the Law naked<a id="k14a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; will be buried naked. 'Naked!' can you really think so? Rather said R. Zera, [It means] naked without good deeds.<a id="k14a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Without good deeds!' can you really think so?<a id="k14a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather say, naked, without that good deed [to his credit].<a id="k14a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Which was first enacted? Shall we say that the former was first enacted?<a id="k14a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k14b_1:" Lev. XXII, 7."
,k14b_2:" I.e., how did this liquid itself become unclean?"
,k14b_3:" Lit., 'which come on account of a reptile'."
,k14b_4:" Sc. that this food disqualifies <i>terumah</i>."
,k14b_5:" Ibid. XI, 34. Though that refers to a liquid defiled through an earthenware vessel, the Talmud deduces in Pes. 18b that the same holds good if it is defiled by a reptile. Now, the latter is original ('father of') uncleanness; the fluid is first degree, and the food is second degree, and therefore it renders <i>terumah</i> the third degree, i.e., unfit (v. p. 55, n. 6), and all this is Biblical law, not a Rabbinical enactment."
,k14b_6:" The latter is Biblical; but if the former were not declared unclean, it would be thought that the latter is not unclean either."
,k14b_7:" How did the liquid itself become unclean?"
,k14b_8:" lbid. XV, 8."
,k14b_9:" This interpretation is not really germane to the difficulty which arises directly from the verse; v. Rashi. Since the clothes are to be washed etc., the saliva must rank as original ('father of') uncleanness, for only such defiles garments and man. The vessels therefore defiled by the saliva (or any fluid emanating from a <i>zab</i>) are unclean in the first degree, and defile <i>terumah</i> by Biblical law."
,k14b_10:" The former is unclean in the first degree, and by Biblical law does not (defile vessels (v. previous note); nevertheless the Rabbis enacted that it shall defile vessels, which in turn render <i>terumah</i> unfit, lest it might be confused with the fluid of a <i>zab</i>, which will also be held incapable of defiling vessels."
,k14b_11:" As is implied by the terms Beth Shammai, Beth Hillel."
,k14b_12:" A town in Persia; Neub. Geogr. p. 275."
,k14b_13:" Two Rabbis of the early Maccabean period (second century B.C.E.); together they formed the beginning of the Zugoth (duumvirate) which governed Jewish religious life until Hillel and Shammai. It may be observed that the title 'Rabbi' is not prefixed to their names: the famous letter of Sherira Gaon to Jacob b. Nissim, quoted by Nathan b. Jehiel in the Aruk (s.v. [H]) declares that this title dates from the time of R. Johanan b. Zakkai only."
,k14b_14:" The former, to stem the emigration of Jews from Palestine consequent upon the troublous times of the Maccabees; and the latter probably because glassware was manufactured in those countries, or because they learnt at that time that its manufacture was similar to that of earthenware; Weiss, Dor. 1, 105"
,k14b_15:" When a woman married, she brought a dowry to her husband, which was returnable if he divorced her. Originally the security for the return of the dowry was deposited with her father. This went through a number of changes until Simeon b. Shetah enacted that the husband should trade with the dowry and mortgage all his effects for its repayment, the purpose being to make divorce more difficult. This is the meaning of the present passage, not that he actually instituted the marriage settlement itself, J, Keth. end of chapter VIII, and Weiss, Dor. 1, 144 and note a.l."
,k14b_16:" This is discussed below."
,k14b_17:" I.e., enacted the eighteen measures."
,k14b_18:" I.e., these eighteen measures which they enacted jointly were originally subjects of controversy between them (Rashi)."
,k14b_19:" I.e., that the hands are only suspected of uncleanness, and if they touch <i>terumah</i> it is 'suspended', and may neither be eaten, as clean, nor burnt as unclean."
,k14b_20:" Ruling that the hands are definitely unclean, not merely suspected."
,k14b_21:" The need for renewing some of the early Rabbinical enactments, to which reference is made in the present discussion, arose through the interdict which the Sadducees laid upon their observance; Weiss, Dor, I, 143f; cf. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 584 seq."
,k14b_22:" V, <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and p. 18, n. 7."
,k14b_23:" Prov. XXIII, 15."
,k14b_24:" Ibid. XXVII, 11. "
}

txt:
<p>
But since this was first enacted, why was the other too needed? &mdash; Rather the latter was first decreed, and then it was enacted in respect of all hands.
</p><p>
	'And a tebul yom.' But the law of tebul yom is Biblical, for it is written, and when the sun is down, he shall be clean; [and afterwards he shall eat of the holy things,<a id="k14b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; i.e., <i>terumah</i>]? &mdash; Delete tebul yom from here.
</p><p>
	'And food which was defiled through liquid'. Through liquid of which [uncleanness]?<a id="k14b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say, through liquid which was defiled by a [dead] reptile:<a id="k14b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; then its law is Biblical,<a id="k14b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written, and all drink that may be drunk [in every such vessel shall be unclean]?<a id="k14b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; _ Rather it means through liquid defiled by the hands, and it is a preventive measure on account of liquid defiled by a reptile.<a id="k14b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'And vessels which were defiled by liquid'. Vessels which were defiled by liquid of which [uncleanness]?<a id="k14b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say, By the liquid of a <i>zab</i>? But that is Biblical, for it is written, and if the <i>zab</i> spit upon him that is clean; [then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water],<a id="k14b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [meaning] what is in the clean man's hand have I declared unclean unto thee!<a id="k14b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather it refers to liquid defiled by a reptile, and it is a preventive measure on account of the fluid of a <i>zab</i>.<a id="k14b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'And the hands'. Did then the disciples of Shammai and Hillel<a id="k14b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; decree this: [Surely] Shammai and Hillel [themselves] decreed it! For it was taught, Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah<a id="k14b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem<a id="k14b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware.<a id="k14b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Simeon b. Shetah instituted the woman's marriage settlement<a id="k14b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and imposed uncleanness upon metal utensils.<a id="k14b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness for the hands. And should you answer, [It means] Shammai and his band and Hillel and his band [of scholars];<a id="k14b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; surely Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and they differed on eighteen measures,<a id="k14b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Hillel and Shammai differed only in three places; for R. Huna said, in three places they differed, and no more! And should you answer, They [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed that it be suspended,<a id="k14b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; while their disciples came and decreed that it be burnt:<a id="k14b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; surely Ilia said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning? &mdash; Rather, they [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed it, yet it was not accepted from them; then their disciples came and decreed, and it was accepted from them.<a id="k14b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But still, Solomon decreed it? For Raba Judah said in Samuel's name, When Solomon instituted 'erubin<a id="k14b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and the washing of the hands, a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared, 'My son, if thine heart be wise; My heart shall be glad, even mine';<a id="k14b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, That I may answer him that reproacheth me'?<a id="k14b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k15a_1:" That the hands must be washed before eating e.g., flesh of sacrifices."
,k15a_2:" V. Halevi, Doroth, 1, p. 600 for a discussion of a variant which he considers correct."
,k15a_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k15a_4:" 1 <i>kab</i> = four logs = 2197.4 cu. cm. The controversy centres on the interpretation of 'your dough' in Num. XV, 20. The Talmud does not state when the measures were enlarged, but the enlargement was by one fifth, i.e., one 'Sepphoric' <i>log</i> (which was the name of the new measure) = one and one fifth Jerusalem <i>log</i>, as the old one was called; v. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 2, n. 3."
,k15a_5:" V. Halevi, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 122, n. 59."
,k15a_6:" A mikweh (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) must be filled with 'living' water, as opposed to 'drawn' water, i.e., water drawn in vessels, and it must contain not less then forty se'ahs. The controversy refers to the quantity of drawn water which, if poured into the mikweh before it contains forty se'ahs of 'living' water, renders it unfit. The <i>hin</i> is a Biblical measure, equal to twelve logs. The passage 'for one must state (a dictum) in his teacher's phraseology' is difficult, and various interpretations have been advanced. They are discussed by Halevi in Doroth, 1, 3, 95-7, who explains it thus: The teachers referred to are not Shemaiah and Abtalion, Hillel's masters in Palestine, but his Babylonian teachers (unnamed). Now <i>hin</i> is not the usual Mishnaic term but Biblical. This, however, was sometimes preferred to Babylonian because it was constant, whereas the Babylonian measure varied in different places (cf. J. E. XIII, 488 s.v. Cab.). Thus Hillel said a <i>hin</i> full instead of twelve logs, in order to be faithful to his teacher's phraseology. V. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 2 notes."
,k15a_7:" Lit., 'from time to time', the technical phrase for a twenty-four hour day."
,k15a_8:" A menstruous woman defiles whatever food she touches. Shammai maintains that this is only from when she discovers her discharge, but not retrospectively. Hillel holds that since her discharge may have been earlier, though she has only now observed it, her uncleanness is retrospective to when she last examined and found herself clean. Thus Shammai said, Their time, sc. when they actually find that they are unclean, suffices them and it has no retrospective effects; whilst Hillel rules, They are retrospectively unclean from the present examination to the last. The Sages make a compromise: she is retrospectively unclean for twenty-four hours or from the last examination, whichever is less. V. 'Ed., Sonc. ed., p. 1 notes."
,k15a_9:" When a man brings a freewill-offering, part of the ritual consists in his laying hands upon the head of the animal (v. Lev. I, 4; III, 2, 8). The dispute refers to festivals."
,k15a_10:" This matter was disputed by Shammai and Hillel's predecessors too; v. Hag. 16a. For the importance of this particular question v. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 44; Weiss, Dor. I, 104."
,k15a_11:" V. P. 45, nn. 1, 4; the same applies to grapes. Now, if the grapes are to be eaten, the liquid they exude whilst being gathered does not subject them to uncleanness, since their owner is displeased therewith. But when they are vintaged for wine they differ; V. <i>infra</i> 17a for the full discussion."
,k15a_12:" I.e., he was unable to refute his proofs and accepted Shammai's ruling."
,k15a_13:" Judea appears to have entered into official relations with Rome for the first time in 161 B.C.E. at the instance of Judas Maccabeus; Margolis and Marx, Jewish History, p. 145. But the first step which laid Judea under subjection of Rome was the quarrel of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II over the throne, when both brothers appealed to Pompey (e. 66 C.E). A date midway between these two is given here (110 B.C.E.) which may be assumed as merely approximate. This corresponds roughly to the death of Hyrcanus I in 106 B.C.E."
,k15a_14:" I.e., they forsook their locale in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple."
,k15a_15:" A place on the Temple Mount Hannuth, v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 267, n. 11."
,k15a_16:" E.g., the fine for seduction, Deut. XXII, 29."
,k15a_17:" Any court in Palestine consisting of ordained judges was competent to adjudicate in laws of fine, whatever its locale."
,k15a_18:" V. Krauss, <i>op. cit</i>., pp. 23f."
,k15a_19:" I.e., Hillel commenced his Patriarchate a hundred years before the destruction of the Temple, and he was followed by Simeon, Gamaliel and Simeon, his direct descendants, the four spreading over that century. V, Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 706 seq."
,k15a_20:" V. P. 59, n. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Solomon came and decreed in respect of holy things,<a id="k15a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; while they came and instituted [it] in respect of <i>terumah</i>.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: 'Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They enacted eighteen measures, and differed in eighteen 'But it was taught: They were in agreement? &mdash; On that day they differed and [only] on the morrow were they in agreement.<a id="k15a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said: In three places Shammai and Hillel differed: Shammai said: <i>Hallah</i><a id="k15a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is due from a <i>kab</i> [of flour]; Hillel said: From two <i>kabs</i>: but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a <i>kab</i> and a half is liable to <i>hallah</i>. When the measures were enlarged, they said, Five quarters of flour are liable to <i>hallah</i>. R. Jose said: [Exactly] five are exempt; just over five are liable.<a id="k15a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the second? &mdash; Hillel said: A <i>hin</i> full of drawn water renders a mikweh unfit. (For one must state [a dictum] in his teacher's phraseology. Shammai maintained: nine <i>kabs</i>). But the Sages ruled neither as one nor as the other, until two weavers<a id="k15a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; came from the dung gate of Jerusalem and testified on the authority of Shemaiah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water render a mikweh unfit, and the Sages ratified their words.<a id="k15a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the third? &mdash; Shammai said: All women, their time suffices them; Hillel maintained: From examination to examination; but the Sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a full day<a id="k15a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; reduces [the time] between examination and examination, and [the time] between examination and examination reduces a full day.<a id="k15a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And are there no more? But there is [this]: Hillel said: One shall lay [hands]; while Shammai ruled that one must not lay [hands]?<a id="k15a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna spoke only of those concerning which there is no dispute of their teachers in addition.<a id="k15a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is also [this:] When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [i.e., to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit [to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled: It is not made fit.<a id="k15a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is excepted, for there Hillel was silenced by Shammai'.<a id="k15a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens and glassware.' But the Rabbis of the 'eighty years' decreed this? For R. Kahana said, When R. Ishmael son of R. Jose fell sick, they [the Rabbis] sent [word] to him, 'Rabbi, Tell us the two or three things which you stated [formerly] on your father's authority.' He sent back, 'Thus did my father say: One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the wicked State [sc. Rome] spread over Israel.<a id="k15a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Eighty years before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed in respect of the country of heathens and glassware. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile<a id="k15a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and took its seat in the trade Halls.<a id="k15a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; (in respect to what law [is this stated]? &mdash; Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi, To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines.<a id="k15a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The laws of fines' can you think so!<a id="k15a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But say: They did not adjudicate in capital cases.<a id="k15a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; ) And should you answer, They [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] flourished during these eighty years too: surely it was taught: Hillel and Simeon [his son], Gamaliel and Simeon wielded their Patriarchate during one hundred years of the Temple's existence;<a id="k15a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan were much earlier!<a id="k15a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k15b_1:" Sc. <i>terumah</i> which came into contact with a clod of earth from the 'land of the heathens', as something definitely unclean."
,k15b_2:" When <i>terumah</i> enters the atmosphere of the 'land of the heathen' with nothing intervening between it and the ground."
,k15b_3:" On 'suspended' v. p. 60, n. 2"
,k15b_4:" The enactment of burning in respect to a clod."
,k15b_5:" A city in Galilee, near Sepphoris and Tiberias, and the scene of an important Rabbinical synod or synods about the time of the Hadrianic persecution in the middle of the second century C.E. V. J.E. 'Synod of Usha'."
,k15b_6:" A field one square peras (peras half the length of a furrow &mdash; fifty cubits) in area, declared unclean because a grave was ploughed in it and the crushed bones scattered over the field, so that their exact position is not known, If <i>terumah</i> enters its atmosphere it must be burnt, though it is doubtful whether it was actually over the crushed bones."
,k15b_7:" I.e., any earth which comes thence."
,k15b_8:" V. P. 51, n. 1. His garments are doubtful, because his wife may have sat upon them while a menstruant; v. Hag. 18b."
,k15b_9:" And it is unknown whether they are clean or not."
,k15b_10:" All saliva found is suspected of uncleanness, as it may be of a <i>zab</i>; v. p. 58, n. 10."
,k15b_11:" This is not the same as the preceding, where the substances themselves were not in doubt; e.g., the object was definitely a utensil, or saliva. Here, however, there is a double doubt; it may not be human urine at all, but cattle urine; and even if it is, it may not be a zab's (only his defiles). Yet the Rabbis ruled it definitely unclean, even when found near cattle urine, so that it might be supposed that this is the same."
,k15b_12:" If <i>terumah</i> comes definitely into contact (or as explained in n. 2) with these, which renders it doubtfully unclean, it is burnt."
,k15b_13:" Cf. p. 20, n. 5."
,k15b_14:" The difficulty arises from ii."
,k15b_15:" Lit., 'the beginning of its making'."
,k15b_16:" Other edd. omit 'R. Johanan said in the name of', reading simply Resh Lakish. It is certainly unlikely that R. Johanan, who, as head of the Academy at Tiberias enjoyed a superiority over Resh Lakish, his contemporary, would report his statement."
,k15b_17:" Just as earthenware."
,k15b_18:" Mik. IX, 5. When a utensil is purified in a mikweh, nothing must interpose between it and the water; if it does, the immersion is ineffective: pitch and gum on the side of a glass vessel constitute an interposition."
,k15b_19:" In Mik. IX, 5."
,k15b_20:" The perforated glass vessel is supported by the lead, i.e., it can be used only through the lead. Hence, according to R. Meir, it is a metal, not a glass vessel."
,k15b_21:" Rashi in R.H. 19a offers two explanations: (i) When an unclean vessel is perforated, it becomes clean, since it can no longer be used as a vessel. Now, if a metal utensil is thus broken and then repaired, it reverts to its former state, but not so a glass vessel (<i>infra</i> 16a). R. Meir maintains that a glass vessel supported by metal is treated as metal; while the Rabbis hold that it is still regarded as a glass vessel. (ii) A clean glass vessel supported by metal becomes Biblically unclean, according to R. Meir, as a metal utensil, while the Rabbis hold that it is Biblically clean, as a glass vessel, and is subject to defilement only on account of the Rabbinical enactment; the reasoning being the same as before. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] is inclined to agree with the second interpretation."
,k15b_22:" Since they are treated as earthenware vessels. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be burnt,<a id="k15b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere;<a id="k15b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; while the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed in respect to the atmosphere that it [<i>terumah</i>] be suspended.<a id="k15b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that the original enactment was for burning? Surely Ilfa said: The original decree concerning hands was for burning. Thus, only concerning hands was the original decree for burning, but concerning nothing else? &mdash; Rather say they came and decreed in respect to a clod, that it be suspended, and nothing at all in respect to the atmosphere; and then the Rabbis of these eighty years came and decreed in respect to a clod that it be burnt and in respect to the atmosphere that it be suspended. Yet still, that<a id="k15b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; was decreed in Usha?<a id="k15b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: <i>Terumah</i> is burnt on account of six doubtful cases [of uncleanness]: &mdash; [i] The doubt of Beth ha-Peras;<a id="k15b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [ii] The doubt of earth which comes from the land of the heathens;<a id="k15b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [iii] The doubt attached to the garments of an 'am ha-arez;<a id="k15b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [iv] the doubt of vessels which are found;<a id="k15b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [v] doubtful saliva;<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and [vi] the doubtful human urine near cattle urine.<a id="k15b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; On account of their certain contact, which is doubtful defilement, <i>terumah</i> is burnt.<a id="k15b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: It is burnt even on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain.<a id="k15b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages maintain: [If there is doubtful contact] in a private domain we suspend it; in public ground, it [the <i>terumah</i>] is clean. Now 'Ulla observed, These six cases of doubt were enacted at Usha!<a id="k15b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rather say they [Jose b. Jo'ezer and Jose b. Johanan] came and decreed suspense in respect of a clod and nothing at all in respect of atmosphere; then the Rabbis of the eighty years came and decreed suspense in both cases; then they came at Usha and decreed burning in respect of a clod, and as to the atmosphere they left it in status quo.
</p><p>
	Why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon glassware? &mdash; Said R. Johanan in the name of Resh Lakish, Since it is manufactured from<a id="k15b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; sand, the Rabbis declared it the same as earthenware.<a id="k15b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, let them be incapable of purification in a mikweh?<a id="k15b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then did we learn, And the following interpose in utensils: pitch and myrrh gum in the case of glass vessels?<a id="k15b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The circumstances here<a id="k15b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; are e.g., they were perforated, and molten lead was poured into them, this agreeing with R. Meir, who maintained, Everything depends on the support.<a id="k15b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: If glass vessels are perforated and [molten] lead is poured into them, &mdash; said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: R. Meir declares them unclean, while the Sages declare them clean.<a id="k15b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,<a id="k15b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k16a_1:" If an unclean object touches them on the back, which is flat or convex, they should not become unclean, in accordance with the Mishnah quoted."
,k16a_2:" Rashi: a kind of white earth; Jast.: a vessel made of alum crystals."
,k16a_3:" If an unclean object is suspended in the hollow of one of these vessels, even if it does not touch its side, it becomes unclean. Again, if a clean object is suspended in the hollow of an unclean vessel, though it does not actually touch it, it too becomes unclean."
,k16a_4:" E.g., if the base is concave, and an unclean object is suspended from the outside in the hollow."
,k16a_5:" Which are flat or convex."
,k16a_6:" If these vessels, being already unclean, are broken, they become clean; cf. p. 65, n. 7."
,k16a_7:" yet glass vessels too should be the same according to Resh Lakish's reason."
,k16a_8:" By being melted down and refashioned, which is impossible with earthen utensils."
,k16a_9:" Which can be repaired in the same way."
,k16a_10:" Lit., 'those of them which receive'."
,k16a_11:" I.e., they cannot be defiled."
,k16a_12:" As in n. 7."
,k16a_13:" For these must not be burnt when defiled by Rabbinical law, except in the six cases of doubtful uncleanness enumerated on 15b. "
}

txt:
<p>
let them not become unclean through their [flat or convex] backs.<a id="k16a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did we learn, Earthen vessels and nether vessels<a id="k16a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; are alike in regard to their uncleanness: they become defiled and defile [other objects] through their air space;<a id="k16a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; they become unclean through their outside,<a id="k16a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but they cannot be defiled through their backs;<a id="k16a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and their breaking renders them clean.<a id="k16a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus, only earthen and nether vessels are alike in regard to their uncleanness, but not other things?<a id="k16a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; I will tell you: since they can be repaired when broken,<a id="k16a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; they were assimilated to metal utensils.<a id="k16a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If so, let them revert to their former uncleanness, like metal utensils? For we learnt: Metal vessels, both flat and hollow,<a id="k16a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; are subject to defilement. If broken, they become clean; if remade into utensils, they revert to their former uncleanness. Whereas in respect to glass vessels we learnt: Wooden, skin, bone and glass utensils, if flat, they are clean;<a id="k16a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; if hollow, they are unclean;<a id="k16a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; if broken, they become clean; if remade into vessels, they are liable to defilement from then onwards. [Thus] only from then onwards, but not retrospectively? &mdash; The uncleanness of glass utensils is Rabbinical, and [the resuscitation of] former uncleanness is [also] Rabbinical: now, in the case of that which is unclean by Scriptural law, the Rabbis have imposed [retrospective] uncleanness upon it, but upon that which is unclean by Rabbinical law the Rabbis have imposed no [retrospective] uncleanness.
</p><p>
	Yet at least let their flat utensils be unclean, since flat metal utensils are [susceptible to uncleanness] by Scriptural law!-The Rabbis made a distinction in their case, so that <i>terumah</i> and sacred food should not be burnt on their account.<a id="k16a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k16b_1:" From without; hence it is all regarded as the inside."
,k16b_2:" Num. XXXI, 22. The text continues: everything that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation."
,k16b_3:" V, <i>supra</i> a."
,k16b_4:" i.e., Salome Alexandra, wife and successor of Alexander Jannai and according to the Talmud, sister of Simeon b. Shetah."
,k16b_5:" Lit., 'on account of'."
,k16b_6:" V. n. 2.; i.e., they were anxious to safeguard this law, which would fall into disuse if the expedient of melting and refashioning were widely adopted."
,k16b_7:" Only then is the former uncleanness revived.-The verse quoted in n. 2. refers to such."
,k16b_8:" The hole which removes its status of a utensil must be of a certain size, &mdash; large enough to permit a pomegranate to fall through."
,k16b_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k16b_10:" When it is purified by means of tebillah it may not be used until the evening; but making a hole and repairing it permits its immediate use. One seeing this vessel thus used on the same day may think that it underwent tebillah, and that the latter too releases it for immediate use."
,k16b_11:" Abaye's reason still holds good, for one may think that a small note too would have sufficed. But Raba's reason does not operate, for it is plainly evident that this was newly remade."
,k16b_12:" Of the eighteen enactments."
,k16b_13:" Roughly manufactured, without being kneaded and baked."
,k16b_14:" I.e., the mikweh retains its powers of purification."
,k16b_15:" V. p. 61, n. 3. The spout was fixed in the earth before it was actually a spout, and after fixing it was made hollow to act as a water duct to the mikweh. In that case the water that passes through it is regarded as 'living water'. When, however, the water falls from the spout into vessels, it becomes 'drawn water', which renders the mikweh unfit. This holds good whether they are very large vessels, too big to be susceptible to uncleanness, e.g., a tub more than forty se'ahs in capacity, or very small, so that I might think of disregarding them altogether; also, even if of dung, when they are not regarded as vessels at all in respect to uncleanness. If they are merely forgotten there, Beth Hillel maintain that the water is not 'drawn', since it was unintentional."
,k16b_16:" But not under the spout, and they are filled with the rain water which flows thence into the mikweh."
,k16b_17:" V. n. 3. Because he had no intention at all of filling it, since he did not place it under the spout."
,k16b_18:" I.e., they differ here too."
,k16b_19:" The term debe Rab means either the disciples of the Academy founded by Rab or scholars in general; Weiss, Dor, III, 158 (Ed. 1924)."
,k16b_20:" Utensils purified in the mikweh."
,k16b_21:" Because the mikweh was rendered unfit, as above. For he showed that he desired the water to flow into the utensils, and though he had forgotten them by the time the rain descended, his original intention was fulfilled, and the water is regarded as drawn."
,k16b_22:" Since there were no clouds, his placing the utensils there was not with the intention of filling them."
,k16b_23:" And by then he has forgotten them."
,k16b_24:" By the dispersal of the clouds; hence the subsequent filling does not render the water drawn."
,k16b_25:" Since there is a controversy, the <i>halachah</i> agrees with Beth Hillel, that the mikweh is fit."
,k16b_26:" The Cutheans were the descendants of the heathens who settled in Samaria after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. They accepted a form of Judaism, and the Rabbis' attitude towards them varied. At times they were regarded as Jews, but they were subsequently declared non-Jews. The present enactment treats them as Jews, who, however, are looked upon with disfavour."
,k16b_27:" Pl. of <i>niddah</i>, a menstruant woman."
,k16b_28:" I.e., from birth they are treated as unclean, like a <i>niddah</i>. The purpose of this enactment was to discourage intermarriage with them (Tosaf.)."
,k16b_29:" This refers to the defilement caused by a dead person, not by contact but through the fact that both the dead person and the object defiled are under the same covering, e.g., the roof of a house or an overhead awning (cf. Num. XIX, 14f), which induces uncleanness to the object defiled. The width of the covering object must not be less than the thickness of an ox-goad, for which v. <i>infra</i> 17a. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Ashi said: After all, it is similar to earthen utensils, and as for your difficulty, 'let them not become unclean through their [flat or convex] backs', [the reply] is because its inside is as visible as its outside.<a id="k16b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Simeon b. Shetah instituted a woman's marriage settlement and imposed uncleanness upon metal utensils.' But [the uncleanness of] metal utensils is Biblical, for it is written, howbeit the gold, and the silver [&hellip; etc.]?<a id="k16b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This [the Rabbinical law] was necessary only in respect of former uncleanness.<a id="k16b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: It once happened that Queen Shalzion<a id="k16b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; made a banquet for her son and all her utensils were defiled. Thereupon she broke them and gave them to the goldsmith, who melted them down and manufactured new utensils of them. But the Sages declared, They revert to their previous uncleanness. What is the reason? &mdash; They were concerned there to provide<a id="k16b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a fence against the water of separation.<a id="k16b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, that is well on the view that they [the Sages] did not rule thus in respect of all forms of defilement but only in respect of the defilement of the dead:<a id="k16b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; then it is correct. But on the view that they ruled thus for all forms of uncleanness, what can be said? &mdash; Abaye answered: As a preventive measure lest he might not perforate it to the standard of purification.<a id="k16b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: As a preventive measure lest it be said that tebillah<a id="k16b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; of that very day is effective for it.<a id="k16b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do they differ? &mdash; They differ where a smith refashioned it.<a id="k16b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And what is another?<a id="k16b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: If one places vessels under a spout to catch rain water therein, whether they are large vessels or small, or even vessels [made] of stone, earth<a id="k16b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or dung, they render the mikweh unfit. It is all one whether he places or forgets them [there]: that is Beth Shammai's view; but Beth Hillel declare it clean<a id="k16b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; if he forgets them.<a id="k16b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Meir: They took a count, and Beth Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel. Yet Beth Shammai admit it that if he forgets [the utensils] in a courtyard,<a id="k16b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it is clean.<a id="k16b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: The controversy still stands in its place.<a id="k16b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mesharsheya said: The scholars of Rab<a id="k16b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; said: All agree that, if he places them [under the spout] when clouds are massing, they<a id="k16b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; are unclean;<a id="k16b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [if he places them there] when the clouds are dispersed, all agree that they are clean.<a id="k16b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ only if he places them there when the clouds were massing, but they then dispersed, and subsequently massed together again:<a id="k16b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master [Beth Hillel] holds that his intention was nullified,<a id="k16b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds that his intention was not nullified.
</p><p>
	Now, according to R. Jose, who maintained, The controversy still stands in its place, they are less [than eighteen]?<a id="k16b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: On that same day they also enacted that the daughters of Cutheans<a id="k16b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; are niddoth<a id="k16b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; from their cradles.<a id="k16b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And what is another? For we learnt: All movable objects induce uncleanness by the thickness of an ox-goad.<a id="k16b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Tarfon,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k17a_1:" Lit., 'may I cut off my children that this <i>halachah</i> is cut off'."
,k17a_2:" I.e. any utensil which overshadows the dead becomes itself unclean, whatever its width, and the peasant was declared unclean for the same day till the evening because he was actually carrying and in direct contact with this ox-goad. But one of the disciples who heard this ruling erroneously imagined that he was unclean in virtue of the law stated in n. 7. involving an uncleanness of seven days, and thus drew a false conclusion."
,k17a_3:" Who said that all movable objects induce uncleanness by the thickness of an ox-goad."
,k17a_4:" Lit., 'aperture'."
,k17a_5:" If its thickness is a handbreadth, it induces uncleanness of seven days by Biblical law, and therefore the Sages extended this to the former case too, to prevent confusion. This is one of the eighteen enactments. V. Oh. XVI, 1."
,k17a_6:" Sc. one who places vessels under a spout, v. <i>supra</i> 16b."
,k17a_7:" Rashba's version omits this passage, because R. Tarfon accepted R. Akiba's view; v. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, P. 587-8."
,k17a_8:" V. P. 45, nn. 1 and 4."
,k17a_9:" You maintain that grapes are fit to become defiled, and therefore must be vintaged into ritually clean baskets: why then do you not insist upon it when the olives are gathered too, for surely the same reasoning applies?"
,k17a_10:" This was the practice when a vote was taken upon any question; Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, p. 585 n. 18."
,k17a_11:" I.e., the assembly voted against him-of course the actual expression is not to be understood literally."
,k17a_12:" In view of the humility to which Hillel, who was the Nasi, had been subjected."
,k17a_13:" At the assembly in the house of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon."
,k17a_14:" Hence it is one of the eighteen measures."
,k17a_15:" Why does the exuding liquid make the grapes susceptible to uncleanness? For the logic is the reverse, seeing that this liquid is wasted and its exuding is not with its owner's desire, whereas the owner's desire is necessary for it to cause susceptibility to defilement."
,k17a_16:" Since the uncleanness comes simultaneously with the fluid, the latter renders the grapes fit to become unclean, even without the owner's desire."
,k17a_17:" Lit., 'makes the liquid count'-to qualify other objects to become unclean."
,k17a_18:" Since the liquid is not lost, its exuding is not contrary to the owner's desire."
,k17a_19:" Lit., 'the biting ones'. One must separate these by force, thus causing juice to spurt out. Since he does this himself, the juice certainly makes the grapes susceptible; then as a preventive measure the law was extended to all exuding juice, in order to obviate confusion. "
}

txt:
<p>
May I bury my children,<a id="k17a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; if this is not an erroneous <i>halachah</i>, for the hearer heard [a ruling] and erred [therein]. [Viz.,] a peasant was passing with an ox-goad on his shoulder and one end thereof overshadowed a grave, and he was declared unclean in virtue of [the law of] utensils which overshadowed the dead.<a id="k17a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said, I will rectify [it] so that the words of the Sages<a id="k17a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may be fulfilled. [Viz.,] all movable objects induce uncleanness in their bearers by the thickness of an ox-goad; [and induce uncleanness] in themselves, by any thickness; and in other people or utensils, by the width<a id="k17a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of a handbreadth. And R. Jannai observed: and the ox-goad of which they spoke is not a handbreadth in thickness but in circumference, and they enacted [this law] concerning its circumference on account of its thickness.<a id="k17a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Tarfon who said, 'May I bury my children but this <i>halachah</i> is incorrect!' they are less [than eighteen]? &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, That the daughters of Cutheans are niddoth from their cradles was also enacted on that same day; and on the other [question]<a id="k17a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he agrees with R. Meir.<a id="k17a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And another? &mdash; When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [I.C., to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit (to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled, It is not made fit.<a id="k17a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Hillel to Shammai: Why must one vintage [grapes] in purity, yet not gather [olives] in purity?<a id="k17a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If you provoke me, he replied, I will decree uncleanness in the case of olive gathering too. A sword was planted in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i> and it was proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter, but he who would depart, let him not depart!'<a id="k17a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples,<a id="k17a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was as grievous to Israel<a id="k17a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; as the day when the [golden] calf was made. Now, Shammai and Hillel enacted [this measure], but they would not accept it from them; but their disciples came<a id="k17a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and enacted it, and it was accepted from them.<a id="k17a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Now,] what is the reason?<a id="k17a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said Ze'iri in R. Hanina's name: For fear lest he vintage it into unclean baskets.<a id="k17a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, that is well on the view that an unclean vessel renders fluid effective;<a id="k17a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but on the view that an unclean vessel does not render fluid effective, what can be said? &mdash; Rather, said Ze'iri in R. Hanina's name: For fear lest he vintage it in pitch lined baskets.<a id="k17a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: It is a preventive measure on account of tightly cleaving, [clusters].<a id="k17a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: [It is a preventive measure, for] a man sometimes goes to his vineyard to see if the grapes are ready for vintaging, takes a bunch of grapes to squeeze it, and sprinkles [the juice] on the grapes, and at the time of gathering the moisture is still dripping on them.
</p><p>
	And another? &mdash; Said
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k17b_1:" By Biblical law, if <i>terumah</i> is resown its produce is hullin (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), but the Rabbis decreed that it is <i>terumah</i> and belongs to the priest."
,k17b_2:" Who may resow and keep it for himself, thus depriving the priest of his dues."
,k17b_3:" The text is in slight disorder."
,k17b_4:" V. Kid. 58b."
,k17b_5:" Not to retain the <i>terumah</i>, by resowing it."
,k17b_6:" Whilst keeping it for resowing, he may forget that it is unclean, and eat it. Therefore it was enacted that even if resown its produce may not be eaten, though it will not be regarded as unclean (Tosaf. as explained by Maharsha)."
,k17b_7:" <i>Infra</i> 153a; and not carry it along short distances of less than four cubits each."
,k17b_8:" In A.Z. 36a the reading is Niwte, i.e., the Nabatean. Senawta is probably a dialect form of the same."
,k17b_9:" Sc. of Gentiles."
,k17b_10:" They are counted as one."
,k17b_11:" V. <i>supra</i> 16b. This seems a repetition of the question there."
,k17b_12:" Actually these were ancient prohibitions, going back to the days of Daniel (cf. Dan. I, 8; Josephus, Ant. I. 3, 12.). But in the course of time their observance grew weak, and the disciples of Shammai and Hillel renewed and strengthened the prohibition as one of their eighteen enactments. V. Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 591ff, seq., v. also Weiss, Dor, I, 129."
,k17b_13:" For this implies that there was greater reason for prohibiting their oil than their bread."
,k17b_14:" Lit., 'something else', viz., idolatry."
,k17b_15:" Even if he is not suffering therewith."
,k17b_16:" Thus this is the eighteenth."
,k17b_17:" Jast. Rashi: horse beans, used for cattle."
,k17b_18:" These materials had to be steeped in water before they were fit for their purpose, and Beth Shammai rule that this may not be done on Friday unless there is time for the process to be completed before the Sabbath. Yashuru means dissolved and soaked through, and will bear the latter meaning in respect of beans, according to Rashi's translation."
,k17b_19:" i.e., his destination must be near enough to be reached before the Sabbath. "
}

txt:
<p>
Tabi the hunter in Samuel's name: That the produce of <i>terumah</i> is <i>terumah</i> was also enacted on that day.<a id="k17b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; R. Hanina said: It was a preventive measure, on account of undefiled <i>terumah</i> [being retained] in the hand of an Israelite.<a id="k17b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba observed: If they are suspected of this, they would not separate [<i>terumah</i>] at all: [and furthermore]<a id="k17b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since he can render one grain of wheat [as <i>terumah</i> for the whole], in accordance with Samuel,<a id="k17b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and does not, he is indeed trusted.<a id="k17b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said Raba, it is a preventive measure on account of unclean <i>terumah</i> in the priest's hands, lest he keep it with him and be led to sin.<a id="k17b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And another? &mdash; R. Hiyya b. Ammi said in 'Ulla's name: That one must give his purse to a Gentile if [the Sabbath] evening falls upon him on the road was also enacted on that day.<a id="k17b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And another? &mdash; Bali said in the name of Abimi of Senawta:<a id="k17b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [The interdict against] their bread, oil, wine and daughters<a id="k17b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; all these are of the eighteen measures.<a id="k17b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, this is well according to R. Meir; but according to R. Jose, there are only seventeen?<a id="k17b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is also that of R. Aha b. Adda. For R. Aha b. Adda said in R. Isaac's name: Their bread was forbidden on account of their oil, and their oil on account of their wine.<a id="k17b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Their bread on account of their oil'!-wherein is [the interdict of] oil stronger than that of bread?<a id="k17b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [say] they decreed against their bread and oil on account of their wine, and against their wine on account of their daughters, and against their daughters on account of 'the unmentionable,'<a id="k17b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and [they decreed] something else on account of some other thing. What is this 'something else?'- Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: They decreed that a heathen child shall defile by gonorrhoea,<a id="k17b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so that an Israelite child should not associate with him for sodomy.<a id="k17b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But if so, according to R. Meir too [it is difficult, for] there are nineteen!-Food and drink which were defiled through liquid he accounts as one.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BETH SHAMMAI RULE: INK, DYES AND ALKALINE PLANTS<a id="k17b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY NOT BE STEEPED UNLESS THEY CAN BE DISSOLVED WHILE IT IS YET DAY;<a id="k17b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL, PERMIT IT. BETH SHAMMAI RULE: BUNDLES OF WET FLAX MAY NOT BE PLACED IN AN OVEN UNLESS THEY CAN BEGIN TO STEAM WHILE IT IS YET DAY, NOR WOOL. IN THE DYER'S KETTLE UNLESS IT CAN ASSUME THE COLOUR [OF THE DYE]; BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: SNARES FOR WILD BEASTS, FOWLS, AND FISH, MAY NOT BE SPREAD UNLESS THEY CAN BE CAUGHT WHILE IT IS YET DAY; BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT. BETH SHAMMAI RULE: ONE MUST NOT SELL, TO A GENTILE, OR HELP HIM TO LOAD [AN ASS], OR LIFT UP [AN ARTICLE] UPON HIM UNLESS HE CAN REACH A NEAR PLACE;<a id="k17b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HIDES MUST NOT BE GIVEN TO A TANNER, NOR GARMENTS TO A GENTILE FULLER, UNLESS THEY CAN BE DONE WHILE IT IS YET DAY; BUT IN ALL THESE [CASES] BETH HILLEL, PERMIT [THEM]
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k18a_1:" Lit., 'with the sun', i.e., while the sun is shining."
,k18a_2:" Because these require more time."
,k18a_3:" By day, though the fluid goes on oozing during the Sabbath."
,k18a_4:" The Mishnah merely discusses this, and does not speak about kneading the ingredients too. Hence the mere pouring must be regarded as a labour forbidden on the Sabbath, for otherwise there would be no controversy in respect to Friday."
,k18a_5:" For desecrating the Sabbath."
,k18a_6:" Thus he holds that the mere pouring in of water constitutes kneading, which is forbidden on the Sabbath. The making of ink is prohibited as a derivative (v. p. 3, n. 2.) of kneading."
,k18a_7:" For mere pouring, even on R. Jose son of Judah's view."
,k18a_8:" Though ashes do not require kneading."
,k18a_9:" In Heb. these words are very similar and sometimes interchanged."
,k18a_10:" For making clay."
,k18a_11:" In the same Baraitha? They were stated in separate Baraithas, not necessarily by the same teacher, and both may mean the same thing."
,k18a_12:" Heb. <i>kilur</i>, [G] collyrium."
,k18a_13:" Healing on the Sabbath itself is forbidden, unless there is danger to life."
,k18a_14:" Which detracts from the sanctity of the Sabbath."
,k18a_15:" Ex. XXIII, 13. The preceding verse deals with the Sabbath."
,k18a_16:" A man is commanded to let the vessels rest as well as he himself."
,k18a_17:" For this Baraitha must reflect Beth Hillel's ruling, since its other clauses oppose the views of Beth Shammai as expressed in our Mishnah."
,k18a_18:" The spring of the trap closes and the mesh of the nets tightens as they catch their prey,"
,k18a_19:" So arranged as to permit the animal to get in but not out. Thus they are passive instruments. "
}

txt:
<p>
BEFORE SUNSET.<a id="k18a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, SAID: IT WAS THE PRACTICE IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE TO GIVE WHITE GARMENTS TO A GENTILE FULLER THREE DAYS BEFORE THE SABBATH.<a id="k18a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND BOTH [SCHOOLS] AGREE THAT THE BEAM OF THE [OIL] PRESS AND THE CIRCULAR WINE PRESS MAY BE LADEN.<a id="k18a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Which Tanna [holds that] pouring water into ink constitutes its steeping?<a id="k18a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Joseph, It is Rabbi. For it was taught: If one pours in flour and another water, the second s liable:<a id="k18a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; this is Rabbi's view.<a id="k18a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: He is not liable unless he kneads [them]. Abaye said to him, Yet perhaps R. Jose [son of R. Judah] ruled thus only in respect to flour, which is subject to kneading: but as for ink, which is not subject to kneading, I may say that he is liable?<a id="k18a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; You cannot think so, for it was taught: if one pours in the ashes and another the water, the second is liable: this is Rabbi's view. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: [He is not liable] unless he kneads them.<a id="k18a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet perhaps what is [meant by] ashes? Earth [dust],<a id="k18a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; which does require kneading.<a id="k18a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But both ashes and earth [dust] were taught? &mdash; Were they then taught together?<a id="k18a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Water may be conducted into a garden on the eve of the Sabbath just before dark, and it may go on being filled the whole day; and a perfume brazier may be placed under garments which continue to absorb the perfume the whole day; and sulphur may be placed under [silver) vessels and they undergo the process of sulphuring the whole day; and an eye salve<a id="k18a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; may be placed on the eye and a plaster on a wound and the process of healing continues all day.<a id="k18a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But wheat may not be placed in a water-mill unless it can be ground when it is still day. What is the reason? Rabbah answered, Because it makes a noise.<a id="k18a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph to him, Let the Master say it is on account of the resting of utensils? For it was taught: And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed:<a id="k18a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; this includes the resting of utensils!<a id="k18a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Joseph, it is on account of the resting of utensils. 
</p><p>
	Now that you say that according to Beth Hillel the resting of utensils is a Biblical precept,<a id="k18a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; why are sulphur and a perfume brazier permitted? &mdash; Because it [the vessel in which they lie] performs no action. Why are wet bundles of flax permitted? &mdash; Because it [the oven in which they lie] performs no action and is motionless. But what of the trap for wild beasts, fowl and fish, which performs an action,<a id="k18a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Why are they permitted? &mdash; There too [it means] with a fish hook and a trap made with little joists,<a id="k18a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; so that no action is performed.
</p><p>
	Now, however, that R. Oshaia said in R. Assi's name, Which Tanna [maintains that] the resting of utensils is a Biblical precept? It is Beth Shammai: then according to Beth Shammai, whether it [the utensil] performs an action or not, it is forbidden, while in the opinion of Beth Hillel even if it performs an action it is permitted. And now that you say that according to Beth Shammai it is forbidden even if it performs no action, if so,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k18b_1:" For on this hypothesis the Baraitha must agree with Beth Shammai, since the placing of wheat in a mill is forbidden."
,k18b_2:" Not in a vessel."
,k18b_3:" Beer brews in its tank more than eight days, thus including the Sabbath. Similarly, the lamp burns during the Sabbath, the pot stands on the heated range, causing some shrinkage of its contents, and the spit was allowed to lie in the oven with the Passover sacrifice roasting on Friday night. Thus all these utensils are employed on the Sabbath."
,k18b_4:" This is a legal fiction. Their owner formally renounces his ownership, and then he is under no obligation to ensure that they rest."
,k18b_5:" Or, peas."
,k18b_6:" So that she should not profit by having virtually prepared it on the Sabbath."
,k18b_7:" Since Beth Hillel do not require utensils to rest."
,k18b_8:" The garments or vessels."
,k18b_9:" The oven, to rake up the coals.-The coals burnt inside the ancient ovens."
,k18b_10:" Sc. the wool within the kettle, to make it absorb the dye more thoroughly. This too is forbidden."
,k18b_11:" Hence he is not likely to forget.-In this and the following cases the fear is not that he may do these things intentionally but unintentionally in a moment of forgetfulness."
,k18b_12:" I.e., a pot containing a raw dish."
,k18b_13:" The evening meal was eaten soon after nightfall, and it would not be ready by then."
,k18b_14:" There is ample time for it to be ready on the morrow without his stirring. But pounded wheat and lupines require very much boiling, and therefore they are forbidden."
,k18b_15:" Permitted, because the coals will not require raking."
,k18b_16:" Lit., 'boiled and not boiled'."
,k18b_17:" This serves to show that he has no mention of eating it before the morrow."
,k18b_18:" To seal it down."
,k18b_19:" Goat flesh is tender and injured by a draught."
,k18b_20:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k18b_21:" Not in the oven. It is then easy to turn it and rake the coals: hence it is forbidden."
,k18b_22:" It may be placed in the oven even if it cannot be cooked by the Sabbath."
,k18b_23:" If the Gentile lives in another town, it is sufficient if he can take it to the nearest house there, even if he cannot reach his own before the Sabbath."
,k18b_24:" Their views are identical."
,k18b_25:" I.e., he states Beth Hillel's ruling, not an independent one, and thus differs from the first Tanna's interpretation of Beth Hillel's attitude. "
}

txt:
<p>
why are a perfume brazier and sulphur permitted?<a id="k18b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There it lies upon the earth.<a id="k18b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What of a tank [for brewing beer], a lamp, a pot and a spit-why do Beth Shammai permit [them]?<a id="k18b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Because their ownership is renounced.<a id="k18b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Who is the author of the following, which our Rabbis taught: A woman must not fill a pot with pounded wheat<a id="k18b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and lupines and place it in the oven on the eve of the Sabbath shortly before nightfall; and if she does put them [there], they are forbidden at the conclusion of the Sabbath for as long as they take to prepare.<a id="k18b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, a baker must not fill a barrel of water and place it in the oven on the eve of the Sabbath shortly before nightfall; and if he does, it [the water] is forbidden at the conclusion of the Sabbath for as long as it takes to prepare [boil]. Shall we say that this agrees with Beth Shammai, not Beth Hillel?<a id="k18b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You may even say that it is Beth Hillel: it is a preventive measure, lest he stir the coals. If so, let us decree [likewise] in respect of a perfume brazier and sulphur? &mdash; There he will not stir them] for if he does, the smoke will enter and harm them.<a id="k18b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Let us decree in respect of wet bundles of flax too? &mdash; There, since a draught is injurious to them, he will not uncover it.<a id="k18b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Let us decree also in respect of wool in the dye kettle? &mdash; Samuel answered: This refers to a kettle removed [from the fire]. But let us fear that he may stir within it?<a id="k18b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This refers to [a kettle] removed from [the fire] and sealed down.<a id="k18b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And now that the Master said: 'It is a preventive measure, lest one rake the coals', a raw dish<a id="k18b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; may be placed in an oven on the eve of Sabbath shortly before nightfall. What is the reason? Since it will not be fit for the evening,<a id="k18b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he withdraws his mind from it and will not come to rake the coals.<a id="k18b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, if it is [quite] boiled, it is well.<a id="k18b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If partly boiled,<a id="k18b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it is forbidden. Yet if a raw bone is thrown into it, it is permitted.<a id="k18b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And now that the Master said, 'Whatever may be harmed by the draught, one will not uncover it': with flesh of a kid, where it [the oven] is daubed round,<a id="k18b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it is well;<a id="k18b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; with [flesh] of a buck, where it [the oven] is not daubed round, is forbidden. But as to [flesh] of a kid, where it is not daubed round, or of a buck, where it is daubed round: R. Ashi permits it, while R. Jeremiah of Difti<a id="k18b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; forbids it. Now, according to R. Ashi, who permits it, did we not learn, Meat, onion[s] or egg[s] may not be roasted unless they can be roasted before sunset? &mdash; There the reference is to [flesh] of a buck, and where it [the oven] is not daubed round. 
</p><p>
	Others state: With [the flesh] of a kid, whether it [the oven] is daubed round or not, it is well; of a buck too, if it is daubed round, it is well. They differ in respect to [flesh] of a buck, it [the oven] not being daubed: R. Ashi permits it, while R. Jeremiah of Difti forbids it. Now, according to R. Ashi who permits it, did we not learn, Meat, onion[s] or egg[s] may not be roasted unless they can be roasted before sunset? &mdash; There the reference is to meat on the coals [direct].<a id="k18b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said: As for a raw gourd, it is well:<a id="k18b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; since a draught is injurious to it, it is like flesh of a kid.
</p><p>
	BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MUST NOT SELL [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai maintain: A man must not sell an article to a Gentile, nor lend [it] to him nor loan him [money] nor make him a gift [on the eve of Sabbath], unless he can reach his house [before sunset]; while Beth Hillel rule: [unless] he can reach the house nearest the [city] wall.<a id="k18b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: [Unless] he can depart from the door of his [the Jew's] house [before the Sabbath]. Said R. Jose son of R. Judah: The words of R. Akiba are the very words of Beth Hillel:<a id="k18b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba comes only to explain the words of Beth Hillel.<a id="k18b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai maintain: A man must not sell his leaven to a Gentile, unless he knows that it will be consumed before Passover: this is Beth Shammai's view. But Beth Hillel say: As long as he [the Jew] may eat it, he may sell it. R. Judah said:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k19a_1:" Jast.: a preserve consisting of sour milk, bread-crusts and salt."
,k19a_2:" It is used as a sauce or relish and hence lasts a long time. It was customary to give popular lectures about the Festivals thirty days before them, and therefore from that time one was forbidden to sell kutah to a Gentile."
,k19a_3:" To restrain it from carrying it out into the street."
,k19a_4:" He has a duty towards his animals which he does not owe to a stranger, and therefore I might think that in the latter case food must not be given, since it may be carried out."
,k19a_5:" That even so food may be placed before a Gentile. Because though one has no legal obligation, he has the duty of charity towards him, just as towards a Jew, as stated in Git. 61a (Tosaf.)."
,k19a_6:" Though he will use it on the Sabbath."
,k19a_7:" He never sent a letter by a Gentile lest he might take it to its destination on Sabbath. This was a measure of ultra stringency."
,k19a_8:" Once the fee is stipulated the Gentile works for himself, to earn it, and not for the Jew."
,k19a_9:" Otherwise it is forbidden even if the fee was already stipulated."
,k19a_10:" If the addressee lives in a different town; cf. p. 77, n. 9."
,k19a_11:" In which case the first Tanna, i.e., Beth Hillel, rules that it may be carried on the Sabbath itself."
,k19a_12:" Other edd. more plausibly, But it was taught that they must not be sent (at all)? The reference is then to the preceding Baraitha, not this one, for this one distinctly states that if the fee was arranged it is permitted; v. marg. gloss, cur. edd."
,k19a_13:" Of the addressee. Then letters may be sent, even if the fee was not stipulated, providing that the messenger can reach the post office or the nearest house in that town before the Sabbath."
,k19a_14:" Rashi: then one must not send if the fee was not stipulated, as he may go searching for him on the Sabbath."
,k19a_15:" Lit., 'a matter of a precept'."
,k19a_16:" The Gentile owner of the ship."
,k19a_17:" I.e., though the condition will not be carried out."
,k19a_18:" Both on the Phoenician coast, about thirty miles apart."
,k19a_19:" Being such a short distance."
,k19a_20:" Deut. XX, 20. The reference is to a besieged city."
,k19a_21:" Lit., 'words'."
,k19a_22:" I know from them that this requires less labour."
,k19a_23:" And he is entitled to make a deduction."
,k19a_24:" On Sabbath eve before nightfall."
,k19a_25:" I.e., permitted, as here, the beams being laden before the Sabbath and the juice then oozing automatically on the Sabbath. "
}

txt:
<p>
Babylonian kutah<a id="k19a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and any [other] kind of kutah may not be sold thirty days before Passover.<a id="k19a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Food may be placed before a dog in a courtyard, [and] if it takes it and goes out, one has no duty toward it.<a id="k19a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, food may be placed before a Gentile in a courtyard, [and] if he takes it and goes out, one has no duty toward him. What is the purpose of this further [dictum]; [surely] it is the same [as the first]? &mdash; You might argue, The one is incumbent upon him, whereas the other is not:<a id="k19a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore we are informed [otherwise].<a id="k19a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A man must not hire his utensils to a Gentile on the eve of Sabbath; [but] on Wednesday or Thursday it is permitted.<a id="k19a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, letters may not be sent by a Gentile on the eve of Sabbath, [but] on Wednesday or Thursday it is permitted. It was related of R. Jose the priest-others say, of R. Jose the Pious-that his handwriting was never found in a Gentile's hand.<a id="k19a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Letters may not be sent by Gentiles on the eve of Sabbath unless a fee is stipulated.<a id="k19a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai maintain: There must be time to reach his [the addressee's] house [before the Sabbath];<a id="k19a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; while Beth Hillel rule: There must be time to reach the house nearest the [city] wall.<a id="k19a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But has he not stipulated?<a id="k19a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Shesheth, This is its meaning: And if he did not stipulate, Beth Shammai maintain: There must be time to reach his [the addressee's] house; while Beth Hillel rule: to reach the house nearest the [city] wall. But you said in the first clause that one must not send [at all]?<a id="k19a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case a post office is permanently located in the town,<a id="k19a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other case a post office is not permanently located in the town.<a id="k19a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One may not set out in a ship less than three days before the Sabbath. This was said only [if it is] for a voluntary purpose, but [if] for a good deed,<a id="k19a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it is well; and he stipulates with him<a id="k19a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; that it is on condition that he will rest [on the Sabbath], yet he does not rest:<a id="k19a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; this is Rabbi's view. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It is unnecessary. But from Tyre to Sidon<a id="k19a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted even on the eve of Sabbath.<a id="k19a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Gentile cities must not be besieged less than three days before the Sabbath, yet once they commence they need not leave off. And thus did Shammai say: until until it fall,<a id="k19a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; even on the Sabbath. 
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, SAID: IT WAS THE PRACTICE IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE etc. It was taught, R. Zadok said, This was the practice of R. Gamaliel's house, viz., they used to give white garments to the fuller three days before the Sabbath, but coloured garments even on the eve of the Sabbath. And from their usage<a id="k19a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; we learn that white [garments] are more difficult to wash than coloured ones. Abaye was giving a coloured garment to a fuller and asked him, How much do you want for it? 'As for a white garment,' he answered. 'Our Rabbis have already anticipated you,' said he.<a id="k19a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: When one gives a garment to a fuller he should deliver it to him by measure and receive it back by measure, for if it is more, he spoiled it by stretching, and if less he spoiled it by shrinking.<a id="k19a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND BOTH AGREE THAT THE BEAM OF THE [OIL] PRESS AND THE CIRCULAR WINE PRESS MAY BE LADEN. Wherein do all [the other acts] differ that Beth Shammai forbid them, and wherein do [those relating to] the beam of the [oil] press and the circular wine press differ, that Beth Shammai do not forbid them? &mdash; Those other [acts] which, if done on the Sabbath involve a sin-offering, Beth Shammai forbade on the eve of the Sabbath just before nightfall; [but the loading of] the beam of the [oil] press and the circular wine press, which if done on the Sabbath does not involve a sin-offering, they did not forbid.<a id="k19a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Which Tanna [maintains] that everything which comes automatically is well?<a id="k19a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, It is R. Ishmael. For we learnt: [In the case of] garlic, half-ripe grapes, and parched ears [of corn] were crushed before sunset, R. Ishmael said: One may finish them at night; R. Akiba said:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k19b_1:" A heavy weight was placed upon them to cause their juice to run out, and the controversy is whether this may be done on the Sabbath, since they were already crushed before."
,k19b_2:" On the Sabbath."
,k19b_3:" To consume them on the Sabbath."
,k19b_4:" Honey is a food, not a drink, even after it oozes out."
,k19b_5:" The case of the Mishnah, where the oil exudes from the olives, etc."
,k19b_6:" Olives and grapes are food; oil and wine are liquid. Since it changes so much on the Sabbath, it may be that R. Eleazar forbids it."
,k19b_7:" Does he not admit the force of this argument?"
,k19b_8:" For drinking on the Sabbath."
,k19b_9:" This may also mean: he rejects the authenticity of this Baraitha, for not all Baraithas were of equal authority."
,k19b_10:" On the Mishnah quoted by R. Jose b. R. Hanina."
,k19b_11:" It is certainly forbidden on all views."
,k19b_12:" 'Pounding' (shehikah) connotes a further stage in the process, after crushing."
,k19b_13:" In our Mishnah."
,k19b_14:" <i>Supra</i> a bottom."
,k19b_15:" The remnants of the oil in the corners and the oil which gathered in the mats with which the olives were covered belonged to the workers who pressed it out."
,k19b_16:" To be handled on the Sabbath."
,k19b_17:" This oil is 'mukzeh,' v. p. 81, n. 4, and it is disputed <i>infra</i> 44a <i>et passim</i> whether such may be handled on the Sabbath. Rab and Samuel differ on the same question."
,k19b_18:" Keroke ([H]) connotes mattings which can be rolled up, and zuze means in pairs. Rashi explains: mattings used in couples to form a roof-like protection for merchandise. He also quotes a variant found in Geonic responsa: [H] ship mattings."
,k19b_19:" To be handled on the Sabbath."
,k19b_20:" V. next note."
,k19b_21:" <i>Infra</i> 156b on 'mukzeh'. All these are 'mukzeh', set apart, i.e., their owner has set them apart not to be eaten but for the purposes stated, and it is disputed <i>infra</i> 156b whether one may change his mind and slaughter them on Festivals for food. With the exception of dates kept for trading the present controversy is in respect of Festivals, whilst that of dates refers to the Sabbath too."
,k19b_22:" In S. Babylon on the right arm of the Euphrates, subsequently called Hira. Obermeyer, Landschaft, p. 234."
,k19b_23:" That the above are permitted."
,k19b_24:" A form of excommunication. The banned person observed certain mourning rites and was shunned by his colleagues. Generally speaking it lasted for thirty days."
,k19b_25:" I.e., it was within his jurisdiction."
,k19b_26:" They saved them from being destroyed in a fire."
,k19b_27:" V. <i>infra</i> i 20a."
,k19b_28:" And left to roast on the Sabbath. We have no fear that one may rake the coals on the Sabbath (v. <i>supra</i> 18b),"
,k19b_29:" Ma'ahizin means to ignite logs by means of burning chips."
,k19b_30:" A room where the priests warmed themselves, as they performed the service in the Temple barefoot and became cold. The priests were very careful, and so it is sufficient if the fire just catches on, and no fear is entertained that they may forgetfully rake it into a blaze in the evening. "
}

txt:
<p>
One may not finish them [at night].<a id="k19b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Eleazar [b. Pedath] said, It is R. Eleazar [b. Shammua']. For we learnt: If honeycombs are crushed on the eve of Sabbath and it [the honey] exudes spontaneously,<a id="k19b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it is forbidden;<a id="k19b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Eleazar permits it.
</p><p>
	Now, as to R. Jose son of R. Hanina, what is the reason that he did not answer as R. Eleazar? &mdash; He can tell you: it is only there [that R. Eleazar permits it], since it was originally food and still food;<a id="k19b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k19b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; it was originally food and now a liquid.<a id="k19b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Eleazar [b. Pedath]?<a id="k19b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  He can answer you: But we know R. Eleazar [b. Shammua'] to hold that even olives and grapes are also permitted. For when R. Hoshaya came from Nehardea, he came and brought a Baraitha in his hands: If olives and grapes are crushed on the eve of Sabbath and they [their juices] exude spontaneously, they are forbidden;<a id="k19b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit it. And R. Jose b. R. Hanina? &mdash; He did not know this Baraitha.<a id="k19b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And R. Eleazar! what is the reason that he did not answer as R. Jose son of R. Hanina? &mdash; He can tell you: was it not stated thereon:<a id="k19b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; where they lack crushing there is no controversy at all;<a id="k19b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ only where pounding is lacking:<a id="k19b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and these too<a id="k19b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are similar to those that lack crushing. R. Jose son of R. Hanina gave a practical decision in accordance with R. Ishmael.<a id="k19b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to the oil belonging to the pressers, and the mats of the pressers:<a id="k19b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbade it,<a id="k19b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel permitted it.<a id="k19b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; As to coupled mattings<a id="k19b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbids them,<a id="k19b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and Samuel permits [them].
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: As to a goat [kept] for its milk, a ewe for its shearings, a fowl for its eggs, oxen for ploughing and dates for trading: Rab forbids, and Samuel permits [them],<a id="k19b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and they differ in the controversy of R. Simeon and R. Judah.<a id="k19b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain disciple gave a practical decision in Harta of Argiz<a id="k19b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with R. Simeon;<a id="k19b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; thereupon R. Hamnuna banned him.<a id="k19b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But do we not hold as R. Simeon? &mdash; It was in the place of Rab,<a id="k19b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and so he should have acted accordingly. There were two disciples: one saved [food, etc.] in one utensil, and one saved [it] in four or five utensils;<a id="k19b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and they differ in the same dispute as that of Rabbah b. Zabda and R. Huna.<a id="k19b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. MEAT, ONION[S], AND EGG[S] MAY NOT BE ROASTED UNLESS THEY CAN BE ROASTED WHILE IT IS YET DAY. BREAD MAY NOT BE PUT INTO AN OVEN JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL, NOR A CAKE UPON COALS, UNLESS ITS SURFACE CAN FORM A CRUST WHILE IT IS YET DAY; R. ELEAZAR SAID: THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE BOTTOM [SURFACE] THEREOF TO FORM A CRUST. THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE MAY BE LOWERED INTO THE OVEN JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL;<a id="k19b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE FIRE MAY BE LIGHTED WITH CHIPS<a id="k19b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE PILE IN THE CHAMBER OF THE HEARTH;<a id="k19b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k21a_1:" When one orders 'itrona or wax, he must be supplied with the residue of pitch or honey respectively."
,k21a_2:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: in the lamp."
,k21a_3:" Jast. identifies it with the pelican."
,k21a_4:" V. Jonah IV, 6. E.V. gourd, Jast.: ricinus tree, or the sprout bearing the castor-berry."
,k21a_5:" To provide shade and fragrance."
,k21a_6:" In a notched manner, as it were (Rashi). Jast.: the flame nibbles at them, producing sputtering sparks."
,k21a_7:" And so one may trim the wick or tilt the lamp on the Sabbath; hence they are forbidden, Riban states the reason because the lamp may go out, thus destroying the cheerfulness of the Sabbath."
,k21a_8:" Rashi: you must not light it when unmixed, and therefore when mixed too it is forbidden, as a preventive measure. The 'Aruk explains; Because etc., i.e., there is a tradition to that effect. But there is also another reading: because it cannot be lit., i.e., the mixture has the same defects as the forbidden oil itself."
,k21a_9:" Though a nut itself is not fit."
,k21a_10:" Lit., 'an act is a teacher'. Since R. Simeon b. Gamaliel relates that this was actually done, it must be presumed that this is the <i>halachah</i>, for an individual did not act upon his view in opposition to the majority"
,k21a_11:" I.e., the wick and the nut were meant to burn together."
,k21a_12:" To enable the wick to float on the surface of the oil instead of sinking."
,k21a_13:" Why does he forbid it?"
,k21a_14:" Though tallow itself is forbidden (<i>supra</i> 20b), which refutes Raba."
,k21a_15:" The Mishnah speaks of unmelted tallow."
,k21a_16:" But the prohibition went no further; hence if diluted with oil, it is permissible."
,k21a_17:" If the former is permitted, the latter too may be used."
,k21a_18:" Lit., 'for'."
,k21a_19:" Ex. XXVII, 21."
,k21a_20:" Le-ha'aloth (E.V. to burn) literally means to cause to go up.-These wicks and oils do not burn of themselves but need frequent attention. V. p. 84, n. 9."
,k21a_21:" The girdles contained wool, which, as stated on 20b, was added to the forbidden materials enumerated in the Mishnah. The reference is to the Temple, and thus this refutes Rami b. Hama."
,k21a_22:" Lit., 'the house of drawing'."
,k21a_23:" At the daily morning service during the Feast of Tabernacles a libation of water, in addition to the usual libation of wine, was poured out on the altar. This was drawn from the Pool of Siloam on the night of the first day, and carried in procession to the Temple amid great rejoicing; cf. Suk. 53a: 'He who has not seen the rejoicing of the Water-Drawing has never seen rejoicing in his life.' The outer court of the Temple was brilliantly illuminated, and for this, not for the ordinary Temple lamp, the unravelled breeches and girdles were used. Rashi observes: because this was not a Biblical precept. Another reason may be that so much was used that it was really a fire, rather than a flame, which is permitted <i>supra</i>. V. J.E. XII, 476 2."
,k21a_24:" Of wool and linen. I.e., the girdles; v. n. i."
,k21a_25:" The breeches."
,k21a_26:" V. <i>infra</i> b."
,k21a_27:" I.e., relight it. Therefore it must be made of good oil in the first place, lest it go out and is not relit.-This, of course, can only apply to weekdays."
,k21a_28:" E.g., for reading. Therefore these wicks and oils are forbidden on the Sabbath as the first reason in p. 88, n. 5, which applies here too. "
}

txt:
<p>
What is the practical bearing of this? &mdash; In respect of buying and selling.<a id="k21a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: All those of which they ruled that you must not light [the Sabbath lamp] therewith on the Sabbath, yet a fire may be made of them, both for warming oneself and for using the light thereof, whether on the earth or on the stove;<a id="k21a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and they merely prohibited the making of a wick of them for a [Sabbath] lamp. 
</p><p>
	NOR WITH KIK OIL. Samuel said: I asked all seafarers about it, and they told me that there is a certain bird in the sea towns called kik.<a id="k21a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac son of Rab Judah said: It is cotton-seed oil; Resh Lakish said: Oil from Jonah's kikayon.<a id="k21a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I myself have seen Jonah's kikayon; it resembles the ricinus tree and grows in ditches. It is set up at the entrance of shops;<a id="k21a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; I from its kernels oil is manufactured, and under its branches rest all the sick of the West [i.e., Palestine].
</p><p>
	Raba said: As to the wicks which the Sages said that you must not kindle therewith for the Sabbath, [the reason] is because their flame burns unevenly.<a id="k21a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The oils which the Sages said you must not kindle therewith is because they do not flow [freely] to the wick.<a id="k21a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye asked Rabbah: As to the oils which the Sages said you must not kindle therewith for the Sabbath, is it permissible to pour a little [good] oil into them and light [therewith]? Do we forbid it, lest one come to light therewith [the forbidden oil in its unmixed state, or not? He answered him, You must not light [therewith]. What is the reason? &mdash; Because you must not light.<a id="k21a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	He raised an objection: if one wraps a material which may be used [as a wick] for lighting around a material which may not be lit, one must not light therewith. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: In my father's house a wick was wound over a nut and they did light therewith. Thus he teaches that one may light!<a id="k21a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He replied: Instead of refuting me by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's view, support me by the first Tanna's [ruling]!- That is no difficulty: an act is [more] weighty.<a id="k21a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus the difficulty still remains, [for] surely it was for lighting?<a id="k21a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  No: for floating.<a id="k21a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If for floating, what is the reason of the first Tanna?<a id="k21a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It is all R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but there is a lacuna, and it was taught thus: If one wraps a material which may be used for lighting around a material which may not be lit, you must not light therewith. When is that said? For lighting; but for floating it is permitted, for R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, In my father's house a wick was wound about a nut and lit. 
</p><p>
	Yet that is not so, for R. Beruna said in Rab's name: The melted tallow and the dissolved inwards of fish, one may pour a little oil and light [therewith]?<a id="k21a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; These flow [freely] in their natural state, while those [in the Mishnah] do not flow [freely] in their natural state,<a id="k21a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but that the Rabbis forbade melted tallow on account of unmelted tallow and the dissolved inwards of fish on account of the undissolved inwards of fish.<a id="k21a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let us prohibit melted tallow and the dissolved inwards of fish diluted with oil on account of the same without an admixture of oil?<a id="k21a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; That itself is [merely] a preventive measure, and are we to arise and enact one preventive measure to safeguard<a id="k21a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; another preventive measure?
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama recited: The wicks and oil which the Sages said, One may not light therewith on the Sabbath, one must [also] not light therewith in the Temple, because it is said, to cause a lamp to burn continually.<a id="k21a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He recited and he interpreted it: the flame must ascend of itself, and not through something else.<a id="k21a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: The outworn breeches and girdles of priests were unravelled, and with these they kindled [the lights]?<a id="k21a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The rejoicing of the Water-Drawing<a id="k21a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was different.<a id="k21a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: Worn out priestly garments were unravelled, and of these wicks were made for the Temple. Surely that means [the garments] of composite materials?<a id="k21a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; No: [the garments] of linen [are meant].<a id="k21a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: With regard to the wicks and oils which the Sages said, One must not light therewith on the Sabbath, one may not light therewith on Hanukkah,<a id="k21a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; either on the Sabbath or on weekdays. Raba observed, What is R. Huna's reason? He holds that if it [the Hanukkah lamp] goes out, one must attend thereto,<a id="k21a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and one may make use of its light.<a id="k21a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda maintained: One may light therewith on weekdays, but not on the Sabbath. He holds, If it goes out,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k21b_1:" To show that it was lit in celebration of Hanukkah, not merely for illumination."
,k21b_2:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k21b_3:" R. Johanan being a greater authority than R. Jeremiah."
,k21b_4:" The verb denotes both to be fortunate and to merit."
,k21b_5:" These are more abiding. Abaye felt that he would have had a surer hold upon it had he learned it earlier."
,k21b_6:" Lit., 'Until the foot ceases from'."
,k21b_7:" Anytime within that period."
,k21b_8:" I.e., the lamp must contain sufficient oil to burn for that period. Nevertheless, if it goes out sooner, it need not be rekindled."
,k21b_9:" Lit., 'until the feet of the Tarmodians have ceased'. Tarmod or Tadmor is Palmyra, an oasis of the Syrian desert. They sold lighting materials and went about in the streets later than the general populace as their wares might be needed."
,k21b_10:" I.e., one light is lit every evening of the eight days (v.infra) for the entire household."
,k21b_11:" One less each day."
,k21b_12:" Up to eight."
,k21b_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k21b_14:" I.e., each evening one must kindle as many lights as the number of days of Hanukkah yet to come."
,k21b_15:" 'The Festival', without a determinate, always refers to Tabernacles (<i>Sukkoth</i>). Thirteen bullocks were sacrificed on the first day, twelve on the second, and so on, one less each succeeding day; v, Num. XXIX, 12 seqq."
,k21b_16:" The Heb. zaken, pl. zekenim, frequently means learned men, without particular reference to age (Kid. 32b), and may connote this here."
,k21b_17:" On the coast of Phoenicia."
,k21b_18:" To advertise the miracle. Their houses did not open directly on to the street but into a courtyard, and there the lamp was to be placed (Rashi); v., however, Tosaf, a.l."
,k21b_19:" When there is religious persecution."
,k21b_20:" Agreeing with the view <i>supra</i> that the light of the Hanukkah lamp may not be used."
,k21b_21:" Who is not accustomed to work at the light of a blazing fire."
,k21b_22:" The ninth month of the Jewish year, corresponding to about December."
,k21b_23:" This is an extract of the Megillath Ta'anith, lit., 'the scroll of fasting'."
,k21b_24:" Hence untouched and undefiled."
,k21b_25:" 'Praise', Ps. CXIII-CXVIII, recited on all Festivals; v. Weiss, Dor, I, p. 108, n. 1."
,k21b_26:" This lighting took place in 165 B.C.E. Exactly three years before, on the same day, Antiochus Epiphanes had a pagan altar erected in the Temple, upon which sacrifices were offered (I Macc. I, 41-64). Apart from the Talmudic reason stated here, Judas Maccabeus chose 25th of Kislew as the anniversary of the Temple's defilement, and the dedication of the new altar was celebrated with lights for eight days, similarly to the Feast of Tabernacles, which lasted eight days and was celebrated by illuminations (I Macc. IV, 36; II Macc. X, 6; <i>supra</i> a, p. 90, n. 3). Actually the revolt was against the Syrians, of whom Antiochus Epiphanes was king, but the term 'Greeks' is used loosely, because the Seleucid Empire was part of the older Empire founded by Alexander the Great of Macedon, and because it was a reaction against the attempted Hellenization of Judea. The historic data are contained in the First Book of the Maccabees."
,k21b_27:" For the loss of the flax."
,k21b_28:" Because, as stated above, it should be placed outside; the onus then lies upon the camel driver."
,k21b_29:" Handbreadths from the ground."
,k21b_30:" Possibly the lamp may be placed at the outset higher, yet the Rabbis did not wish to make the precept too burdensome. "
}

txt:
<p>
it does not require attention, and one may make use of its light. R. Zera said in R. Mattenah's name &mdash; others state, R. Zera said in Rab's name&mdash;: Regarding the wicks and oils which the Sages said, One must not light therewith on the Sabbath, one may light therewith on Hanukkah, either on weekdays or on the Sabbath. Said R. Jeremiah, What is Rab's reason? He holds, If it goes out, it does not require attention, and one may not make use of its light.<a id="k21b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis stated this before Abaye in R. Jeremiah's name, but he did not accept it. [But] when Rabin came,<a id="k21b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis stated it before Abaye in R. Johanan's name, whereupon he accepted it.<a id="k21b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Had I, he observed, merited the great fortune,<a id="k21b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; I would have learnt this dictum originally. But he learnt it [now]? &mdash; The difference is in respect of the studies of one's youth.<a id="k21b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, if it goes out, does it not require attention? But the following contradicts it: Its observance is from sunset until there is no wayfarer in<a id="k21b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the street. Does that not mean that if it goes out [within that period] it must be relit? &mdash; No: if one has not yet lit, he must light it;<a id="k21b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or, in respect of the statutory period.<a id="k21b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Until there is no wayfarer in the street.' Until when [is that]? &mdash; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Until the Palmyreans have departed.<a id="k21b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The precept of Hanukkah [demands] one light for a man and his household;<a id="k21b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the zealous [kindle] a light for each member [of the household]; and the extremely zealous, &mdash; Beth Shammai maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually reduced;<a id="k21b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but Beth Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they are progressively increased.<a id="k21b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla said: In the West [Palestine] two amoraim,<a id="k21b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, differ therein: one maintains, The reason of Beth Shammai is that it shall correspond to the days still to come,<a id="k21b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and that of Beth Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that are gone; but another maintains: Beth Shammai's reason is that it shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival;<a id="k21b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst Beth Hillel's reason is that we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: There were two old men<a id="k21b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in Sidon:<a id="k21b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; one did as Beth Shammai and the other as Beth Hillel: the former gave the reason of his action that it should correspond to the bullocks of the Festival, while the latter stated his reason because we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It is incumbent to place the Hanukkah lamp by the door of one's house on the outside;<a id="k21b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; if one dwells in an upper chamber, he places it at the window nearest the street. But in times of danger<a id="k21b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it is sufficient to place it on the table. Raba said: Another lamp is required for its light to be used;<a id="k21b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; yet if there is a blazing fire it is unnecessary. But in the case of an important person,<a id="k21b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; even if there is a blazing fire another lamp is required.
</p><p>
	What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew<a id="k21b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden.<a id="k21b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest,<a id="k21b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel<a id="k21b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and thanksgiving.<a id="k21b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere: If a spark which flies from the anvil goes forth and causes damage, he [the smith] is liable. If a camel laden with flax passes through a street, and the flax overflows into a shop, catches fire at the shopkeeper's lamp, and sets the building alight, the camel owner is liable; but if the shopkeeper placed the light outside, the shopkeeper is liable.<a id="k21b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: In the case of a Hanukkah lamp he is exempt.<a id="k21b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said in Rab's name: This proves that the Hanukkah lamp should [in the first instance] be placed within ten.<a id="k21b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; For should you think, above ten, let him say to him, 'You ought to have placed it higher than a camel and his rider.' 'Yet perhaps if he is put to too much trouble, he may refrain from the [observance of the] precept'.<a id="k21b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said, R. Nathan b. Minyomi expounded in R. Tanhum's name:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k22a_1:" A <i>sukkah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) built higher than twenty cubits, or a cross-beam which permits carrying in a side street (v. p. 30, n. 5 and 'Er. 2a) placed higher than twenty cubits from the ground, is unfit. Similarly a Hanukkah lamp, because it is too high to be noticed and does not advertise the miracle."
,k22a_2:" Gen. XXXVII, 24."
,k22a_3:" On the outside, as stated on 21b. But if it is placed further away, there is nothing to show that it was set there by the owner of the house."
,k22a_4:" In She'eltoth, Wa-yishlah, 26 the reading is R. Jeremiah."
,k22a_5:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k22a_6:" Both meaning as one enters the house."
,k22a_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k22a_8:" Cur. ed. adds: in Rab's name: Rosh omits it, and it appears to be absent from Rashi's text too."
,k22a_9:" Surely not."
,k22a_10:" Lev. XVII, 13. This refers to a beast or a fowl killed for food."
,k22a_11:" Sc. with this hand."
,k22a_12:" Kicking the dust over it."
,k22a_13:" Viz., the Hanukkah lamp."
,k22a_14:" The booths which were erected for the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. XXIII, 42) were adorned with fruit suspended from the roofs."
,k22a_15:" Being dedicated to a religious observance, it must not be put to secular use. The same applies here."
,k22a_16:" the prohibition is regarded as coming into force at twilight of the first day when they become dedicated to their religious purpose. The stipulation whereby the prohibition is lifted is: 'I will not hold aloof from them throughout the period of twilight', so that it does not become dedicated them,"
,k22a_17:" Lit. 'the father'."
,k22a_18:" As stated above: things taken for religious purposes must not be treated slightingly."
,k22a_19:" One Hanukkah lamp must not be lit from another. Or, when a lamp with several branches is used, in accordance with the practice of the 'most zealous' (<i>supra</i> 21b; this too is the modern usage), one branch must not be lit from another."
,k22a_20:" V. Num. XV, 38."
,k22a_21:" Lit.,'untied'."
,k22a_22:" Over an earthen floor on the Sabbath."
,k22a_23:" For ruling that one must not kindle one lamp from another."
,k22a_24:" It looks like taking light away from one lamp and giving it to another."
,k22a_25:" Directly, without an intermediary chip."
,k22a_26:" There is nothing degrading when it directly lights another lamp for the same religious purpose."
,k22a_27:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> "
}

txt:
<p>
If a Hanukkah lamp is placed above twenty cubits [from the ground] it is unfit, like <i>sukkah</i> and a cross-beam over [the entrance of] an alley.<a id="k22a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana also said, R. Nathan b. Minyomi expounded in R. Tanhum's name: Why is it written, and the pit was empty, there was no water in it?<a id="k22a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; From the implication of what is said, 'and the pit was empty', do I not know that there was no water in it; what then is taught by, 'there was no water in it'? There was no water, yet there were snakes and scorpions in it.
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: The Hanukkah lamp should be placed within the handbreadth nearest the door.<a id="k22a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And where is it placed? &mdash; R. Aha son of Raba said: On the right hand side: R. Samuel<a id="k22a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of Difti<a id="k22a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; said: On the left hand side.<a id="k22a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law is, on the left, so that the Hanukkah lamp shall be on the left and the <i>mezuzah</i><a id="k22a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; on the right.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in R. Assi's name:<a id="k22a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; One must not count money by the Hanukkah light. When I state this before Samuel, he observed to me, Has then the lamp sanctity?<a id="k22a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph demurred: Does blood possess sanctity? For it was taught: he shall pour out [the blood thereof], and cover it [with dust]:<a id="k22a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; wherewith he pours out, he must cover,<a id="k22a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; i.e., he must not cover it with his foot,<a id="k22a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; so that precepts may not appear contemptible to him. So here too<a id="k22a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it is that precepts may not appear contemptible to him.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi was asked: Is it permitted to make use of the booth decorations during the whole of the seven days?<a id="k22a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; He answered him [the questioner], Behold! it was said, One must not count money by the Hanukkah light.<a id="k22a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; God of Abraham! exclaimed R. Joseph, he makes that which was taught dependent upon what was not taught: [of] booths it was taught, whereas of Hanukkah it was not. For it was taught: if one roofs it [the booth] in accordance with its requirements, beautifies it with hangings and sheets, and suspends therein nuts, peaches, almonds, pomegranates, grape clusters, garlands of ears of corn, wines, oils and flours; he may not use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Feast; yet if he stipulates concerning then,<a id="k22a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it is all according to his stipulation. &mdash; Rather, said R. Joseph: The basis<a id="k22a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; of all is [the law relating to] blood.<a id="k22a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: Rab said: One must not light from lamp to lamp;<a id="k22a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but Samuel maintained, You may light from lamp to lamp. Rab said: Fringes<a id="k22a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be detached<a id="k22a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; from one garment for [insertion in] another, but Samuel ruled, Fringes may be detached from garment to garment. Rab said, The <i>halachah</i> is not as R. Simeon in respect to dragging; but Samuel maintained, The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon in respect to dragging. Abaye said: In all matters the Master [Rabbah] acted in accordance with Rab, except in these three, where he did as Samuel: [viz.,] one may light from lamp to lamp; one can detach [the fringes] from one garment for [insertion in] another; and the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon in respect to dragging. For it was taught: R. Simeon said: One may drag a bed, seat, or bench,<a id="k22a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; provided that he does not intend to make a rut.
</p><p>
	One of the Rabbis sat before R. Adda b. Ahabah and sat and said: Rab's reason<a id="k22a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is on account of the cheapening of the precept. Said he to them, Do not heed him: Rab's reason is because he impairs the precept.<a id="k22a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do they differ? &mdash; They differ where he lights from lamp to lamp:<a id="k22a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; on the view that it is because of the cheapening of the precept, one may light from lamp to lamp;<a id="k22a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but on the view that it is because he impairs the precept, even from lamp to lamp is forbidden.
</p><p>
	R. Awia objected: As to a <i>sela'</i><a id="k22a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; of
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k22b_1:" The tenth of the produce which was eaten by its owner in Jerusalem. When the actual produce could not be carried, it was redeemed, and the redemption money assumed the sanctity of second tithe and was expended in Jerusalem, v. Deut. XIV, 22-26."
,k22b_2:" One <i>sela'</i> = four <i>denarii</i>, and the value depended on the weight."
,k22b_3:" For the gold <i>denarii</i> are not actually sanctified when they are weighed, though that is their purpose. Thus they are similar to the chip which may not be lit at the Hanukkah lamp because it is secular itself."
,k22b_4:" Lit., 'withdraws'."
,k22b_5:" The gold <i>denarii</i> may be deficient in weight and not be declared second tithe after all. Thus he will have used the second tithe <i>sela'</i> purely for a secular purpose."
,k22b_6:" Lev. XXIV, 3; v. 1-4."
,k22b_7:" Lit., 'those who enter the world'."
,k22b_8:" How was this a testimony?"
,k22b_9:" Half a <i>log</i> of oil was poured into each branch, which was estimated to burn through the longest night. Thus by the morning they were extinguished. The following evening the priest cleaned out the old wicks, poured in fresh oil, and relit it: yet this western branch was still burning when he came to clean them out, which was done last of all. This miracle testified to the Divine Presence in Israel. On the western branch of the candelabrum v. Men. 78b."
,k22b_10:" In order to light the others."
,k22b_11:" Which reached the other branches."
,k22b_12:" Just as the kindling of the branches of the candlestick in the Temple from the western branch."
,k22b_13:" I.e., the prime observance of the Hanukkah lamp is not the kindling thereof but placing it in a conspicuous place."
,k22b_14:" For the lit lamp or branch is already sanctified, as it were, whilst no complete religious observance is fulfilled by the act of lighting the next, on the present hypothesis."
,k22b_15:" He does not fulfil the precept."
,k22b_16:" Whereas the essence of the Hanukkah lamp is to advertise the miracle."
,k22b_17:" Sc. outside; <i>supra</i> 21b. "
}

txt:
<p>
second tithe,<a id="k22b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; one may not weigh by it gold <i>denarii</i>,<a id="k22b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; even to redeem therewith other second tithe. Now, it is well if you say that Rab and Samuel differ [over direct lighting] from lamp to lamp, yet with a chip Samuel admits that it is forbidden: then this is not a refutation.<a id="k22b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you [on Samuel's view] say that it is permitted even with a chip, then this is a refutation? &mdash; Rabbah answered: It is a preventive measure, lest he does not find his weights exact and leaves<a id="k22b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; them hullin.<a id="k22b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth objected: Without the vail of testimony &hellip; shall [Aaron] order it:<a id="k22b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; does He then require its light: surely, during the entire forty years that the Israelites travelled in the wilderness they travelled only by His light! But it is a testimony to mankind<a id="k22b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that the Divine Presence rests in Israel. What is the testimony?<a id="k22b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rab: That was the western branch [of the candelabrum] in which the same quantity of oil was poured as into the rest, and yet he kindled [the others] from it and ended therewith.<a id="k22b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here, since the branches are immovable, it is impossible other than that he take [a chip] and kindle [it];<a id="k22b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which is a difficulty both on the view that it is because of the cheapening of the precept and on the view that it is because of the impairing of the precept? &mdash; R. Papa reconciled it [thus: it is lit] by long wicks.<a id="k22b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet after all, on the view that it is because of the impairing of precepts there is a difficulty? That is [indeed] a difficulty.
</p><p>
	What is our decision thereon? &mdash; R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, said: We consider: if the lighting fulfils the precept, one may light from lamp to lamp:<a id="k22b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but if the placing [of the lamp] fulfils the precept,<a id="k22b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; one may not light from lamp to lamp.<a id="k22b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For the scholars propounded: Does the kindling or the placing constitute the precept? &mdash; Come and hear: For Raba said, If one was holding the Hanukkah lamp and thus standing, he does nothing:<a id="k22b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; this proves that the placing constitutes the precept! &mdash; [No:] There a spectator may think that he is holding it for his own purposes.<a id="k22b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: For Raba said: if one lights it within and then takes it outside, he does nothing. Now, it is well if you say that the kindling constitutes the precept; [for this reason] we require the kindling to be [done] in its proper place,<a id="k22b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [and] therefore he does nothing. But if you say that the placing constitutes the precept, why has he done nothing? &mdash; There too an observer may think that he lit it for his own purposes. 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: For R. Joshua b. Levi said,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k23a_1:" Having been lit on the Sabbath eve as a Hanukkah lamp,"
,k23a_2:" As a Hanukkah lamp for the next day."
,k23a_3:" These three are frequently grouped: their actions have no legal or religious validity."
,k23a_4:" According to the Talmud Jewish virgins were subjected to the jus primae noctis before the Maccabean revolt (cf. I Macc. I, 26f, which may perhaps refer to this), and were rescued from it by the 'miracle', i.e., the successful Maccabean uprising."
,k23a_5:" Not living in his own house but as a guest or boarder elsewhere."
,k23a_6:" Lit., 'the coins'-the cost of the oil for the Hanukkah lamp."
,k23a_7:" He did not kindle lights for himself but purchased a share in those lit by his host."
,k23a_8:" He continued to study away from home after marriage."
,k23a_9:" Rashi: this oil burned slower. Tosaf.'s reading seems to be: this gives a stronger light: on grounds of logic this would appear preferable."
,k23a_10:" Ink was made of soot and oil or gum, and was a solid cake of pigment which had to be loosened before use. Cf. <i>supra</i>, Mishnah on 17b."
,k23a_11:" Is it the best for kneading with soot or for creating the smoke which produces the soot?"
,k23a_12:" V. P.B. p. 274; the spectator omits the first, since he does not kindle the lights. Rashi and Asheri observe that only a spectator who has not yet kindled the lights himself, or who cannot do so, e.g., when he is in a boat, is required to pronounce these benedictions."
,k23a_13:" After the first day."
,k23a_14:" Ibid. the third blessing: '&hellip; and has enabled us to reach this season'. This is appropriate for the first evening only."
,k23a_15:" I.e., the second benediction: '&hellip; Who wroughtest miracles&nbsp;&hellip;'"
,k23a_16:" The cruse miraculously burned all the eight days; v. <i>supra</i> 21b."
,k23a_17:" Lit., 'he blesses'."
,k23a_18:" Ibid. the first blessing. The literal translation is given here, the passage being in the third person."
,k23a_19:" This precept is not Biblical, of course."
,k23a_20:" Deut. XVII, 11."
,k23a_21:" Ibid. XXXII, 7. Both verses teach that a Rabbinical observance has Biblical sanction, and thus roots subsequent tradition in the Bible itself. Cf. I. Abrahams, Permanent Values of the Talmud, pp. 79ff."
,k23a_22:" V. Glos,"
,k23a_23:" I.e., to link up a number of side streets in respect of carrying on the Sabbath; v. p. 18, n. 7; it is the same with side streets."
,k23a_24:" 'Grace in common' is recited when three persons or more dine together; it is then prefaced by one of them saying, 'My masters, let us recite grace;'this man acts as leader. When only two dine together, each recites grace by himself."
,k23a_25:" The tithe of dem'ai."
,k23a_26:" Friday evening. The tithe of certain <i>tebel</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) may not be separated on the Sabbath, nor at twilight, for it is doubtful whether this belongs to the previous or to the following day. But since dem'ai is only a doubtful tithe, it is permitted as a double doubt; cf. p. 64, n. 7."
,k23a_27:" Deut. XXIII, 15."
,k23a_28:" Lit., 'a certain (law) of their words'."
,k23a_29:" The kindling of light is a definite and certain observance; the tithing of dem'ai, however, is done through doubt."
,k23a_30:" Scripture ordained Festivals of one day only at the beginning and end (viz., Passover and Tabernacles, v. Lev. XXIII, 7f, 35f) or one day altogether (Pentecost and New Year; ibid. 21, 24). The exact days when these were to be observed depended upon New Moon of the month in which they fell (except Pentecost), which was originally determined by direct observation, not by calculation. By experience it was found that New Moon was always either twenty-nine or thirty days after the previous New Moon, and as soon as it was thus fixed by the Great Court in Jerusalem, envoys were dispatched to inform the communities in time for the Festival. But they could not reach the Jewish communities outside Palestine in time, and therefore they observed two days instead of one. Thus the original reason of the added second day at the beginning and the end was on account of doubt, though it was retained even when the New Moon came to be determined by calculation, which precluded doubt."
,k23a_31:" Viz. 'sanctification of the Festival', which was done by means of a benediction."
,k23a_32:" Unless the second day was formally sanctified people would not treat it as holy."
,k23a_33:" Pl. of 'am ha-arez; v. p. 51, n. 1."
,k23a_34:" So that dem'ai is less than an ordinary doubt, but merely a Rabbinical stringency; therefore a benediction is not required."
,k23a_35:" That two lamps are required."
,k23a_36:" Viz., if a person sees a door without a lamp he may suspect the owner of having neglected it altogether."
,k23a_37:" Lit., the world'-i.e., a stranger passing through the town may be unaware that a lamp is burning at another door."
,k23a_38:" For a stranger may think that the courtyard fronts two separate houses."
,k23a_39:" They know that both belong to the same house."
,k23a_40:" Lit., 'say'."
,k23a_41:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k23a_42:" Instead of enacting that a certain portion of the field be left for the poor, its situation to be at the owner's discretion."
,k23a_43:" Lev. XIX, 9. 'Thou shalt not finish off' implies at the end of the field, where the harvesting is completed."
,k23a_44:" When no poor are about in the field."
,k23a_45:" But now the poor will know when the end of the field is likely to be reached. "
}

txt:
<p>
With regard to a lantern which was burning the whole day [of the Sabbath],<a id="k23a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; at the conclusion of the Sabbath it is extinguished and then [re-]lit.<a id="k23a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, it is well if you say that the kindling constitutes the precept: then it is correct. But if you say that the placing constitutes the precept, is this [merely] extinguished and [re-]lit: surely it should [have stated], It must be extinguished, lifted up, replaced and then relit? Moreover, since we pronounce a benediction, 'Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to kindle the lamp of Hanukkah,' it proves that the kindling constitutes the precept. This proves it.
</p><p>
	And now that we say that the kindling constitutes the precept, if a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor<a id="k23a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; lights it, he does nothing. But a woman may certainly light [it], for R. Joshua b. Levi said: The [precept of the] Hanukkah lamp is obligatory upon women, for they too were concerned in that miracle.<a id="k23a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said: The [precept of the] Hanukkah lamp is incumbent upon a guest.<a id="k23a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera said: Originally, when I was at the academy, I shared the cost<a id="k23a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; with mine host;<a id="k23a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but after I took a wife I said, Now I certainly do not need it, because they kindle [the lamp] on my behalf at my home.<a id="k23a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: All oils are fit for the Hanukkah lamp, but olive oil is of the best. Abaye observed: At first the Master [Rabbah] used to seek poppy-seed oil, saying, The light of this is more lasting;<a id="k23a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but when he heard this [dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi, he was particular for olive oil, saying, This yields a clearer light. 
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi also said: All oils are fit<a id="k23a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; for ink, and olive oil is of the best. The scholars propounded: for kneading or for smoking?<a id="k23a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: For R. Samuel b. Zutra recited: All oils are fit for ink, and olive oil is of the best, both for kneading and for smoking. R. Samuel b. Zutra recited it thus: All soots are fit for ink: and olive oil is the best. R. Huna said: All gums are good for ink, but balsam gum is the best of all.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: He who lights the Hanukkah lamp must pronounce a blessing; while R. Jeremiah said He who sees the Hanukkah lamp must pronounce a blessing. Rab Judah said: On the first day, he who sees must pronounce two, and he who lights must pronounce three blessings;<a id="k23a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; thereafter, he who lights pronounces two, and he who sees pronounces one. What is omitted?<a id="k23a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The 'season' is omitted.<a id="k23a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet let the 'miracle' be omitted?<a id="k23a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The miracle holds good for every day.<a id="k23a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What benediction is uttered?<a id="k23a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This: Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to kindle the light of Hanukkah.<a id="k23a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And where did He command us?<a id="k23a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Awia said: [It follows] from, thou shalt not turn aside [from the sentence Which they shall shew thee].<a id="k23a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nehemiah quoted: Ask thy father, and he will shew thee; Thine elders, and they will tell thee.<a id="k23a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Amram objected: Dem'ai<a id="k23a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; can be employed for an 'erub<a id="k23a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and for a joint ownership;<a id="k23a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; a benediction is pronounced over it, and grace in common is recited after it,<a id="k23a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and it<a id="k23a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; may be separated by a naked person, and at twilight.<a id="k23a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say that every Rabbinical [precept] requires a benediction, here, when one stands naked, how can he pronounce a benediction: lo! we require, therefore shall thy camp be holy [that he see no unclean thing in thee],<a id="k23a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; which is absent? &mdash; Said Abaye, A certain Rabbinical law<a id="k23a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; requires a benediction, whereas a doubtful Rabbinical law does not.<a id="k23a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of the second day of Festivals, which is a Rabbinical [institution] based on doubt,<a id="k23a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet it requires a benediction?<a id="k23a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There it [was instituted] in order that it should not be treated slightingly.<a id="k23a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: The majority of the 'amme ha-arez tithe<a id="k23a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [their produce].<a id="k23a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: If a courtyard has two doors, it requires two [Hanukkah] lamps. Said Raba, That was said only [if they are situated] at two [different] sides; but [if] on the same side, it is unnecessary. What is the reason?<a id="k23a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say, because of suspicion?<a id="k23a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Whose suspicion? Shall we say, that of strangers:<a id="k23a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; then let it be necessary even on the same side?<a id="k23a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Whilst if the suspicion of townspeople, then even [if] on two different sides it is still unnecessary?<a id="k23a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; After all, it is on account of the suspicion of the townspeople, yet perchance they may pass one [door] and not the other, and say, 'just as it [the lamp] has not been lit at this door, so has it not been lit at the other.'
</p><p>
	And whence do you know<a id="k23a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; that we pay regard to suspicions? Because it was taught, R. Simeon said: On account of four considerations the Torah ordered <i>pe'ah</i><a id="k23a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; to be left at the end of the field:<a id="k23a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [as a precaution] against the robbing of the poor, against wasting the time of the poor, against suspicion, and against [transgressing], thou shalt not finish off [the corners of thy field].<a id="k23a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [As a precaution] against the robbing of the poor: lest the owner see a free hour<a id="k23a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; and say to his poor relations, 'This is <i>pe'ah</i>;'<a id="k23a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k23b_1:" The other three are reasons why the Torah said this."
,k23b_2:" Who may not leave anything and maintain that they left <i>pe'ah</i> in the middle of the field."
,k23b_3:" Who each fulfils his obligations, i.e., where only one light is used; <i>supra</i> 21b."
,k23b_4:" So that the whole looks like a lamp with many spouts."
,k23b_5:" All the flames merge into one and create one great blaze; it does not look like a lamp at all then."
,k23b_6:" He cannot afford both. Rashi observes that this refers to the Sabbath."
,k23b_7:" V. <i>infra</i> 25b."
,k23b_8:" The Sabbath and the Festivals were sanctified over wine."
,k23b_9:" Coming every week; by comparison Hanukkah is temporary, coming but once a year."
,k23b_10:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k23b_11:" V.Num. XV, 38."
,k23b_12:" I.e., he will be wealthy."
,k23b_13:" Many of the Rabbis were workers or tradespeople, the office of the Rabbinate being unpaid in most cases."
,k23b_14:" So translated by BaH."
,k23b_15:" Just before nightfall."
,k23b_16:" Ex. XIII, 22."
,k23b_17:" Lit., 'completed'."
,k23b_18:" As it is not evident that it is lit in honour of the Sabbath."
,k23b_19:" This dictum was possibly a reproof of the hostility sometimes shown towards the Rabbis: cf. Sanh. 99b."
,k23b_20:" To accelerate it."
,k23b_21:" Since making a fire on Festivals is permitted."
,k23b_22:" Lest it be thought that the latter too is permitted."
,k23b_23:" Which includes <i>terumah</i>."
,k23b_24:" Even when, being defiled, it is unfit for food."
,k23b_25:" The Mishnah on 24b."
,k23b_26:" [The words, 'one must not light on Festivals with oil of burning' in the second clause, is another way of stating the rule that holy food must not be burnt on Festivals]. "
}

txt:
<p>
and against wasting the time of the poor: that the poor should not have to sit and watch out, 'now the owner will leave pe'ah'; and against suspicion: that passers-by may not say, 'cursed be the man who has not left <i>pe'ah</i> in his field'; and against [transgressing] thou shalt not finish off: are not all these on account of, 'thou shalt not finish off'?<a id="k23b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said Raba, [It means, as a precaution] against cheats.<a id="k23b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Redifah said in R. Huna's name: A lamp with two spouts is credited to two people.<a id="k23b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: If one fills a dish with oil and surrounds it with wicks, and places a vessel over it,<a id="k23b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is credited to many people; if he does not place a vessel over it, he turns it into a kind of fire,<a id="k23b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and is not credited even to one.
</p><p>
	Raba said: It is obvious to me [that if one must choose between] the house light and the Hanukkah light,<a id="k23b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the former is preferable, on account [of the importance] of the peace of the home;<a id="k23b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [between] the house light and [wine for] the Sanctification of the Day,<a id="k23b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the house light is preferable, on account of the peace of the home. Raba propounded: What [if the choice lies between] the Hanukkah lamp and the Sanctification of the Day: is the latter more important, because it is permanent;<a id="k23b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps the Hanukkah lamp is preferable, on account of advertising the miracle? After propounding, he himself solved it: The Hanukkah lamp is preferable, on account of advertising the miracle.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: He who habitually practises [the lighting of] the lamp will possess scholarly sons; he who is observant of [the precept of] <i>mezuzah</i><a id="k23b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; will merit a beautiful dwelling; he who is observant of fringes<a id="k23b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; will merit a beautiful garment; he who is observant of the Sanctification of the Day will be privileged to fill barrels of wine.<a id="k23b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna was accustomed frequently to pass the door of R. Abin the carpenter.<a id="k23b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that he habitually lit many lights, he remarked, Two great men will issue hence. R. Idi b. Abin and R. Hiyya b. Abin issued thence. R. Hisda was accustomed frequently to pass the house of R. Shizbi's father.<a id="k23b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that he habitually lit many lights, he remarked, A great man will issue hence. R. Shizbi issued thence.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph's wife used to kindle [the Sabbath lights] late.<a id="k23b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] R. Joseph said to her, It was taught: He took not away the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night:<a id="k23b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; this teaches that the pillar of cloud overlapped<a id="k23b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the pillar of fire, and the pillar of fire overlapped the pillar of cloud. Thereupon she thought of doing it very early. Said an old man to her: It was taught: Providing that one is not too early<a id="k23b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or too late.
</p><p>
	Raba said: He who loves the Rabbis will have sons who are Rabbis; he who honours the Rabbis will have Rabbis for sons-in-law; he who stands in awe of the Rabbis will himself be a Rabbinical scholar. But if he is not fit for this, his words will be heeded like those of a Rabbinical scholar.<a id="k23b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH OIL OF BURNING. What is OIL OF BURNING? Said Rabbah, Oil of <i>terumah</i> which was defiled; and why is it called OIL OF BURNING? Because it stands to be burnt. And why is this forbidden on the Sabbath? &mdash; Since it is one's duty to destroy it, we fear lest he tilt [the lamp].<a id="k23b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye objected: if so, let it be permitted on Festivals.<a id="k23b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Why did we learn: One must not kindle [the lamp] on Festivals with oil of burning!-Festivals are forbidden on account of the Sabbath.<a id="k23b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: We have no fear lest he tilt [it], but here the reference is to a Festival which falls on the eve of the Sabbath, and as for the prohibition, [the reason is] because sacred food<a id="k23b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; must not be burnt on Festivals.<a id="k23b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the second clause<a id="k23b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; states, One must not light on Festivals with oil of burning, it follows that the first clause does not refer to Festivals? &mdash; R. Hanina of Sura answered: This [the second clause] states, 'What is the reason': what is the reason that one must not light [the lamp] on Festivals with oil of burning? Because sacred food must not be burnt on Festivals.<a id="k23b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k24a_1:" [Although one may light therewith on Sabbaths, one may not do so on Festivals, v. Tosaf a.l.]."
,k24a_2:" The second benediction of grace; so called because it commences with, 'we give thanks unto Thee'."
,k24a_3:" The fourth benediction of grace."
,k24a_4:" The 'Prayer' par excellence is the Eighteen Benedictions; v. p. 32, n. 3."
,k24a_5:" The eighteenth benediction."
,k24a_6:" The 'mention' is an added passage which relates very briefly the story of Hanukkah."
,k24a_7:" Cf. Num. XXVIII, 11-15."
,k24a_8:" Lit., 'in your hand'."
,k24a_9:" I.e., additional to the daily burnt-offering; v. Num. XXVIII, 1, seq."
,k24a_10:" The first and seventh days of Passover, and the first and eighth of Tabernacles have the full sanctity of Festivals, and no work, except what is necessary for the preparation of food, is permitted. The intermediate days are of a semi-festive nature, other work too being permitted under certain conditions."
,k24a_11:" Lit., '(sacrificial) service', the name of the seventeenth Benediction."
,k24a_12:" To repeat the passage, because these are special occasions instituted in the Bible."
,k24a_13:" Lit., 'goblet'. V. p. 102, n. 8."
,k24a_14:" On these days Reading of the Law forms part of the Service, as on the Sabbath. According to the Talmud (B.K. 82a) this was instituted by Ezra, so that three days should not pass without Torah."
,k24a_15:" Specially proclaimed for rain (Ta'an. 10a)."
,k24a_16:" Ma'amad, pl. ma'amadoth, lit., posts': 'a division of popular representatives deputed to accompany the daily services in the Temple with prayers, and also a corresponding division in the country towns, answering to the divisions of priests and Levites' (Jast.). Each district sent its representatives on certain days; v. Ta'an. Mishnah 26a."
,k24a_17:" This is an interjection. Why should I think that special mention must be made? The Reading of the Law is certainly insufficient cause."
,k24a_18:" In times of drought fasts were held on Monday, Thursday and the following Monday."
,k24a_19:" On these days four fasts were kept: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; Ta'an ibid."
,k24a_20:" The name of the sixteenth Benediction."
,k24a_21:" Because these are not Biblical institutions."
,k24a_22:" The first clause states that a reference is made on New Moon, in agreement with Rab."
,k24a_23:" Of the Sabbath and New Moon; these always occur during Hanukkah, which commences on the 25th of the month and lasts eight days."
,k24a_24:" The three stated above plus the Additional. Hence this Additional Service ranks as the rest, and requires a mention of Hanukkah."
,k24a_25:" 'Conclusion'. A passage of the Prophets, with which the Reading of the Law concludes. The passage generally had some bearing upon the portion of the Law, except on special occasions. On the origin and the development of the Haftarah v. J.E. s.v. 'Haftarah' and 'Liturgy': Elbogen, Der Judische Gottesdienst, 174 seq."
,k24a_26:" 'Who sanctifieth the Sabbath and the New Moon', the conclusion of the last benediction after the haftarah."
,k24a_27:" This is the same reasoning as that which governs R. Huna's and Rab Judah's view above."
,k24a_28:" This is not mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud. Rashi quotes a Geonic responsum that a haftarah from the prophets was read in early times, until the practice was forbidden by the Persians. V. Elbogen, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 182. "
}

txt:
<p>
It was taught in accordance with R. Hisda: All those [materials] concerning which the Rabbis ruled, One must not light therewith on Sabbath, may be used for lighting on Festivals, except oil of burning,<a id="k24a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; because sacred food must not be burnt on Festivals.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Is Hanukkah to be mentioned in grace after meals? Since it is a Rabbinical [institution], we do not mention it; or perhaps it is mentioned to give publicity to the miracle? &mdash; Said Raba in R. Sehora's name in R. Huna's name: It need not be mentioned; yet if one comes to mention it, he does so in the 'Thanks' [benediction].<a id="k24a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna b. Judah chanced to visit Raba's academy [and] thought to mention it [Hanukkah] in [the benediction] 'he will rebuild Jerusalem.'<a id="k24a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Shesheth to them [the scholars], It is as the Prayer:<a id="k24a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as [it is inserted in] the Prayer in the [benediction of] 'Thanks,'<a id="k24a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; So [is it inserted in] grace after meals in the [benediction of] 'Thanks'.<a id="k24a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Is New Moon to be mentioned in grace after meals? Should you say that it is unnecessary in the case of Hanukkah, which is only Rabbinical, then on New Moon, which is Biblical,<a id="k24a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it is necessary; or perhaps since the performance of work is not forbidden, it is not mentioned? Rab said: It is mentioned; R. Hanina said: It is not mentioned. R. Zerika said: Hold fast<a id="k24a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to Rab's [ruling], because R. Oshaia supports him. For R. Oshaia taught: On those days when there is an additional offering,<a id="k24a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., New Moon and the weekdays of Festivals<a id="k24a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; at the Evening, Morning and Afternoon [services] the Eighteen [Benedictions] are recited, and the nature of the occasion is inserted in the 'Abodah;<a id="k24a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and if one does not insert it, he is turned back;<a id="k24a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and there is no Sanctification over wine,<a id="k24a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and mention thereof is made in grace after meals. On those days when there is no additional offering, viz., Mondays, Thursdays,<a id="k24a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Fasts,<a id="k24a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and Ma'amadoth<a id="k24a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; What business have Mondays and Thursdays [here]?<a id="k24a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rather [say thus:] on the Mondays, Thursdays and the [following] Mondays of Fasts<a id="k24a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  and of Ma'amadoth<a id="k24a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; at the Evening, Morning and Afternoon [Services] the Eighteen [Benedictions] are recited, and the nature of the occasion is inserted in 'Thou hearkenst unto Prayer';<a id="k24a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; yet if one does not insert it he is not made to repeat it,<a id="k24a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and no reference is made on these [days] in grace after meals.<a id="k24a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Should one refer to Hanukkah in the Additional Services?<a id="k24a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Since there is no Additional Service for [Hanukkah] itself, we do not refer to it; or perhaps it [the Sabbath and New Moon] is a day which requires four services?<a id="k24a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna and Rab Judah both maintain: It is not referred to; R. Nahman and R. Johanan both maintain: It is referred to. Abaye observed to R. Joseph. This [ruling] of R. Huna and Rab Judah is [synonymous with] Rab's. For R. Gidal said in Rab's name: If New Moon falls on the Sabbath, he who reads the Haftarah<a id="k24a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; in the prophetic lesson need not mention New Moon,<a id="k24a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; since but for the Sabbath there is no prophetic lesson on New Moon.<a id="k24a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; How compare! There, there is no prophetic lesson on New Moon at all; whereas here it [the reference to Hanukkah] is found in the Evening, Morning and Afternoon Services. Rather it  is similar to the following. Viz., R. Ahadebuy said in the name of R. Mattenah in Rab's name: When a Festival falls on the Sabbath, he who reads the haftarah in the prophetic lesson at the Sabbath Afternoon Service<a id="k24a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; need not mention the Festival, since but for the Sabbath there is no prophetic lesson at the Afternoon Service on Festivals.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k24b_1:" The 'closing service'. Originally this was held daily in the Temple just before the closing of the Temple gates (cf. Ta'an. IV, 1). Outside the Temple a Ne'ilah service was held only on public fast days; sub sequently, however, it was abolished and retained for the Day of Atonement only. Elbogen, pp. 68, 152."
,k24b_2:" 'Thou didst sanctify the Sabbath and this Day of Atonement'."
,k24b_3:" And the same applies to Festivals falling on the Sabbath."
,k24b_4:" Lit., 'the congregation messenger or representative'."
,k24b_5:" In Talmudic times the reading desk in Babylonian synagogues was on a lower level than the rest of the synagogue."
,k24b_6:" He recites the 'one benediction embodying the seven'. V. P.B. pp. 119f."
,k24b_7:" He merely concludes with 'Who sanctifiest the Sabbath'."
,k24b_8:" To read the benediction mentioned in n. 5. This runs counter to the view of R. Joshua b. Levi."
,k24b_9:" The repetition of the Eighteen Benedictions on weekdays and the 'seven benedictions' on Sabbaths and Festivals by the Reader was originally instituted on account of the uneducated, who could not pray for themselves. In the Evening Service, however, which in origin was regarded as of a voluntary character (v. Ber. 27b), this repetition was omitted, and the same should apply to the Sabbath too."
,k24b_10:" The Synagogues were situated outside the town, therefore the Rabbis prolonged the service by the addition of this passage so that latecomers might not be left alone in the synagogue and have to return home by themselves."
,k24b_11:" V. Mishnah on 20b."
,k24b_12:" <i>Supra</i> 21a."
,k24b_13:" Who accepts and who rejects that view."
,k24b_14:" V. <i>supra</i> 23b."
,k24b_15:" Jast.: a sort of resin used for lighting in place of oil."
,k24b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 23b."
,k24b_17:" Ex. XII, 10. The reference is to the Passover sacrifice."
,k24b_18:" i.e., the sixteenth of the month, which was not a Festival, v. p. 105, n. 2. This shows that its burning on the Festival is forbidden."
,k24b_19:" Num. XXVIII, 10. This is the literal translation of the verse; the E.V. is not so true to the original."
,k24b_20:" E.g., the animal sacrificed before the Sabbath or a Festival is not to be burnt the following evening. Hence sacrifices and sacred food in general, if unfit, may a minori not be burnt on Festivals."
,k24b_21:" With reference to festivals. Ex. XII, 16."
,k24b_22:" E.g., one may roast meat, but not construct an oven or make a spit for the roasting."
,k24b_23:" A child is circumcised on the Sabbath if it is the eighth day after birth (Lev. XII, 3), but not otherwise. This is deduced from 'alone', which is a limitation. But for this one could infer a minori (v. <i>infra</i> 132b) that it is permissible. Thus we learn that when an act need not be done on a particular day, it may not be done on the Sabbath or Festivals, and the same applies to the burning of defiled sacred food."
,k24b_24:" Lev. XXIII, 39. "
}

txt:
<p>
Yet the law is as none of these rulings, but as R. Joshua b. Levi's dictum: When the Day of Atonement falls on the Sabbath, he who recites the Ne'ilah Service<a id="k24b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; must refer to the Sabbath:<a id="k24b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it is a day when four services are obligatory.<a id="k24b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Then one law contradicts another! [First] you say that the law is as R. Joshua b. Levi, whereas it is an established principle that the law is as Raba. For Raba said: On a Festival that falls on the Sabbath, the Reader<a id="k24b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who descends before the desk<a id="k24b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; at the Evening Service<a id="k24b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; need not make mention of the Festival,<a id="k24b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; since but for the Sabbath the Reader would not descend [before the desk] at the Evening Service on Festivals.<a id="k24b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; How compare! There, by ritual law it is not required even on the Sabbath,<a id="k24b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was the Rabbis who instituted it on account of danger;<a id="k24b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but here it is a day when four services are a [statutory] obligation.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH TAIL FAT etc. But the SAGES are identical with the first Tanna?<a id="k24b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; They differ in respect to R. Beruna's dictum in Rab's name,<a id="k24b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is not clearly defined.<a id="k24b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY NOT KINDLE [THE SABBATH LAMP] WITH OIL OF BURNING ON FESTIVALS.<a id="k24b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ISHMAEL SAID: ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [IT] WITH 'ITRAN,<a id="k24b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THE HONOUR OF THE SABBATH; BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT WITH ALL OILS; WITH SESAME OIL, NUT OIL, RADISH OIL, FISH OIL, GOURD OIL, ITRAN AND NAPHTHA. R. TARFON SAID: ONE MAY LIGHT [IT] WITH OLIVE OIL, ONLY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason? &mdash; Because sacred [commodities] may not be burnt on Festivals.<a id="k24b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence do we know it? &mdash; Said Hezekiah, and the School of Hezekiah taught likewise: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning [ye shall burn with fire]:<a id="k24b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; now [the second] until the morning' need not be stated. What then is the teaching of, until the morning'? Scripture comes to appoint the second morning for its burning.<a id="k24b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: Scripture saith, 'the burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath',<a id="k24b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but not the burnt-offering of weekdays on the Sabbath, nor the burnt-offering of weekdays on Festivals.<a id="k24b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said, Scripture saith, [no manner of work shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat,] that only may be done of you:<a id="k24b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'that', but not its preliminaries;<a id="k24b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'only', but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a minori.<a id="k24b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: on the first day shall be a solemn rest [Sabbathon]<a id="k24b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k25a_1:" For it intimates, rest therein."
,k25a_2:" The negative precept is 'no manner of work' etc.; while the affirmative precept to burn what is left over is in Ex. XII, 10, quoted <i>supra</i>. Thus unfit sacred food may not be burnt on Festivals, and the same applies to unclean <i>terumah</i>."
,k25a_3:" One may benefit from the burning, e.g., by using it as fuel."
,k25a_4:" Num. XVIII, 8. Heb. terumothai, pl. of <i>terumah</i> with passage."
,k25a_5:" Since it is in the plural."
,k25a_6:" Deut. XXVI, 14; v. whole passage. The reference is to the second tithe, and 'being unclean' is understood as meaning whether the person or the tithe was unclean."
,k25a_7:" I.e., by using it as fuel."
,k25a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> E.g., that used in connection with the meal offerings; v. Lev. II, 1."
,k25a_9:" I.e., its sanctity is less than that of sacrifices."
,k25a_10:" For its sanctity is higher than that of tithes."
,k25a_11:" Implying a limitation as stated."
,k25a_12:" Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'- Why exclude <i>terumah</i> by exegesis and include <i>kodesh</i> <i>a fortiori</i>? Perhaps it should be the reverse?"
,k25a_13:" A mnemonic is a word or phrase made up of the initial letters of a number of other words or phrases, as an aid to the memory."
,k25a_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> for these words. (i) <I>Piggul</I>, lit., 'abomination', is a sacrifice killed with the intention of eating it without the boundaries appointed for same; (ii) <i>nothar</i>, with the intention of eating it after its appointed time. These are the connotations of the words here, though elsewhere <i>piggul</i> has the meaning given here to <i>nothar</i> (Tosaf.). These unlawful intentions render the sacrifice an 'abomination', and it may then not be eaten even within its lawful boundaries and time on pain of <i>kareth</i>. (iii) It is designated a sacrifice (<i>Korban</i>). (iv) If one puts it to secular use he is liable to a trespass-offering (<i>Me'ilah</i>). (v) <i>Kareth</i> is incurred for eating it in an unclean bodily state. <i>Kareth</i> (lit., 'cutting off') is the Divine penalty of premature death and childlessness, which is severer than 'Death at the hand of Heaven', which does not include childlessness.-Since <I>Kodesh</I> is so strict in all these matters, it is logical that the limitation does not apply to it. "
}

txt:
<p>
is an affirmative precept:<a id="k25a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; thus there is an affirmative and a negative precept in respect of Festivals, and an affirmative precept cannot supersede a negative and an affirmative precept.<a id="k25a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Thus it [the burning of defiled <i>terumah</i>] is forbidden only on Festivals, but on weekdays it is well.<a id="k25a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Said Rab: Just as it is obligatory to burn defiled sacred food, so t is obligatory to burn defiled <i>terumah</i>, and the Torah said, When it is burnt, you may benefit therefrom. Where did the Torah say thus? &mdash; [It follows] from R. Nahman's [dictum]. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, Scripture saith, And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings:<a id="k25a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the Writ refers to two terumoth,<a id="k25a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., clean and unclean <i>terumah</i>, and the Divine Law said'[I have given] thee', [meaning], let it be thine for burning it under thy pot. Alternatively, [it follows] from R. Abbahu's [dictum]. For R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: 'Neither have I put away thereof, being unclean:'<a id="k25a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'thereof' you may not 'put away,'<a id="k25a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but you may 'put away' [burn] defiled oil of <i>terumah</i>. Yet [perhaps] say: 'thereof' you may not 'put away', but you may 'put away undefiled oil of <i>kodesh</i><a id="k25a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; which is defiled? &mdash; Does it [the reverse] not follow <i>a fortiori</i>: if tithe, which is light,<a id="k25a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; yet the Torah said, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean'; then how much more so <i>kodesh</i>, which is more stringent? If so, in the case of <i>terumah</i> too let us say, does it [the reverse] not follow a afortiori?<a id="k25a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Surely thereof' is written!<a id="k25a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And why do you prefer it thus?<a id="k25a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is logical that I do not exclude <i>kodesh</i>, since it is [stringent] in respect of (Mnemonic: <i>Pa NaK'aKaS</i>):<a id="k25a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [i] <I>Piggul</I>, [ii] <i>Nothar</i>, [iii] sacrifice [<I>Korban</I>], [iv] <i>Me'ilah</i>, [v] <i>Kareth</i>, and [vi] 'it is forbidden [<i>asur</i>] to an <i>onen</i>.<a id="k25a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; On the contrary, <i>terumah</i> is not to be excluded, since [it is stringent] in respect of its (mnemonic <i>Ma HPaZ</i>): [i] Death [<i>Mithah</i>], [ii] a fifth [<i>Homesh</i>],
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k25b_1:" For Zar, pl. Zarim, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> (i) If a zar or an unclean priest eats <i>terumah</i>, he is liable to Death at the hand of heaven; (ii) if a zar eats it unwittingly, he must restore it and add a fifth; (iii) under no circumstances can <i>terumah</i> be redeemed and converted to hullin, whereas <i>kodesh</i> can be redeemed if it is blemished; and finally (iv), it is always forbidden to zarim. But certain sacrifices (<i>kodesh</i>) are permitted to zarim after the sprinkling of the blood, e.g., the thanksgiving and the peace-offerings."
,k25b_2:" Deut. XVIII, 4."
,k25b_3:" I.e., the priest must be able to use it himself, and not have to burn it for its heat or light. Hence defiled corn, etc., which may not be eaten as <i>terumah</i>, may not be separated as <i>terumah</i> for undefiled corn."
,k25b_4:" For otherwise, why exclude it?"
,k25b_5:" I.e., the lamp must be lit where the evening repast is consumed. If the person leaves it and dines elsewhere he does not fulfil his obligation."
,k25b_6:" Mizwah denotes either a definite precept or something which while not actually commanded is meritorious. The latter is meant here."
,k25b_7:" The fringes were of wool. This constitutes a forbidden mixture (v. Deut. XXII, 11), and it is disputed by Tannaim whether this should be done."
,k25b_8:" Because they were not provided with fringes, V. next note."
,k25b_9:" A garment worn only at night is not subject to fringes; consequently, this forbidden mixture (v. n. 3) is then forbidden, since there is no precept of fringes to supersede it. The disciple held that Beth Hillel's ruling was Scriptural only; nevertheless it is forbidden by Rabbinical law, to avoid confusing night attire with day attire."
,k25b_10:" Lam. III, 17."
,k25b_11:" Jeremiah laments that they could not even afford this; loss of light brings loss of peace."
,k25b_12:" Lit., 'good'."
,k25b_13:" Or, the smith; v. p. 102, n. 13."
,k25b_14:" Or, a beautiful couch and its appointments."
,k25b_15:" V. p. 110, n. 1. R. Meir, R. Tarfon, R. Akiba, and R. Jose."
,k25b_16:" The most famous dictum on wealth is in Ab. IV, 1: Who is wealthy? He who rejoices in his portion. Nevertheless, other Rabbis took a more material view of wealth, as here. Maharsha suggests that R. Tarfon intentionally states his case in an exaggerated form, to intimate that one who seeks wealth can never really attain it, unless he is satisfied with what he possesses. On that view R. Tarfon's statement really agrees with that in Aboth. Actually R. Tarfon was very wealthy, and Judaism is not opposed to wealth in principle. 'Despise not riches. Honour the wealthy if they are benevolent and modest. But remember that the true riches is contentment'. &mdash; Sefer Ma'aloth Hammidoth, quoted by M. Joseph in Judaism as Creed and Life, p. 388."
,k25b_17:" He spoke from personal experience: his wife stood out as a model of fidelity and trust, and it was she alone who enabled and encouraged him to attain his high position (Ned. 50a)."
,k25b_18:" In a time when sanitary arrangements were very primitive and privies were situated in fields, this would be a sign of wealth, V. T.A. I, 48."
,k25b_19:" Which is forbidden; v. Bez. 22a. "
}

txt:
<p>
, [iii] it cannot be redeemed [<i>Pidyon</i>], and [iv] it is forbidden to<i> Zarim</i>?<a id="k25b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The former are more numerous. Alternatively, <i>kodesh</i> is more stringent, since it involves the penalty of <i>kareth</i>. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Scripture saith, [<i>The firstfruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil &hellip;] shalt thou give</i> to him:<a id="k25b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>to 'him'</i>, but not for its light;<a id="k25b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it can be used for light [if defiled].<a id="k25b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ISHMAEL SAID etc. What is the reason? &mdash; Rabbah answered, Since it is malodorous, it is feared that he [the occupant of the house] will leave it and go out. Said Abaye to him, Then let him leave it! I maintain, he replied, that the kindling of the lamp on the Sabbath is a duty,<a id="k25b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Nahman b. R. Zabda-others state, R. Nahman b. Raba-said in Rab's name: The kindling of the lamp for the Sabbath is a duty; the washing of the hands and the feet in warm water on the eve [of the Sabbath] is voluntary. Whilst I maintain that it is a mizwah.<a id="k25b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it a mizwah? For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: This was the practice of R. Judah b. Il'ai: On the eve of the Sabbath a basin filled with hot water was brought to him, and he washed his face, hands, and feet, and he wrapped himself and sat in fringed linen robes,<a id="k25b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and was like an angel of the Lord of Hosts. But his disciples hid the corners of their garments from him.<a id="k25b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to them, My sons! Have I not thus taught you: A linen robe, in respect to fringes-Beth Shammai exempt it, while Beth Hillel hold it liable, and the <i>halachah</i> is as Beth Hillel? But they held, It is forbidden on account of a night garment.<a id="k25b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>And thou hast removed my soul far off from peace; I forgot prosperity</i>.<a id="k25b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of, <i>'and thou hast removed my soul far off from peace'</i>? &mdash; R. Abbahu said: This refers to the kindling of the light on the Sabbath.<a id="k25b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>I forgot prosperity</i>;<a id="k25b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah said: This refers to the [loss of] baths. R. Johanan said: This means the washing of hands and feet in hot water. R. Isaac Nappaha<a id="k25b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said: This refers to a beautiful bed and beautiful bedclothes upon it.<a id="k25b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abba said: This refers to a decked-out bed and an adorned wife for scholars. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Who is wealthy? He who has pleasure in his wealth: this is R. Meir's view. (Mnemonic: <i>MaT KaS</i>).<a id="k25b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Tarfon said: He who possesses a hundred vineyards, a hundred fields and a hundred slaves working in them.<a id="k25b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: He who has a wife comely in deeds.<a id="k25b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: He who has a privy near his table.<a id="k25b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not light [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. What is the reason? &mdash; Rabbah said: Since its smell is fragrant, there is [the need of] a preventive measure, lest one draw supplies from it.<a id="k25b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k26a_1:" Explosive and dangerous."
,k26a_2:" Anointing with oil is and was a common practice in the hot eastern countries; Krauss, T.A. I, 229 and 233."
,k26a_3:" Jer. LII, 16."
,k26a_4:" Purple-fish, used for dyeing tekeleth, a peculiar kind of blue."
,k26a_5:" [H] is derived from [H] 'to split', with reference to the splitting of the mollusc in order to extract the dye; v. <i>infra</i> 76a."
,k26a_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k26a_7:" Num. XVIII, 8."
,k26a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 25a."
,k26a_9:" Clean <i>terumah</i> is used for human consumption, and before it is actually separated it is forbidden, even to the priest, i.e., he may not enjoy the produce in which it is contained."
,k26a_10:" Unclean <i>terumah</i> can be used only as fuel, and the analogy shows that this is permitted only when it is actually separated, but not while it is yet <i>tebel</i>."
,k26a_11:" Excluding fish and mineral oil, and oil tapped direct from the tree."
,k26a_12:" A district of Asia Minor."
,k26a_13:" You cannot add to the list of forbidden oils enumerated on 20b."
,k26a_14:" A sort of resin."
,k26a_15:" Of Shezor, supposed to be Sheghor, near Kefar Anan in Galilee, v. Neub., Geogr., p. 278."
,k26a_16:" Sc. R. Johanan b. Nuri."
,k26a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> 11a. One holds that tallow, being flesh, may not be used at all, even if mixed with oil, thus rejecting the view expressed there, and the other maintains that the mixture is permitted."
,k26a_18:" Who accepts R. Beruna's dictum and who rejects it."
,k26a_19:" A piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square (or more) is liable to become unclean. R. Simeon b. Eleazar excepts the produce of trees, e.g., cotton cloth."
,k26a_20:" The booth (<i>sukkah</i>), in which one must dwell during the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. XXIII, 42), must be covered with a material that is not liable to defilement (Suk. 12.b); hence the produce of trees is fit for this purpose."
,k26a_21:" Even if not made up into a garment and as yet merely spun (v. <i>infra</i> 27b). Though not liable to defilement by reptiles it is subject to the uncleanness of leprosy. "
}

txt:
<p>
Let the Master say, because it is volatile?<a id="k26a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He states, one thing and yet another.' One thing, because it is volatile; and yet another, as a preventive measure, lest he draw supplies from it.
</p><p>
	A certain mother-in-law hated her daughter-in-law. Said she to her, 'Go and adorn yourself with balsam oil.'<a id="k26a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; She went and adorned herself. On her return she said to her, 'Go and light the lamp.' She went and lit the lamp: a spark flew out on her and consumed her.
</p><p>
	But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers [kormim] and husbandmen [yogbim].<a id="k26a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Kornim:' R. Joseph learnt: This means balsamum gatherers from the En Gedi to Ramah. Yogbim: These are those which catch hilazon<a id="k26a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from the promontory of Tyre as far as Haifa.<a id="k26a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One must not feed a lamp with unclean <i>tebel</i><a id="k26a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; on weekdays, and all the more so on the Sabbath. Similarly, one must not light [a lamp] with white naphtha on weekdays, and all the more so on the Sabbath. As for white naphtha, that is well, [the reason being] because it is volatile. But what is the reason of unclean <i>tebel</i>? &mdash; Scripture saith, And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings [terumothai]:<a id="k26a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the Writ refers to two terumoth, clean and unclean <i>terumah</i>:<a id="k26a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; just as you enjoy nought of clean <i>terumah</i> save from its separation and onwards,<a id="k26a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; So also unclean <i>terumah</i>, you may enjoy nought thereof save from its separation and onwards.<a id="k26a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.<a id="k26a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia<a id="k26a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha? But you have nought else but that concerning which the Sages said, One may not kindle [therewith].<a id="k26a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And one may kindle with fish oil and 'itran.<a id="k26a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon Shezuri<a id="k26a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; said: One may kindle with oil of gourds and with naphtha. Symmachos said: All that which comes from flesh, we may not kindle therewith, except fish oil. But Symmachos is identical with the earlier Tanna?<a id="k26a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; They differ in respect to R. Beruna's dictum in Rab's name,<a id="k26a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is not clearly defined.<a id="k26a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Whatever comes forth from trees is not subject to the law of three by three fingerbreadths,<a id="k26a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and one may cover [a booth] therewith,<a id="k26a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; except flax.<a id="k26a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k26b_1:" No particular Tanna is meant, but the collective view of that School."
,k26b_2:" E.g., the uncleanness of garments caused by the carcases of forbidden animals (Lev. II, 25) or reptiles (v. 32): there the garments are unspecified. On the other hand, with respect to leprosy in garments wool and flax are specified: The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment.-Lev. XIII, 47."
,k26b_3:" In his statement he employs the word shalosh, feminine, which must refer to fingerbreadths (ezba'oth, fem.). Hence they are not subject to the stricter law that even when only three fingerbreadths square they shall be liable to defilement. Whence it follows that they are subject to the next standard of liability, viz., three handbreadths (sheloshah, masc. agreeing with tefahim, handbreadths); v. <i>infra</i>."
,k26b_4:" For he simply rules that wherever 'garments' is stated it means wool or flax."
,k26b_5:" Lev. XIII, 47: referring to leprosy."
,k26b_6:" We-habeged, E.V. The garment also, 'And' is regarded as an extension."
,k26b_7:" But not the smaller standard.-Shalosh refers to ezba'oth, fingerbreadths; sheloshah to tefahim, handbreadths; v. n. 1."
,k26b_8:" Lev. ibid."
,k26b_9:" No extension is needed for that."
,k26b_10:" Since cloth containing a warp and a woof can be less."
,k26b_11:" Lit., 'fit'."
,k26b_12:" For it is then nearer to an actual garment."
,k26b_13:" A rich man would not trouble to save it for some possible service-hence it is further removed from 'garment'."
,k26b_14:" Lit., 'garments'."
,k26b_15:" Lev. XIII, 48; these are also specified in v. 47."
,k26b_16:" V. P. 115, n. 13. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Simeon b. Eleazar and the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael<a id="k26b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; said the same thing. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as stated. The Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael: what is that? For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Since garments are mentioned in the Torah unspecified, while the Writ specified wool and flax in the case of one of them: [then] just as there, wool and flax [are specified], so all [garments] are of wool and flax.<a id="k26b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: They differ in respect to three [handbreadths] by three in other clothes [not wool or linen]: R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepts [their liability to defilement],<a id="k26b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it.<a id="k26b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now all at least agree that an area of three [fingerbreadths] of wool or linen is subject to the defilement of leprosy. How do we know it? Because it was taught, A garment:<a id="k26b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; I know it only of a [complete] garment; whence do I learn it of [cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square? From the verse, and the garment.<a id="k26b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet say that it is to include three [handbreadths] square?<a id="k26b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Does that not follow a minori: if a warp and a woof become unclean,<a id="k26b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is there a question of three [handbreadths] square?<a id="k26b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, if it is three [fingerbreadths] square, let it also be deduced a minori?<a id="k26b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather, [this is the reply]: three [handbreadths] square, which is of use<a id="k26b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; both to the wealthy and to the poor, can be deduced a minori<a id="k26b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; three [fingerbreadths] square, which is of use to the poor only, but not to the rich,<a id="k26b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot be learnt a minori: hence it is only because Scripture wrote it; but had Scripture not written it, we could not deduce it a minori.
</p><p>
	Yet say [that its purpose is] to include three [handbreadths] square of other materials?<a id="k26b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Scripture saith, a woollen garment, or a linen garment:<a id="k26b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; only a woollen or a linen garment, but not anything else. Yet say, when it is excluded it is from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, but three [handbreadths] square can become unclean? &mdash; Two limitations are written: 'a woollen garment or a linen garment',<a id="k26b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [hence] one is to exclude [them] from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, and the other to exclude them from [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square.
</p><p>
	Now, according to Raba, who said, They differ in respect of three [handbreadths] by three in other cloths, R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepting [their liability to defilement], whilst the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it, &mdash; how does he [R. Simeon b. Eleazar] know [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square of other materials?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k27a_1:" Lev. XI, 32, q.v. '<i>Or'</i> (Heb. [H]) is an extension."
,k27a_2:" This phrase always introduces a Baraitha, which contains the teaching of a Tanna. Since it is controverted by Abaye (v. text), Rashi deletes 'for it was taught', for it is axiomatic that an amora (Abaye was such) cannot disagree with a Tanna, and assumes that it is a continuation of Raba's statement. Tosaf. defends it, and the style too is that of a Baraitha."
,k27a_3:" Sc. that a garment is subject to defilement."
,k27a_4:" Not wool or linen."
,k27a_5:" 'Or raiment' is in a passage referring to these."
,k27a_6:" How does he know that?"
,k27a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 26b."
,k27a_8:" Does he not admit this?"
,k27a_9:" I.e., the thread itself, whether warp or woof, is liable to defilement. But Scripture does not state this in reference to reptiles, and so the deduction of three fingerbreadths square may not apply to it either."
,k27a_10:" Raba: how does he dispose of this refutation?"
,k27a_11:" The extension of 'and the garment' <i>supra</i> 26b."
,k27a_12:" Instead of leprosy."
,k27a_13:" A piece the size of a lentil is sufficient to defile, whereas the smallest leprous eruption to defile is the size of a bean, which is larger than a lentil."
,k27a_14:" Lit., 'wool of camels'."
,k27a_15:" I.e., stuffs made of these."
,k27a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 86, n. 6."
,k27a_17:" Raba's successor; of many dicta it was not known whether they were his or Raba's; Tosaf. <i>infra</i> b. s.v. [H]."
,k27a_18:" In the first citation of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, <i>supra</i> 26b."
,k27a_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> I.e., only a mixture of wool or flax is forbidden, but no other. Accordingly it does not relate to defilement at all, and does not contradict the other teaching of the School of R. Ishmael. &mdash; Rashi reads at the beginning of this passage, For R. Papa said, since this dictum of R. Papa explains why in his opinion the two are not contradictory."
,k27a_20:" Deut. XXII, 11."
,k27a_21:" Then a mixture of wool and linen alone is forbidden."
,k27a_22:" E.g., as a covering or wrap."
,k27a_23:" When one wears a garment it comes into closer contact with the separate limbs of the body, affording them protection and warmth, than when he merely covers or wraps himself in a robe."
,k27a_24:" Incorrect. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; He deduces it from, or raiment.<a id="k27a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught:<a id="k27a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'raiment': I only know [it] of raiment,<a id="k27a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; how do I know [it of] three [handbreadths] square of other materials?<a id="k27a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore it is stated, 'or raiment.' And Abaye? how does he employ this or raiment! &mdash; He utilizes it to include three [fingerbreadths] square of wool or linen, that it becomes unclean through creeping things.<a id="k27a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba?<a id="k27a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The Merciful One revealed this in reference to leprosy,<a id="k27a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and the same holds good of reptiles. And Abaye?<a id="k27a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It [the analogy] may be refuted: as for leprosy, [the reason is] because the warp and the woof [of wool or linen] become defiled n their case.<a id="k27a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And the other?<a id="k27a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Should you think that leprosy is stricter, let the Divine Law write [it]<a id="k27a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; with reference to reptiles,<a id="k27a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and leprosy would be learnt from them. And the other? &mdash; Leprosy could not be derived from reptiles, because it may be refuted: as for reptiles, [the reason is] because they defile by the size of a lentil.<a id="k27a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: This Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rebuts another Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael. For the School of R. Ishmael taught: 'A garment': I know it only of a woollen or a linen garment: whence do I know to include camel hair,<a id="k27a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; rabbit wool, goat hair,<a id="k27a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; silk, kallak,<a id="k27a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and seritim?<a id="k27a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; From the verse, or raiment'. Raba said: When does this Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael reject [the defilement of] other materials? [Only in respect of] three [fingerbreadths] square; but [if it is] three [handbreadths] square, be accepts it. But it was Raba who said that in respect of three [handbreadths] by three in other clothes, R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepts [their liability to defilement], while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it? &mdash; Raba retracted from that [view]. Alternatively, this latter [statement] was made by R. Papa.<a id="k27a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: 'So all [are of wool or flax],<a id="k27a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is to include kil'ayim.<a id="k27a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But of kil'ayim it is explicitly stated, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together?<a id="k27a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; I might argue, That is only in the manner of wearing,<a id="k27a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but to place it over oneself<a id="k27a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; any two materials [mingled] are forbidden. Now, does that not follow a fortiori': if of wearing, though the whole body derives benefit from kil'ayim,<a id="k27a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; you say, wool and linen alone [are forbidden] but nothing else; how much more so wrapping oneself! Hence this [dictum] of R. Papa is a fiction.<a id="k27a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac said: 'So all etc.'
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k27b_1:" Num. XV, 38; i.e., only wool and linen garments are liable thereto."
,k27b_2:" And the juxtaposition shows that they are required only in garments of wool or linen. It may be observed that the Talmud regards the deduction from this juxtaposition as an explicit statement, and not merely as something derived by exegesis."
,k27b_3:" Num. ibid. 'Border' is superfluous, since the first half of the verse reads, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments. Hence it is thus interpreted."
,k27b_4:" Since this is immediately followed by the precept of fringes, we translate: though a mixture of wool and linen are forbidden, yet 'thou shalt make thee fringes', i.e., wool fringes are permitted in a linen garment and vice versa, which contradicts the implication of the other verse."
,k27b_5:" Lit., 'acquit' (the garment of its obligation)."
,k27b_6:" Whatever the material, wool or linen fringes may be inserted."
,k27b_7:" That the juxtaposition illumines the nature of the fringes, but does not teach that the garment itself must be of wool or linen. For in fact, according to Raba, there is an obligation whatever the material."
,k27b_8:" V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 15 notes."
,k27b_9:" In reference to fringes."
,k27b_10:" Ibid. This too is superfluous and indicates extension."
,k27b_11:" Sc. the fringed garment. &mdash; Num. XV, 39."
,k27b_12:" Lit., 'fulfil'."
,k27b_13:" Lit., 'which is subject to looking in respect to others'."
,k27b_14:" Sc. 'wherewith thou coverest thyself'."
,k27b_15:" Not of wool or linen."
,k27b_16:" Surely not."
,k27b_17:" <i>Supra</i>, 26a bottom, and note a.l."
,k27b_18:" After spinning, though given no further treatment."
,k27b_19:" From the kettle in which it is boiled. Maim. Neg. XI, 8 appears to read: when it has been boiled."
,k27b_20:" Jast. Rashi: unspun flax; Tosaf.: spun flax."
,k27b_21:" Thus Symmachos, who rules that it is liable to leprous defilement immediately it is spun (this being the reason that it may not be used as a covering of the booth, v. p. 114, n. 8.), agrees with R. Meir."
,k27b_22:" Using it as a wick."
,k27b_23:" If a tent or awning of such material overshadows a dead body, it does not become unclean, just as the roof of a house which contains a dead body is not unclean, though all utensils under the same roof or covering are defiled."
,k27b_24:" If the tent is of linen, that itself is defiled."
,k27b_25:" Josh. II, 6. "
}

txt:
<p>
is to include fringes.<a id="k27b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] of fringes it is explicitly stated, 'Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together'; and then it is written, Thou shalt make thee fringes?<a id="k27b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I might argue, it is as Raba. For Raba opposed [two verses]: it is written, [and that they put upon the fringe of] each border,<a id="k27b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [which indicates] of the same kind of [material as the] border; but it is also written, '[Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,] wool and linen together'?<a id="k27b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this [to be reconciled]? Wool and linen fulfil [the precept]<a id="k27b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; both in their own kind and not in their own kind;<a id="k27b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; other kinds [of materials] discharge [the obligation] in their own kind, but not in a different kind. [Thus,] you might argue, it is as Raba:<a id="k27b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore we are informed [otherwise].<a id="k27b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: According to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, why is uncleanness different that we include other garments? Because 'or raiment' is written! Then here too<a id="k27b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; let us say that other garments are included from [the verse] wherewith thou coverest thyself?<a id="k27b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That comes to include a blind person's garment. For it was taught: That ye may look upon it:<a id="k27b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; this excludes a night garment. You say, this excludes a night garment; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather it excludes a blind man's garment? When it is said, 'wherewith thou coverest thyself', lo! a blind man's garment is stated. How then do I interpret<a id="k27b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; that ye may look upon it'? As excluding a night garment. And what [reason] do you see to include a blind man's [garment], and to exclude a night garment? I include a blind man's garment, which can be seen by others,<a id="k27b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; while I exclude night garments, which are not seen by others. Yet say [rather] that it<a id="k27b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is to include other garments?<a id="k27b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It is logical that when one treats of wool and linen he includes [a particular garment of] wool and linen; but when one treats of wool and linen, shall he include other garments?<a id="k27b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Eleazar and Symmachos said the same thing. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as stated.<a id="k27b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Symmachos, for it was taught: Symmachos said: If one covers it [the booth] with spun [flax], it is unfit, because it may be defiled by leprosy. With whom [does that agree]? With this Tanna. For we learnt: The warp and the woof are defiled by leprosy immediately:<a id="k27b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; this is R. Meir's ruling. But R. Judah maintained: The warp, when it is removed;<a id="k27b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the wool, immediately; and bundles of [wet] flax,<a id="k27b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; after bleaching.<a id="k27b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE ['EZ] YOU MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH,<a id="k27b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; SAVE FLAX; AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS,<a id="k27b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; EXCEPT LINEN.<a id="k27b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. How do we know that flax is designated tree ['ez]? Said Mar Zutra, Because Scripture saith, But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks ['ez] of the flax.<a id="k27b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS, EXCEPT LINEN. How do we know it? &mdash; Said R. Eleazar, The meaning of tent [ohel] is learnt
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k28a_1:" Num. XIX, 14."
,k28a_2:" Ex. XL, 19."
,k28a_3:" The only covering of vegetable growth of the Tabernacle was linen."
,k28a_4:" Deduced in Yoma 71b."
,k28a_5:" Otherwise it should not be defiled."
,k28a_6:" Lit., 'tent, tent': 'tent' is mentioned three times in Num. XIX, 14 in reference to defilement."
,k28a_7:" Extending the law to a linen tent even if not made in the same way as the covering of the tabernacle."
,k28a_8:" Any other material."
,k28a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k28a_10:" Ex. XXVI, 15."
,k28a_11:" E.g., the ten curtains on the roof curtains thereof, ibid 1."
,k28a_12:" Of animal skins."
,k28a_13:" ibid. 14."
,k28a_14:" I.e., which is not fit for food."
,k28a_15:" Lit., 'by the uncleanness of tents'."
,k28a_16:" On the present hypothesis that the covering, which included ramskins (Ex. XXVI, 14; the ram is a clean animal), is not a tent, hence excluded from Num. XIX, 14."
,k28a_17:" For this is less likely to suffer such defilement, as is shown below, where a superfluous word is necessary to include it, and also in the Sifra, <i>Thazria'</i>."
,k28a_18:" To be included in the term 'tent' (ohel)."
,k28a_19:" Num. IV 25."
,k28a_20:" The covering of animal skins."
,k28a_21:" Viz., the eleven curtains of goats' hair, v. Ex. XVI, 7."
,k28a_22:" The 'tent of meeting' is understood to refer not to the Tabernacle as a whole but to these curtains."
,k28a_23:" It is so designated in verse 7."
,k28a_24:" The wording is not exactly as above, but the sense is."
,k28a_25:" How can he think that it is subject to such defilement, seeing that he learns the definition of 'tent' from the Tabernacle (<i>supra</i> 27b bottom), where the skins of clean animals alone were used?"
,k28a_26:" A.V. badger; R.V. seal, Levy, Worterbuch: marter, others: badges, sea-dog, seal, cf. Lewysohn, Zool. d. Tal. I, 95f. Tahash skins formed one of the coverings of the Tabernacle; verse quoted <i>supra</i> et passim."
,k28a_27:" Consisting half of rams' skin and half of tahash skins.-I.e., apart from the coverings of linen, etc. and of goats' hair."
,k28a_28:" Jast., lit.,'hanging on the tree'. It is doubtful, however, whether a squirrel is meant, as the context shows that a striped (or speckled) animal of many colours is referred to."
,k28a_29:" <i>Sas</i>, it rejoices, <i>be-gawwanim</i>, in colours. R. Joseph was an expert in the Targumim (Aramaic translations of the Bible), and given to quoting them."
,k28a_30:" Lit., 'by the tent of a dead'."
,k28a_31:" Lev. XIII, 48."
,k28a_32:" In Heb. [H] is an extension (Rashi). Even if the skin was not leprous when the priest was sent for, but became affected whilst he was examining it (or after), it is unclean. By analogy, the skin of an unclean animal too is defiled by overshadowing the dead."
,k28a_33:" Materials mentioned in the verse, q.v."
,k28a_34:" That it is liable to defilement."
,k28a_35:" Meleketh, melakah, work, suggests a manufactured article, and is therefore applied to a combination Of materials."
,k28a_36:" Sc. the defilement of the skin of an unclean animal."
,k28a_37:" Which is not the case with corpse defilement, v. <i>infra</i> 64a."
,k28a_38:" Ibid. XI, 32. This refers to the materials liable to defilement by reptiles."
,k28a_39:" Or is an extension. By analogy the same applies to the defilement of the dead."
,k28a_40:" V. p. 116, n. 14. But the minimum portion of a human corpse is the size of an olive, which is larger than a lentil. Since the defilement of reptiles is stricter in that respect, it may also be stricter in respect of the skin of an unclean animal."
,k28a_41:" The minimum for leprosy is the size of a bean."
,k28a_42:" I.e., if it forms a tent,"
,k28a_43:" In Babylon on the canal of the same name, near the town of Mehasia, and some three parasangs from a synagogue named after Daniel; Obermeyer, Landschaft, p. 302."
,k28a_44:" A bean too is less. "
}

txt:
<p>
from the Tabernacle. Here it is written, This is the law when a man dieth in a tent [ohel];<a id="k28a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and there it is written, and he spread the tent [ohel] over the Tabernacle:<a id="k28a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; just as there [the covering] of linen is designated tent, so here too, [a covering] of linen is designated tent.<a id="k28a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, just as there it was twisted and the thread was doubled sixfold,<a id="k28a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too it must be twisted and its thread doubled sixfold?<a id="k28a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  The repetition of tent<a id="k28a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is an extension.<a id="k28a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; If the repetition of tent is an extension, then everything else<a id="k28a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; too should be included? &mdash; If so, what avails the <i>gezerah shawah</i>?<a id="k28a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet [perhaps] say, just as there [the Tabernacle was of] boards, so here too [a tent of] boards [is meant]? &mdash; Scripture saith, And thou shalt make boards for the tabernacle:<a id="k28a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the tabernacle<a id="k28a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is called tabernacle, but the boards are not designated tabernacle. If so, [when it is stated,] and thou shalt make a covering<a id="k28a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; for the tent [ohel],<a id="k28a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is the covering indeed not designated tent [ohel]? But when R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin of an unclean animal<a id="k28a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; be defiled by overshadowing<a id="k28a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the dead? &mdash; [What doubt was there] seeing that the skin of a clean animal cannot be defiled,<a id="k28a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is there a question of the skin of an unclean animal<a id="k28a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is different, because Scripture restored it,<a id="k28a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is written, they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tent of meeting, its covering and the covering of sealskin that is above it:<a id="k28a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; thus the upper [covering]<a id="k28a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is assimilated to the lower:<a id="k28a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; just as the lower is designated tent,<a id="k28a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; so is the upper designated tent.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin<a id="k28a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of an unclean animal be defiled with the defilement of tents?'<a id="k28a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; What is his problem?<a id="k28a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: His question relates to the tahash which was in the days of Moses,<a id="k28a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; was it unclean or clean? R. Joseph observed, What question is this to him? We learnt it! For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was declared fit.
</p><p>
	R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering<a id="k28a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and it was like a squirrel['s].<a id="k28a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours.<a id="k28a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: That the skin of an unclean animal is defiled by overshadowing<a id="k28a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the dead [is inferred] from the following. For it was taught: [Scripture could state] skin; [by stating or in] skin<a id="k28a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; it extends [the law to] the skin of an unclean animal and to one which was smitten [with leprosy] in the priests hand.<a id="k28a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; If one cuts off [pieces] of all these<a id="k28a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and makes one [piece] out of them, how do we know [it]?<a id="k28a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; From the verse, 'or in any thing [meleketh] made of skin'.<a id="k28a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; But this [Raba's statement] can be refuted: as for leprosy, [the reason<a id="k28a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; is] because the warp and the wool is defiled in their case?<a id="k28a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather it is learnt from leprosy. For it was taught: Skin:<a id="k28a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; I know it only of the skin of a clean animal; how do I know it of the skin of an unclean animal? Therefore it is stated, or skin.<a id="k28a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But this may be refuted: as for reptiles, [the reason is] they defile by the size of a lentil.<a id="k28a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Let leprosy prove it.<a id="k28a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of one is not that of the other, and vice versa: the feature common to both is that skin is unclean in their case, and the skin of an unclean animal was assimilated to that of a clean animal: so also do I adduce the tent of the dead, that skin is unclean in its case,<a id="k28a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and the skin of an unclean animal is assimilated to that of a clean animal.
</p><p>
	Raba of Barnesh<a id="k28a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; observed to R. Ashi: But this can be refuted: as for the feature common to both, it is that they defile others in less than the size of an olive:<a id="k28a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; will you say [the same] of the dead, which defiles only by the size of an olive? Rather, said Raba of Barnesh,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k28b_1:" As a mere historical fact it is of no importance. Hence what is its purpose, seeing that it does not teach that the skin of an unclean animal is not defiled by overshadowing the dead, as one wished to deduce <i>supra</i> a?"
,k28b_2:" That the parchment of these must be made of the skin of a clean animal."
,k28b_3:" Ex. XIII, 9; the reference is to tefillin (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k28b_4:" Cf. p. 118, n. 2 (on explicitness)."
,k28b_5:" The leather of the capsules in which the parchment is placed. This cannot be deduced from the verse quoted, for 'the law of the Lord' was not written upon them."
,k28b_6:" The letter shin (a) is stamped out of the leather itself at the side of the capsule. This is part of the Name Shaddai ([H]) and therefore comes within the meaning of 'the law of the Lord'. &mdash; With respect to the meaning of 'a law of Moses from Sinai', some take it literally: this was handed down direct from Moses; others understand it in a more figurative sense: it is traditional, but its exact origin is unknown, and hence ascribed to Moses, who in general is the source of Jewish law. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 71 seq."
,k28b_7:" The parchment within the phylacteries, on which Biblical passages are written, is rolled up and tied round with animal hair. The receptacles themselves are sewn together with the tendons of animals. Both must be from clean animals."
,k28b_8:" I.e., the faces of the capsules must be rectangular in shape, the whole forming a cube."
,k28b_9:" 'Their' meaning of the same animal or species which furnishes the parchment and the leather. Thus they must be all of a clean animal and this is a traditional law."
,k28b_10:" These must be of the skin of a clean animal."
,k28b_11:" I.e., is there a tradition that they must be of the skin of a clean animal? Surely not! Hence R. Joseph's teaching is necessary."
,k28b_12:" Lit., 'garment'."
,k28b_13:" Ps. LXIX, 32."
,k28b_14:" E. V. 'that hath horns.'"
,k28b_15:" Than a horn,"
,k28b_16:" I.e., [H] which is normally punctuated [H] (mi-keren), but here [H] makrin. On the identification of this ox with that sacrificed by Adam v. A.Z. 8a."
,k28b_17:" Viz., an ox or bullock."
,k28b_18:" Jast.: a kind of antelope, unicorn. "
,k28b_19:" The reasons are discussed in the Gemara,"
,k28b_20:" A rag, being part of a garment, is liable to become unclean, a wick does not become unclean. R. Eliezer holds that mere twisting without singeing-this was done to facilitate the lighting-does not make it a wick, and therefore it is still subject to uncleanness."
,k28b_21:" This is the smallest size liable to defilement (<i>supra</i> 26b); in that sense it is regarded as a whole garment (or utensil)."
,k28b_22:" On Festivals. A whole utensil may be handled on Festivals, and therefore it may be taken for burning. But if a utensil is broken on the Festival so that it can now be used as fuel only, it is regarded as a thing newly-created (nolad v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)-i.e., a new use for it has just been created-and such may not be handled on Festivals."
,k28b_23:" Since it was the minimum size originally."
,k28b_24:" Until the greater part is alight."
,k28b_25:" I.e., this twisted rag is just like a piece of wood,"
,k28b_26:" That nolad (v. n. 3) is forbidden. "
}

txt:
<p>
it is inferred a minori from goats' hair, which is not defiled by leprosy, yet is defiled by overshadowing the dead; then the skin of an unclean animal, which is defiled by leprosy, is surely defiled by overshadowing the dead.
</p><p>
	Then when R. Joseph recited, 'For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was considered fit,' for what practical law [did he say it]?<a id="k28b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; In respect of phylacteries.<a id="k28b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Of phylacteries it is explicitly stated, that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth,<a id="k28b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [meaning] of that which is permitted in thy mouth?<a id="k28b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather in respect of their hide.<a id="k28b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But Abaye said, The skin of phylacteries is a law of Moses from Sinai?<a id="k28b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather, it is in respect of tying it with hair and sewing it with its tendons.<a id="k28b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is a law of Moses from Sinai. For it was taught: Rectangular phylacteries<a id="k28b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; are a law of Moses from Sinal: they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their tendons.<a id="k28b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather it is in respect of their straps.<a id="k28b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Isaac said, Black straps are a law of Moses from Sinai? Granted that black is traditional, is clean traditional?<a id="k28b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is our conclusion with respect to the tahash which existed in Moses' days? &mdash; Said R. Elai in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, R. Meir used to maintain, The tahash of Moses' day was a separate species, and the Sages could not decide whether it belonged to the genus of wild beasts or to the genus of domestic animals; and it bad one horn in its forehead, and it came to Moses' hand [providentially] just for the occasion,<a id="k28b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and he made the [covering of the] Tabernacle, and then it was hidden. Now, since he says that it had one horn in its forehead, it follows that it was clean. For R. Judah said, The ox which Adam the first [man] sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, for it is said, and it shall please the Lord better than an ox, or a bullock that hath a horn [sic] and hoofs.<a id="k28b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But makrin<a id="k28b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; implies two? &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Mi-keren<a id="k28b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is written.<a id="k28b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let us solve thence that it was a genus of domestic animal?<a id="k28b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since there is the keresh,<a id="k28b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED, &mdash; R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH; R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH.<a id="k28b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. As for the matter of uncleanness, it is well, [for] they differ in this: R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no effect, and it remains in its previous condition;<a id="k28b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled. But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? &mdash; R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name, and R. Adda b. Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;<a id="k28b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath. Now, all agree with R. Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.<a id="k28b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz.: He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes. R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,<a id="k28b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and when he goes on kindling it,<a id="k28b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he kindles a broken utensil. But R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.<a id="k28b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law.
</p><p>
	Now, since R. Adda b. Ahabah explains it in accordance with R. Judah,<a id="k28b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; it follows that he himself holds as R. Judah. Yet did R. Adda b. Ahabah say thus? Surely R. Adda b. Ahabah said:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k29a_1:" A measure; or, a kind of artificial leg."
,k29a_2:" Though it is nolad,"
,k29a_3:" These do not burn well. Thus R. Eliezer refers to all Sabbaths."
,k29a_4:" V. Kelim. XXVIII, 7."
,k29a_5:" He permits nolad."
,k29a_6:" Since they may be handled as food, they may be handled as fuel."
,k29a_7:" This and the following are similar to the first, the stones of dates and the shells of nuts being like fragments of utensils."
,k29a_8:" Reversing the argument, all cases are necessary for R. Simeon's view."
,k29a_9:" A kind of coal brazier.-This was done on weekdays."
,k29a_10:" <i>Supra</i> 3b,"
,k29a_11:" Rab was a Babylonian who went to study in Palestine and then returned."
,k29a_12:" On Festivals."
,k29a_13:" These become very ripe, so that the whole of the fruit can be removed from the stones. Since he threw them to animals, he evidently held that they might be handled, and could also have used them for fuel. Hence he must have rejected R. Hiyya's view."
,k29a_14:" The fruit cannot be entirely separated from the stone."
,k29a_15:" The timber that falls may not be handled by itself, since it was not destined for this before the Festival. Hence a greater quantity of wood set aside for fuel must be added, and both may be handled together. The same must be done here."
,k29a_16:" He holds that if it is three handbreadths square, it retains the character of a garment and is liable to defilement on all views."
,k29a_17:" Using this material as a holder."
,k29a_18:" The meaning is discussed below."
,k29a_19:" I.e., liable to uncleanness as a garment (beged), which connotes any material that may be put to a useful purpose."
,k29a_20:" And then salved for one of these purposes."
,k29a_21:" Since it is less than three handbreadths square, and was also thrown away as worthless, it is certainly not a 'garment', even when salved. "
}

txt:
<p>
If a Gentile hollows out a <i>kab</i><a id="k29a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in a <i>log</i>, an Israelite may heat [the oven] therewith on a Festival.<a id="k29a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet why? Is it not nolad!-He states [it] according to the views of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba, but does not hold thus himself. 
</p><p>
	Raba said, This is R. Eliezer's reason: Because one must not light [the Sabbath lamp] with an unsinged wick or unsinged rags.<a id="k29a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Then when R. Joseph recited, Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, In respect of what law [was it]? &mdash; In respect of uncleanness. For we learnt, The three [fingerbreadths] square of which they [the Sages] spoke is exclusive of the hem: this is R. Simeon's view. But the Sages say: Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square.<a id="k29a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils: this is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it.<a id="k29a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; One may fire [it] with dates;<a id="k29a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they are eaten, one may not fire [it] with their stones:<a id="k29a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it. One may heat with nuts: if they are eaten, one must not heat with their shells: this is R. Judah's ruling; but R. Simeon permits it.
</p><p>
	Now, they are [all] necessary. For if we were told the first, R. Judah rules [thus] in that case, because it was a utensil before but only a fragment of a utensil now, and so it is nolad, hence forbidden; but as for dates, since they were stones originally and are stones now, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. And if we were informed [this] of dates, I might say, [the reason is] because they [the stones] were originally concealed but are now revealed; but as for nutshells, which were uncovered originally and are uncovered still, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. Thus they are necessary.<a id="k29a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, this [ruling] of Rab was stated not explicitly but by implication. For Rab ate dates and threw the stones into a pan;<a id="k29a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; whereupon R. Hiyya said to him, 'Son of great ancestors!<a id="k29a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; A similar act on Festivals is forbidden.' Did he accept [this ruling] from him or not? &mdash; Come and hear: For when Rab came to Babylon,<a id="k29a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he ate dates<a id="k29a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and threw the stones to animals. Surely this means Persian [dates]?<a id="k29a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; No: this means Syrian [dates], since they are fit [for handling] on account of their flesh.<a id="k29a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah said to R. Joseph: According to R. Judah who ruled, One may fire [an oven] with utensils, but not with broken utensils, &mdash; immediately one lights with it a little it becomes a broken utensil, and when he stirs [the fuel] he is stirring something that is forbidden? &mdash; He acts in accordance with R. Mattenah: For R. Mattenah said in Rab's name: if wood falls from a palm tree into a stove on a Festival, one adds more prepared wood and lights them.<a id="k29a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hamnuna said: The reference here [in our Mishnah] is to [a rag] less than three [handbreadths] square,<a id="k29a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and they taught here some of the leniencies [relating to the law] of rags, both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba following their views. For we learnt: If [material] less than three [handbreadths] square is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot,<a id="k29a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or cleaning a mill therewith, whether it is of prepared (material] or not,<a id="k29a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it is unclean:<a id="k29a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; that is R. Eliezer's view; R. Joshua maintained: Whether it is of prepared [material] or not, it is clean; R. Akiba ruled: If of prepared [material], it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean. Now 'Ulla-others state, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name-said: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap,<a id="k29a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; it is universally agreed that it is clean;<a id="k29a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k29b_1:" He showed that he attributed value to it, hence it is a 'garment'."
,k29b_2:" Since he intends to use it, it is 'prepared', i.e., designated for use."
,k29b_3:" When he places it in a chest he certainly intends using it; but here he merely ensures that he will have it in case he wants it."
,k29b_4:" Not assigning any real worth to it."
,k29b_5:" The suggested reading [H] implies that a portion of a <i>beged</i> (cloth) is taken, viz., such as itself is not a cloth (in the sense stated in p. 127, n. 9). The actual reading [H] implies that a cloth itself is turned into a wick. Since R. Akiba maintains in the Mishnah that it is not liable to uncleanness, he evidently agrees with R. Judah that it is not 'prepared'."
,k29b_6:" I.e., even a pot shell may not be used thus."
,k29b_7:" The oil in the eggshell is clean."
,k29b_8:" On the Sabbath. This is forbidden on account of extinguishing the light. [Though it is not actually extinguished when he removes some oil, it subsequently goes out sooner than it would otherwise have done.]"
,k29b_9:" The oil in it becomes soiled and unclean."
,k29b_10:" There is no fear that one may draw supplies from it."
,k29b_11:" Inverting the reasoning."
,k29b_12:" Between the lamp and the shell, which is directly over its mouth: hence R. Judah regards it all as one, even when not actually joined."
,k29b_13:" Between the lamp and the oil."
,k29b_14:" Which implies that it must be professionally done, whereas 'he joins it' denotes an amateur job by the owner."
,k29b_15:" I.e., firmly."
,k29b_16:" To forbid it."
,k29b_17:" And there was no fear of their drawing off oil."
,k29b_18:" Lit., 'if I am silent for you'."
,k29b_19:" Which is earth-paved; dragging there is prohibited because it forms a rut."
,k29b_20:" Rashi: the man who conducts worshippers (assemblies) in and out of the synagogue and supervises the seating of pupils."
,k29b_21:" An Idumean town; cf. Isa. XXXIV, 6; LXIII, 1."
,k29b_22:" Do you act thus."
,k29b_23:" <i>Supra</i> 22a."
,k29b_24:" A large bench, table, etc., cannot be lifted but must be dragged."
,k29b_25:" Here it was a small one."
,k29b_26:" A couch is large; a chair is small."
,k29b_27:" For R. Judah forbids both."
,k29b_28:" I.e., a small couch is meant."
,k29b_29:" A large, heavy chair is meant."
,k29b_30:" Lit., 'in the sun'."
,k29b_31:" The reference is to garments containing the forbidden mixture of wool and linen (v. Deut. XXII, 11) sold to Gentiles. Merchants slung their wares across their shoulders for display, and though some protection is afforded thereby and it is like wearing them, it is permitted."
,k29b_32:" [H] 'modest','humble', hence punctilious in carrying out religious duties. V. Buchler, Types p. 60ff]."
,k29b_33:" So that they do not actually lie upon them."
,k29b_34:" V. <I>MGWJ</I>. 11 [1927] pp. 162-165."
,k29b_35:" For desecrating the Sabbath."
,k29b_36:" By extinguishing the light he makes kindling material, i.e., prepares the wick for easier lighting. "
}

txt:
<p>
if one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean.<a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door: R. Eliezer holds: Since he did not throw it on the refuse heap, he had his mind upon it; why then does he call it 'unprepared'?<a id="k29b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Because relatively to [placing it in] a chest it is not prepared.<a id="k29b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; While R. Joshua maintains: Since he did not place it in a chest, he has indeed accounted it as nought;<a id="k29b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and why then does he call it 'prepared'? Because relatively to [throwing it on] a refuse heap it is prepared. But R. Akiba agrees with R. Eliezer where he hangs it on a clothes frame, and with R. Joshua, where he puts it behind the door. Yet R. Akiba retracted in favour of R. Joshua ['s view]. Whence [is this deduced]? &mdash; Said Raba, Since it is stated, A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH: why choose to teach A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH, teach A WICK OF CLOTH; why a WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH? [To show] that it is still a cloth.<a id="k29b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY NOT PIERCE AN EGG SHELL, FILL IT WITH OIL, AND PLACE IT OVER THE MOUTH OF A LAMP, IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD DRIP, AND EVEN IF IT IS OF POT;<a id="k29b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS IT. BUT IF THE POTTER JOINS IT BEFOREHAND, IT IS PERMITTED, BECAUSE IT IS ONE UTENSIL. A MAN MUST NOT FILL A DISH OF OIL, PLACE IT AT THE SIDE OF A LAMP, AND PUT THE WICK END THEREIN IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD DRAW; BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS IT. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Now, they are [all] necessary. For if we were told about an eggshell; there the Rabbis say [that it is forbidden] because since it is not loathsome<a id="k29b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he will come to take supplies therefrom;<a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but as for an earthen [shell], which is loathsome,<a id="k29b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; I might argue that they agree with R. Judah.<a id="k29b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; While if we were told of an earthen [shell]: [only] there does R. Judah rule thus, but in the other case I might say that he agrees with the Rabbis.<a id="k29b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And if we were told of these two: R. Judah rules [thus] of these because nothing interposes;<a id="k29b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but as for a dish, which interposes,<a id="k29b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; I would say that he agrees with the Rabbis. While if we were told of that: [only] there do the Rabbis rule [thus], but in the first two I would say that they agree with R. Judah. Thus they are necessary.
</p><p>
	BUT IF THE POTTER JOINS IT BEFOREHAND, IT IS PERMITTED, etc. It was taught: if he joins it with plaster or potter's clay, it is permitted. But we learnt, THE POTTER?<a id="k29b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; What is meant by POTTER? After the manner of a potter.<a id="k29b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Judah said: We were once spending the Sabbath in the upper chamber of Nithzeh's house in Lydda, when an eggshell was brought, which we filled with oil, perforated, and placed over the mouth of the lamp; and though R. Tarfon and the elders were present, they said nothing to us.<a id="k29b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they [the Sages] to him, Thence [you adduce] proof? The house of Nithzeh is different, because they were most heedful.<a id="k29b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abin of Sepphoris dragged a bench in a stone-paved upper chamber in the presence of R. Isaac b. Eleazar, Said he to him, If I let this pass in silence,<a id="k29b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; as his companions kept silent before R. Judah, harm will ensue: a stone-paved chamber is forbidden on account of an ordinary chamber.<a id="k29b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The synagogue overseer<a id="k29b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of Bazrah<a id="k29b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; dragged a bench in front of R. Jeremiah Rabbah. Said he to him, in accordance with whom?<a id="k29b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [Presumably] R. Simeon!<a id="k29b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Assume that R. Simeon ruled [thus] in the case of larger ones, since it is impossible otherwise;<a id="k29b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; did he say thus of small ones?<a id="k29b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, he disagrees with 'Ulla, who said: They differ [only] in respect of small ones, but as for large, all agree that it is permitted.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph objected: R. Simeon said, A man may drag a couch, chair, or bench, providing that he does not intend making a rut. Thus both large and small [articles] are taught,<a id="k29b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; which is a difficulty on both views.<a id="k29b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 'Ulla reconciles it according to his view, and R. Jeremiah Rabbah reconciles it according to his. 'Ulla reconciles it according to his view: the couch is like the chair.<a id="k29b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; While R. Jeremiah Rabbah reconciles it according to his: the chair is like the couch.<a id="k29b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah objected: Clothes merchants sell in their normal fashion, providing that one does not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather<a id="k29b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; or from the rain when it is raining;<a id="k29b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but the strictly religious<a id="k29b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; sling them on a staff behind their back.<a id="k29b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here that it is possible to do as the strictly religious, it is the same as small [articles of furniture], yet when one has no intention R. Simeon permits it at the outset? This refutation of R. Jeremiah Rabbah is indeed a refutation. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE EXTINGUISHES THE LAMP BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF GENTILES, ROBBERS, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,<a id="k29b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; OR FOR THE SAKE OF AN INVALID, THAT HE SHOULD SLEEP, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.<a id="k29b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IF [BECAUSE] HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, THE OIL, OR THE WICK, HE IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE EXEMPTS HIM IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE WICK, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL.<a id="k29b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k30a_1:" The work of extinguishing is not needed per se but merely to effect something else, e.g., to spare the oil, and it is R. Judah who maintains that such work involves liability."
,k30a_2:" 'He is exempt' implies that it is actually forbidden."
,k30a_3:" Since there is no danger of life, it is prohibited like any other work."
,k30a_4:" That no liability is incurred on account of a labour not required for itself, v. n. 4 and <i>infra</i> 93b."
,k30a_5:" A district in North Palestine (Jast.). MS.M. reads: Nineweh. V. Ta'an., Sonc. ed., p. 64, n. 5."
,k30a_6:" This formula generally introduces a popular sermon, which preceded the answering of the question. Such follows here."
,k30a_7:" Ps. CXV, 17."
,k30a_8:" Eccl. IV, 2."
,k30a_9:" Ibid. IX, 4."
,k30a_10:" Ps. LXXXVIII, 6 (E.V. 5: (Cast off among the dead)."
,k30a_11:" Ex. XXXII, 13."
,k30a_12:" Ps. LXXXVI, 17."
,k30a_13:" Sc. of Bathsheba."
,k30a_14:" Heb. [H] songs. In Solomon's prayer (I Kings VIII, 23-53) expressions of entreaty ([H] song; [H], prayer; and [H], supplication) occur twenty-four times."
,k30a_15:" Ps. XXIV, 7."
,k30a_16:" Ibid. 8."
,k30a_17:" lbid. 9f."
,k30a_18:" 11 Chron. VI, 42."
,k30a_19:" I Kings VIII, 66."
,k30a_20:" Which they had kept as a Feast instead of a Fast. V. vv. 2 and 65: the fourteen days must have included the tenth of the seventh month, which is the Day of Atonement; v. M.K. 9a."
,k30a_21:" Ps. XXXIX, 5 (E.V. 4)."
,k30a_22:" Lit., 'flesh and blood'."
,k30a_23:" Translating: Let me know when I will cease (to be), fr. hadal, to cease."
,k30a_24:" The following day, so that the usual offices for the dead may be performed, some of which are forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k30a_25:" Ps. LXXXIV, 11 (E.V. 10)."
,k30a_26:" Thus your life is too precious for a single day to be renounced.-Study itself is regarded in Judaism as an act of worship &mdash; indeed, the greatest, though only when it leads to piety; cf. <i>Pe'ah</i> I, 1. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Since the second clause teaches, HE IS CULPABLE, it may be inferred that it is R. Judah.<a id="k30a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Then to what does the first clause refer? if to an invalid dangerously ill, [the Tanna] should have stated, 'it is permitted'?<a id="k30a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; While If to an invalid who is not in danger, he should have stated, He is liable to a sin-offering?<a id="k30a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; After all, [it refers] to an invalid dangerously sick, and logically he should teach, it is permitted; but because he wishes to teach 'HE IS CULPABLE' in the second clause, he also teaches 'HE IS NOT CULPABLE' in the first. And as for what R. Oshaia taught: If it is for the sake of a sick person, that he should sleep, he must not extinguish it; but if he extinguishes it, he is not liable, though it is forbidden-that refers to one who is not dangerously ill, and agrees with R. Simeon.<a id="k30a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This question was asked before R. Tanhum of Neway:<a id="k30a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; What about extinguishing a burning lamp for a sick man on the Sabbath? &mdash; Thereupon he commenced and spake:<a id="k30a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thou, Solomon, where is thy wisdom and where is thine understanding? It is not enough for thee that thy words contradict the words of thy father David, but that they are self-contradictory! Thy father David said, The dead praise not the Lord;<a id="k30a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst thou saidest, Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead<a id="k30a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but yet again thou saidest, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.<a id="k30a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet there is no difficulty. As to what David said: 'The dead praise not the Lord', this is what he meant: Let a man always engage in Torah and good deeds before he dies, for as soon as he dies he is restrained from [the practice of] Torah and good deeds, and the Holy One, blessed be He, finds nought to praise in him. And thus R. Johanan said, What is meant by the verse, Among the dead [I am] free?<a id="k30a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Once a man dies, he becomes free of the Torah and good deeds. And as to what Solomon said, 'Wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead' for when Israel sinned in the wilderness, Moses stood before the Holy One, blessed be He, and uttered many prayers and supplications before Him, but he was not answered. Yet when he exclaimed, 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants!'<a id="k30a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he was immediately answered. Did not then Solomon well say, wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead'? Another interpretation: In worldly affairs, when a prince of flesh and blood issues a decree, it is doubtful whether it will be obeyed or not; and even if you say that it is obeyed, it is obeyed during his lifetime but not after his death. Whereas Moses our Teacher decreed many decrees and enacted numerous enactments, and they endure for ever and unto all eternity. Did then not Solomon well say, 'Wherefore I praise the dead, etc.' Another interpretation [of] 'wherefore I praise, etc.' is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in Rab's name, viz., What is meant by, Shew me a token for good, that they which hate me may see it, and be ashamed?<a id="k30a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; David prayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Forgive me for that sin!'<a id="k30a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It is forgiven thee,' replied He. 'Shew me a token in my lifetime,' he entreated. 'In thy lifetime I will not make it known,' He answered, 'but I will make it known in the lifetime of thy son Solomon.' For when Solomon built the Temple, he desired to take the Ark into the Holy of Holies, whereupon the gates clave to each other. Solomon uttered twenty-four prayers,<a id="k30a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; yet he was not answered. He opened [his mouth] and exclaimed, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory shall come in.<a id="k30a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; They rushed upon him to swallow him up, crying, 'Who is the king of glory'? 'The Lord, strong and mighty,'<a id="k30a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; answered he. Then he repeated, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah';<a id="k30a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; yet he was not answered. But as soon as he prayed, 'O Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed remember the good deeds of David thy servant,'<a id="k30a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he was immediately answered. In that hour the faces of all David's enemies turned [black] like the bottom of a pot, and all Israel knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven him that sin. Did then not Solomon well say, wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead'? And thus it is written, On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went into their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had shewed unto David his servant, and to Israel his people.<a id="k30a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And they went unto their tents' [means] that they found their wives clean; 'joyful', because they had enjoyed the lustre of the Divine Presence; 'and glad of heart', because their wives conceived and each one bore a male child; 'for all the goodness that the Lord had shewed unto David his servant', that He had forgiven him that sin; and to Israel his people', for He had forgiven them the sin of the Day of Atonement.<a id="k30a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And as to what Solomon said, 'for a living dog is better than a dead lion', &mdash; that is as Rab Judah said in Rab's name, viz.; what is meant by the verse, Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; let me know how frail I am.<a id="k30a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; David said before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Lord, make me to know mine end.' 'It is a decree before Me,' replied He, 'that the end of a mortal<a id="k30a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is not made known.' 'And the measure of my days, what it is'-'it is a decree before Me that a person's span [of life] is not made known.' 'Let me know how frail [hadel] I am.'<a id="k30a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Said He to him. 'Thou wilt die on the Sabbath.' 'Let me die on the first day of the week!'<a id="k30a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The reign of thy son Solomon shall already have become due, and one reign may not overlap another even by a hairbreadth.' 'Then let me die on the eve of the Sabbath!' Said He, 'For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand':<a id="k30a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; better is to Me the one day that thou sittest and engagest in learning than the thousand burnt-offerings which thy son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me on the altar.'<a id="k30a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k30b_1:" The angel of death cannot approach one who is studying the Torah; Sot. 21a."
,k30b_2:" A euphemism for death."
,k30b_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 156b."
,k30b_4:" For the sake of the living dogs it was permitted to handle the carcase without further ado, yet the great king David might not be handled this! Or, the answer concerning the dogs was given precedence over that concerning David."
,k30b_5:" <i>Supra</i> a. This was said in a spirit of humility, instead of 'which you asked before me.'"
,k30b_6:" Prov. XX, 27: the soul of man is the lamp of the Lord."
,k30b_7:" Where life is endangered, the lamp may certainly be extinguished."
,k30b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 55, n. 2. Weiss, Dor, 1, p. 212 conjectures that this was at the time of the Synod in the upper chamber of Hanania b. Hezekiah b. Garon (v. p. 54, n. 1), when it was desired to 'hide' Ezekiel too. This activity was occasioned by the spread of books of Hellenistic tendencies, in consequence of which existing material was closely scrutinized as to its fitness."
,k30b_9:" Lit., 'words of the Torah'."
,k30b_10:" Eccl. 1, 3."
,k30b_11:" I.e., one profits if he toils in the Torah, which existed before the sun; Pes. 54a; Ned. 39b."
,k30b_12:" Ibid. XII, 13."
,k30b_13:" Ibid. VII, 3."
,k30b_14:" Ibid. II, 2."
,k30b_15:" Ibid. VIII, 15. "
,k30b_16:" Ibid. II, 2."
,k30b_17:" The latter is an idiom for prosperity and well being: the sufferings inflicted upon the righteous are preferable to the prosperity conferred upon the wicked."
,k30b_18:" The celebrations of such, e.g., a marriage."
,k30b_19:" The Rabbis frowned upon this. But in all probability this does not apply to a simple and harmless gathering, but to attendance at theatres and circuses, at which the Jewish authorities looked askance, perhaps because they originated in idolatry and also because images of royalty were placed there. &mdash; Lev. R. XXXIV. The early Christians too were opposed to this, Tertullian (De Spectaculis, X) describing the theatre as a place of sexual immorality,"
,k30b_20:" Judaism does not encourage asceticism; cf. Ned. 10a."
,k30b_21:" Or, vain pursuits."
,k30b_22:" II Kings III, 15. Maharsha observes that the verse is quoted merely to show that the Divine Presence does not rest on a man plunged in gloom, Elisha requiring the minstrel to dissipate the gloom occasioned by Jehoram's visit."
,k30b_23:" Serious study must be preceded by some light-hearted conversation."
,k30b_24:" If one goes to sleep in good spirits, he has happy dreams."
,k30b_25:" Caused by his awe and reverence."
,k30b_26:" Cant. V, 13."
,k30b_27:" Translating: the lips of those who study drop bitterness.-This shows that one must not study light-heartedly."
,k30b_28:" Prov. XXVI, 4."
,k30b_29:" Ibid. 5."
,k30b_30:" Then he may be answered."
,k30b_31:" Thus accusing his wife of adultery and his children of illegitimacy,"
,k30b_32:" The man's miraculous death proved his accusation unfounded. [The text is not clear. <i>Var. lec</i>.: that he was not made (accused to be) illegitimate unlike R. Hiyya, who was declared by the man to be his son; only the character of Rabbi's son was impugned but not of Rabbi himself]."
,k30b_33:" Private prayers were added after the Eighteen Benedictions (v. p. 32, n. 3); Elbogen, Der Judische Gottesdienst, p. 75. This prayer has become incorporated in the daily liturgy. Weiss, Dor, II, 192 conjectures, though on insufficient grounds, that it was occasioned by the opposition he met with among the Rabbis."
,k30b_34:" Jer. XXXI, 7. (E.V. 8: the woman with child and her that travaileth with child, together)."
,k30b_35:" Eccl. I, 9."
,k30b_36:" 'This world' is here contrasted with the destined future of change, while generally it is contrasted with the 'world to come'. Whether these two are synonymous it is difficult to say; v. Sanh. p. 601, n. 3. But perhaps the phrase here means, 'the world under present conditions.'"
,k30b_37:" Ezek. XVII, 23."
,k30b_38:" Jast: of which the various products are eaten successively; v. B.B. 28b."
,k30b_39:" Ps. LXXII, 16. Rashi: this implies, corn as wide as a handbreadth, i.e., cakes as wide. The Hebrew pissath bar may also be translated pure wool (or, silken) garments'."
,k30b_40:" Which resemble cakes."
,k30b_41:" This has a downy, silk-like substance on the inside. "
}

txt:
<p>
Now, every Sabbath day he would sit and study all day.<a id="k30b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; On the day that his soul was to be at rest,<a id="k30b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the Angel of death stood before him but could not prevail against him, because learning did not cease from his mouth. 'What shall I do to him?' said he. Now, there was a garden before his house; so the Angel of death went, ascended and soughed in the trees. He [David] went out to see: as he was ascending the ladder, it broke under him. Thereupon he became silent [from his studies] and his soul had repose. Then Solomon sent to <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>: My father is dead and lying in the sun; and the dogs of my father's house are hungry; what shall I do? They sent back, Cut up a carcase and place it before the dogs; and as for thy father, put a loaf of bread or a child upon him and carry him away.<a id="k30b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Did then not Solomon well say, for a living dog is better than a dead lion?<a id="k30b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And as for the question which I asked before you,<a id="k30b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; a lamp is designated lamp, and the soul of man is called a lamp:<a id="k30b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; better it is that the lamp of flesh and blood be extinguished before the lamp of the Holy One, blessed be He.<a id="k30b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in Rab's name: The Sages wished to hide the Book of Ecclesiastes,<a id="k30b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; because its words are self-contradictory; yet why did they not hide it? Because its beginning is religious teaching<a id="k30b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and its end is religious teaching. Its beginning is religious teaching, as it is written, What profit hath man of all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun?<a id="k30b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And the School of R. Jannai commented: Under the sun he has none, but he has it [sc. profit] before the sun.<a id="k30b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The end thereof is religious teaching, as it is written, Let us hear the conclusion of the matter, fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole of man.<a id="k30b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by, 'for this is the whole of man'? &mdash; Said R. Eleazar, The entire world was created only for the sake of this [type of] man. Simeon b. 'Azzai-others state, Simeon b. Zoma-said: The entire world was created only to be a companion to this man.
</p><p>
	And how are its words self-contradictory? &mdash; It is written, anger is better than play;<a id="k30b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is written, I said of laughter, It is to be praised.<a id="k30b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; It is written, Then I commended joy;<a id="k30b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is written, and of joy [I said] What doeth it?<a id="k30b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: 'anger is better than laughter': the anger which the Holy One, blessed be He, displays to the righteous in this world is better than the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world.<a id="k30b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And I said of laughter, it is to be praised': that refers to the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the world to come. 'Then I commended joy': this refers to the joy of a precept.<a id="k30b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And of joy [I said], what doeth it': this refers to joy [which is] not in connection with a precept.<a id="k30b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; This teaches you that the Divine Presence rests [upon] man] neither through gloom,<a id="k30b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; nor through sloth, nor through frivolity, nor through levity, nor through talk, nor through idle chatter,<a id="k30b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; save through a matter of joy in connection with a precept, as it is said, But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.<a id="k30b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said: And it is likewise thus for a matter of <i>halachah</i>.<a id="k30b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: And it is likewise thus for a good dream.<a id="k30b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so, for R. Giddal said in Rab's name: If any scholar sits before his teacher and his lips do not drip bitterness,<a id="k30b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; they shall be burnt, for it is said, his lips are as lilies [shoshanim], dropping liquid myrrh [mor'ober]:<a id="k30b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; read not mor'ober, but mar'ober [dropping bitterness]; read not shoshanim but sheshonin [that study]?<a id="k30b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: the former applies to the teacher; the latter to the disciple. Alternatively, both refer to the teacher, yet there is no difficulty: the one means before he commences; the other, after he commences. Even as Rabbah before he commenced [his discourse] before the scholars used to say something humorous, and the scholars were cheered; after that he sat in awe and began the discourse.
</p><p>
	The Book of Proverbs too they desired to hide, because its statements are self-contradictory. Yet why did they not hide it? They said, Did we not examine the Book of Ecclesiastes and find a reconciliation? So here too let us make search. And how are its statements self-contradictory? &mdash; It is written, Answer not a fool according to his folly;<a id="k30b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; yet it is also written, Answer a fool according to his folly?<a id="k30b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: the one refers to matters of learning;<a id="k30b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to general matters. Even as a certain person came before Rabbi and said to him, 'Your wife is my wife and your children are mine.'<a id="k30b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Would you like to drink a glass of wine?' asked he. He drank and burst.
</p><p>
	A certain man came before R. Hiyya and said to him, 'Your mother is my wife and you are my son! Would you like to drink a glass of wine?' asked he. He drank and burst.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya observed: Rabbi's prayer was in-so-far effective that his sons were not made illegitimate.<a id="k30b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; For when Rabbi prayed he used to say, May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to save me this day from the impudent and from impudence.<a id="k30b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Matters of learning'-what is that? &mdash; As R. Gamaliel sat and lectured, Woman is destined to bear every day, for it is said, the woman conceived and beareth simultaneously.<a id="k30b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; But a certain disciple scoffed at him, quoting, 'there is no new thing under the sun.'<a id="k30b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Come, and I will show you its equal in this world,<a id="k30b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; be replied. He went forth and showed him a fowl. On another occasion R. Gamaliel sat and lectured, Trees are destined to yield fruit every day, for it is said, and it shall bring forth boughs and bear fruit:<a id="k30b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; just as the boughs [exist] every day, so shall there be fruit every day. But a certain disciple scoffed at him, saying, but it is written, 'there is no new thing under the sun!' Come, and I will show you its equal in this world, replied he. He went forth and showed him the caper bush.<a id="k30b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; On another occasion R. Gamaliel sat and expounded, Palestine is destined to bring forth cakes and wool robes, for it is said, There shall be an handful of corn in the land.<a id="k30b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But a certain disciple scoffed at him, quoting, 'there is no new thing under the sun!' 'Come, and I will show you their equal in this world,' replied he. He went forth and showed him morels and truffles;<a id="k30b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; and for silk robes [he showed him] the bark of a young palm-shoot.<a id="k30b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai. It once happened that two men
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k32a_1:" Jer. II, 3: Israel was holiness unto the Lord, the first-fruits of his increase."
,k32a_2:" Sc. the first portion of the dough, which is <i>hallah</i>; Num. XV, 20."
,k32a_3:" Sc. the Sabbath lights."
,k32a_4:" Rashi. Levi, Worterbuch s.v. [H] conjectures that [H] should be read instead of [H]: he translates as Rashi: where there is loss. Jast.: at the prison gate, Krauss in T.A. II, p. 699, n. 435 appears to translate: at the toll-gate, and this is a reference to the severity with which tolls were exacted."
,k32a_5:" These are a series of proverbs, the general tenor of which is that when danger is near, one's faults are remembered and punished. Childbirth is dangerous, and that is when a woman is punished for her transgressions. &mdash; Mar 'Ukba's proverb means: the shepherd waits until the goats are by the gate of the fold or pen, and then rebukes and punishes them."
,k32a_6:" That involves danger, and then they are liable to be punished for their misdeeds,"
,k32a_7:" The miracle is a reward for some of his merits, and so he has now less to his credit."
,k32a_8:" I.e., I have less merit to my credit."
,k32a_9:" Gen, XXXII, 10."
,k32a_10:" Aruch: east wind."
,k32a_11:" I.e., he must prove by what merit he is entitled to regain his health."
,k32a_12:" Deut. XXII, 8."
,k32a_13:" Of merit, that he is entitled to recover from his injuries."
,k32a_14:" The lit. translation of the verse is: if the faller falls. But before he starts falling he should not be designated the faller."
,k32a_15:" And this man who builds a house without a parapet is guilty therein, and he is used as the Divine instrument for fulfilling the other man's destiny to fall as a punishment."
,k32a_16:" Lit., 'inclines to death'."
,k32a_17:" To be bought to trial."
,k32a_18:" Job. XXXIII, 23f."
,k32a_19:" For these three sins. The variants involve but a change of vocalization in the Hebrew text."
,k32a_20:" Lit., 'excrement'."
,k32a_21:" Pl. of 'am ha-arez, q.v. Glos,"
,k32a_22:" Lit., 'house of the people'-a contemptuous designation."
,k32a_23:" Cf. n. 2.."
,k32a_24:" 'Death scrutineers' connotes sins which scrutinize a woman when she is in danger, sc. at childbirth; thus this agrees with the Rabbis, 'Causes' implies avenues to premature death, thus agreeing with R. Eleazar's dictum, 'women die young'-The translation of the first follows Rashi. last.: breaches through which death enters, i.e., sins for which one is visited with death."
,k32a_25:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> "
}

txt:
<p>
I designated you the first;<a id="k32a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; wherefore I commanded you concerning the first.<a id="k32a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; The soul which I placed in you is called a lamp, wherefore I commanded you concerning the lamp.<a id="k32a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If ye fulfil them, 'tis well; but if not, I will take your souls.
</p><p>
	And why particularly in childbirth? &mdash; Raba said, When the ox is fallen, sharpen the knife. Abaye said, Let the bondmaid increase her rebellion: it will all be punished by the same rod. R. Hisda said, Leave the drunkard alone: he will fall of himself. Mar 'Ukba said, When the shepherd is lame, and the goats are fleet, at the gate of the fold are words, and in the fold there is the account. R. Papa said, At the gate of the shop there are many brothers and friends; at the gate of loss<a id="k32a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; there are neither brothers nor friends.<a id="k32a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And when are men examined? &mdash; Said Resh Lakish: When they pass over a bridge.<a id="k32a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; A bridge and nothing else? &mdash; Say, that which is similar to a bridge. Rab would not cross a bridge where a heathen was sitting; said he, Lest judgment be visited upon him, and I be seized together with him. Samuel would cross a bridge only when a heathen was upon it, saying, Satan has no power over two nations [simultaneously]. R. Jannai examined [the bridge] and then crossed over. R. Jannai [acted] upon his views, for he said, A man should never stand in a place of danger and say that a miracle will be wrought for him, lest it is not. And if a miracle is wrought for him, it is deducted from his merits.<a id="k32a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanin said, Which verse [teaches this]? I am become diminished<a id="k32a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; by reason of all the deeds of kindness and all the truth.<a id="k32a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera would not go out among the palm-trees on a day of the strong south wind.<a id="k32a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah said: Let one always pray for mercy not to fall sick; for the falls sick he is told, Show thy merits [rights] and be quit.<a id="k32a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Mar 'Ukba, Which verse [teaches this]? If any man fall mimmenu;<a id="k32a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It is from him [mimmenu] that proof must be brought.<a id="k32a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The School of R. Ishmael taught: 'If any man [hanofel] fall from thence': this man was predestined to fall since the six days of Creation, for lo! he has not [yet] fallen, and the Writ [already] calls him nofel [a faller].<a id="k32a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But reward [zekut] is brought about through a person of merit [zakkai], and punishment [hobah] through a person of- guilt.<a id="k32a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: if one falls sick and his life is in danger,<a id="k32a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he is told, Make confession, for all who are sentenced to death make confession. When a man goes out into the street, let him imagine that he is given in charge of an officer;<a id="k32a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; when he has a headache, let him imagine that he is put in irons; when he takes to bed, let him imagine that he ascended the scaffold to be punished. For whoever ascends the scaffold to be punished, if he has great advocates he is saved, but if not he is not saved. And these are man's advocates: repentance and good deeds. And even if nine hundred and ninety-nine argue for his guilt, while one argues in his favour, he is saved, for it is said, If there be with him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand, To shew unto man what is right for him; Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, etc.<a id="k32a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean said: Even if nine hundred and ninety-nine parts of that angel are in his disfavour and one part is in his favour, be is saved, for it is said, 'an advocate, one part in a thousand'.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: For three sins women die in childbirth. R. Eleazar said: women die young.<a id="k32a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha said, As a punishment for washing their children's napkins<a id="k32a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath. Others say, Because they call the holy ark a chest.
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Ishmael b. Eleazar said: On account of two sins 'amme ha-arez<a id="k32a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; die: because they call the holy ark a chest, and because they call a synagogue beth-'am.<a id="k32a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Jose said: Three death scrutineers were created in woman; others state: Three causes<a id="k32a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; of death: <i>niddah</i>, <i>hallah</i>, and the kindling of the [Sabbath] lights. One agrees with R. Eleazar, and the other with the Rabbi's.<a id="k32a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The laws of hekdesh, terumoth<a id="k32a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and tithes are indeed essential parts of the law,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k32b_1:" No supervisors were appointed to ensure that the ignorant observe them. Rashi: haberim (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) eat the bread of the ignorant and assume that the priestly dues have been rendered. Likewise, they use their movables without fearing that they may have dedicated them as hekdesh and rendered them forbidden for secular use."
,k32b_2:" Prov. XXII, 27."
,k32b_3:" Eccl. V, 5."
,k32b_4:" Jer. II, 30."
,k32b_5:" The Heb. is la-shaw, which bears this meaning too. Cf.Deut. V, 11: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (la-shaw)."
,k32b_6:" But the compiler of this Baraitha quoted his former view."
,k32b_7:" Wilna Gaon emends this to R. Ammi or R. Assi."
,k32b_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k32b_9:" V. Deut. XI, 19-21: And ye shall teach them your children &hellip; and thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house (mezuzoth) &hellip; that your days may be multiplied. and the days of your children. One maintains: the promise 'and the days of your children' is made conditional upon the immediately preceding command, and thou shalt write them (sc. <i>mezuzah</i>); the other holds that it refers to the previous verse too, viz., and ye shall teach them your children."
,k32b_10:" Num. XV, 38."
,k32b_11:" Jer. II, 34: 'in thy skirts'-i.e., in the neglect of fringes, which are inserted in the skirts of one's garment: 'the innocent poor,' i.e., the children who die guiltlessly."
,k32b_12:" E.V.: I have not found it at the place of breaking in."
,k32b_13:" Without mezuzoth."
,k32b_14:" Zech. VIII, 23, 'Skirt' is regarded as referring to the fringe (cf. n. 2.). There are four fringes, and traditionally there are seventy languages: we thus have 70 X 10 X 4 = 2800."
,k32b_15:" Catch words of the themes that follow, as an aid to memory."
,k32b_16:" What is stored &mdash; grain, wine, oil, etc. does not keep, with the result that prices rise."
,k32b_17:" Lev. XXVI, 16."
,k32b_18:" On account of (the neglect of) <i>hallah</i>."
,k32b_19:" Ezek. XLIV, 30."
,k32b_20:" Cf. Ab. V. 8."
,k32b_21:" Job. XXIV, 19."
,k32b_22:" Viz., the rendering of terumoth and tithes."
,k32b_23:" I.e., there will be no rain, etc. Ziyyah (E.V. drought) is thus connected with ziwah (he commanded), and hom (E.V. heat) with summer."
,k32b_24:" Mal. III, 10."
,k32b_25:" Yibelu, connected here with beli."
,k32b_26:" Amos. IV, 1. The proof lies in the sequel, quoted below."
,k32b_27:" The famous town on the Tigris not far from Ktesifon, where Raba possibly founded the academy (Weiss, Dor, 111, 202) with himself as head, which was recognized as one of the foremost in Babylon; Obermeyer, p. i 66. (i 2.) Thus they rob their husbands; or, demanding food and producing nothing in return, they may force their husbands to robbery, &mdash; Women were expected to do a certain amount of labour, e.g., spinning; Keth. 59b, cf. Prov. XXXI, 13, 19. It would appear that Raba was not very popular in Mahoza (cf. Sanh. 99b); such sentiments may be either partially the cause, or Raba's reaction. "
}

txt:
<p>
and they were entrusted to the ignorant.<a id="k32b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Nathan said: A man's wife dies in punishment for [his unfulfilled] vows, for it is said. If thou, hast not wherewith to pay [thy vows], why should he take away thy bed [i.e., wife]from under thee?<a id="k32b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi said, For the sin of [unfulfilled] vows one's children die young, for it is said, Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou, before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands.<a id="k32b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the work of a man's hands? Say, it is a man's sons and daughters.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Children die as a punishment for [unfulfilled] vows: this is the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. R. Judah the Nasi said: For the sin of neglect of Torah [study]. As for the view that it is for the sin of vows, it is well, even as we have said. But on the view that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah, what verse [teaches this]? &mdash; For it is written, Have I smitten your children for nought? They received no instruction!<a id="k32b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The view that it is for the sin of vows is also [deduced] from this: For vain [utterance] have I smitten your children, i.e., on account of vain (neglected] vows.<a id="k32b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Consider: R. Judah the Nasi is identical with Rabbi, whereas Rabbi said that is it for the sin of vows? &mdash; He said that after he had heard it from R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.<a id="k32b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Jose<a id="k32b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; differ therein: one maintained: It is for the sin of [neglect of] <i>mezuzah</i>;<a id="k32b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other held that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah. On the view that it is for the sin of <i>mezuzah</i>: a verse is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent verse. While on the view that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah: a verse is interpreted with its precedent and its ante-precedent.<a id="k32b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Meir and R. Judah differ therein: One maintains, It is for the neglect of <i>mezuzah</i>, while the other holds that it is for the neglect of fringes.<a id="k32b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, as for the view that it is for the neglect of <i>mezuzah</i>, it is well, for it is written, 'and thou shalt write them upon the door posts [mezuzoth] of thine house', which is followed by, 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'. But what is the reason of the view that it is for the neglect of fringes? &mdash; Said R. Kahana-others state, Shila Mari: because it is written, Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the innocent poor.<a id="k32b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said, The view that it is for the neglect of <i>mezuzah</i> is also [learnt] from this: did I not find them like caves?<a id="k32b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [which means] that they made their entrances like caves.<a id="k32b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish said: He who is observant of fringes will be privileged to be served by two thousand eight hundred slaves, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, etc.<a id="k32b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <i>Hate, Hallah, Terumah, Robbed, Law, Oath, Shedding, Uncovering, Folly</i>.)<a id="k32b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught, R. Nehemiah said: As a punishment for causeless hate strife multiplies in a man's house, his wife miscarries, and his sons and daughters die young.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar b. R. Judah said: Because of the neglect of <i>hallah</i> there is no blessing in what is stored, a curse is sent upon prices,<a id="k32b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and seed is sown and others consume it, for it is said, I also will do this unto you: I will visit you with terror [behalah], even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away. and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it:<a id="k32b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; read not behalah but be-hallah.<a id="k32b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But if they give it, they are blessed, for it is said, ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, to cause a blessing to rest on thine house.<a id="k32b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As a punishment for the neglect of terumoth and tithes the heavens are shut up from pouring down dew and rain, high prices are prevalent, wages are lost, and people pursue a livelihood but cannot attain it,<a id="k32b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written: Drought [ziyyah] and heat [hom] consume the snow waters: So doth the grave those which have sinned.<a id="k32b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; How does this imply it? &mdash; The School of R. Ishmael taught: On account of the things which I commanded you in summer<a id="k32b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; but ye did them not, the snowy waters shall rob you in winter.<a id="k32b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But if they render them, they are blessed, for it is said, Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it ['ad beli day].<a id="k32b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'ad beli day? &mdash; Said Rami b. Hama: Until your lips are exhausted<a id="k32b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; through saying, 'Enough!' [day].
</p><p>
	For the crime of robbery locusts make invasion, famine is prevalent, and people eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, for it is said, Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy.<a id="k32b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; (Said Raba, E.g., these women of Mahoza,<a id="k32b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k33a_1:" Prov. XXXI, 9."
,k33a_2:" Joel I, 4."
,k33a_3:" Isa. IX, 19."
,k33a_4:" Lit., 'affliction of judgment'-through unnecessary delay in executing judgment."
,k33a_5:" Intentionally, through bias or partiality."
,k33a_6:" Giving erroneous verdicts through carelessness and insufficient deliberation; cf. Aboth, I, 2."
,k33a_7:" Lev. XXVI, 25."
,k33a_8:" Jer. XXXIII, 25. 'The covenant of day and night' is understood to refer to the Torah, which should be studied day and night; v. Ned. 32."
,k33a_9:" Ibid. XXVI, 26."
,k33a_10:" Ibid. 43."
,k33a_11:" Rashi: the first is swearing what is obviously untrue; the second is an ordinary false oath which can deceive. Cf. Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 47, n. 11."
,k33a_12:" Any unworthy action which reflects discredit upon Judaism since Judaism is blamed for it'-is regarded as profanation of the Divine Name. Cf. Aboth, V, 9, and IV, 4."
,k33a_13:" Ibid. 23."
,k33a_14:" the consonants are the same. The verse then reads: and if ye will not be reformed unto me in the matter of (false) oaths."
,k33a_15:" Lev. XXVI, 22."
,k33a_16:" Ibid. XIX, 12."
,k33a_17:" Ibid. XXII, 2."
,k33a_18:" Ex. XXXI, 14."
,k33a_19:" Lit., 'and profanation, profanation is learnt'. I.e., the statement made in respect to one profanation holds good for the others too."
,k33a_20:" just as this is punished by the sending of wild beasts, etc. (Lev. XXVI, 22), so are the others."
,k33a_21:" Num. XXXV, 33f."
,k33a_22:" It may be remarked that the destruction of the Temple is regarded here as synonymous with exile from the country."
,k33a_23:" Which includes adultery."
,k33a_24:" V. Lev. XXV, 1ff."
,k33a_25:" Ibid. XVIII, 27; 'abominations' refers to incest, of which the whole passage treats."
,k33a_26:" ibid. 25."
,k33a_27:" Ibid. 28."
,k33a_28:" Ibid. XXVI, 30."
,k33a_29:" Ibid. 31."
,k33a_30:" Ibid. 33."
,k33a_31:" Lev. XXVI, 34."
,k33a_32:" Ibid. 35."
,k33a_33:" Lit., 'folly of the mouth'."
,k33a_34:" A euphemism for the youth of Israel. It was held inauspicious even merely to express a possible mishap, on the score of 'open not thy mouth to Satan'."
,k33a_35:" Isa. IX, 16."
,k33a_36:" This derives from the idea that there is a book of Life, in which man's destiny is recorded; cf. Ned., Sonc. ed., p. 62, n. 7."
,k33a_37:" Speaks lewdly."
,k33a_38:" Prov. XXII, 14. Lit., 'strange (things)'.-Gehenna, as an equivalent of hell, takes its name from the place where children were once sacrificed to Moloch, viz., ge ben hinnom, the valley of the son of Hinnom, to the south of Jerusalem. (Josh. XV, 8; II Kings XXIII, 10; Jer. II, 23; VII, 31-32; XIX, 6)."
,k33a_39:" Does not protest."
,k33a_40:" Viz., who hears it without protesting."
,k33a_41:" Prov.XXII, 14."
,k33a_42:" Either: makes himself empty from all other purposes; or, polishes himself up, i.e., prepares himself."
,k33a_43:" Ibid. XX, 30."
,k33a_44:" Ibid."
,k33a_45:" Jewish magic is mentioned in Deut. XVIII, 10-11, in a passage forbidding its practice. But its potency was generally recognized. V. J.E. Arts, 'Magic', and 'Demonology'."
,k33a_46:" A Tanna, contemporary of R. Gamaliel I."
,k33a_47:" To see from what cause I am suffering-I will be accused of sin."
,k33a_48:" A nickname of Abaye, who was brought up in the house of Rabbah b. Nahmani."
,k33a_49:" This may indicate that Abaye was an ascetic. Judaism generally was opposed to asceticism (cf. Ned. 10a: he who deprives himself of what he may legitimately enjoy is called a sinner); nevertheless, in times of stress or for particular reasons Rabbis resorted to fasting (B.M. 85a), and private fasts were practised from early times: Judith VIII, 6; 1 Macc. III, 47."
,k33a_50:" Lit.,'pot'."
,k33a_51:" Lit.,'swollen'."
,k33a_52:" Now, Raba evidently disapproved of Abaye's fasting; also, he himself warned against trifling with nature's calls. How then did he come to dropsy &mdash; sin being ruled out? &mdash; Presumably its symptoms precluded the assumption that he was a victim of witchcraft."
,k33a_53:" In Kid. 49b it is explained that this refers to poverty of knowledge, which results when one is too conceited to learn from others."
,k33a_54:" [H], or perhaps 'Diphtheria'."
,k33a_55:" Each is the punishment for the other. "
}

txt:
<p>
who eat without working). And it is [further] written, I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: the multitude of your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees hath the palmerworm devoured.<a id="k33a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm eaten; and that which the cankerworm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten;<a id="k33a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, And one shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry, and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.<a id="k33a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Read not, the flesh of his own arm [zero'o], but, the flesh of his own seed [zar'o].
</p><p>
	As a punishment for delay of judgment,<a id="k33a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; perversion of judgment,<a id="k33a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; spoiling of judgment,<a id="k33a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and neglect of Torah, sword and spoil increase, pestilence and famine come, people eat and are not satisfied, and eat their bread by weight, for it is written, and I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant:<a id="k33a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; now 'covenant' means nothing else but Torah, as it is written, But for my covenant of day and night [I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth];<a id="k33a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight;<a id="k33a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, because, even because they rejected my judgments.<a id="k33a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	For the crime of vain oaths, false oaths,<a id="k33a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; profanation of the Divine Name,<a id="k33a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the desecration of the Sabbath, wild beasts multiply, [domestic] animals cease, the population decreases, and the roads become desolate, for it is said, And if by these things [be-eleh] ye will not be reformed unto me;<a id="k33a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; read not be-eleh but be-alah;<a id="k33a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, and I will send the beast of the field among you, etc.<a id="k33a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, in respect to false oaths it is written, And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, so that you profane [we-hillalta] the name of thy God;<a id="k33a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and of the profanation of the Name it is written, and that they profane not [ye-hallelu] my holy name;<a id="k33a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and of the profanation of the Sabbath it is written, every one that profaneth it [mehallelehah] shall surely be put to death:<a id="k33a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the punishment for] profanation is learnt<a id="k33a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; from a false oath.<a id="k33a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Through the crime of bloodshed the Temple was destroyed and the <i>Shechinah</i> departed from Israel, as it is written, So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood, it polluteth the land &hellip; And thou shalt not defile the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell.-21 hence, if ye do defile it, ye will not inhabit it and I will not dwell in its midst.<a id="k33a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As a punishment for incest,<a id="k33a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; idolatry, and non-observance of the years of release and jubilee<a id="k33a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; exile comes to the world, they [the Jews] are exiled, and others come and dwell in their place, for it is said, for all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc.;<a id="k33a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, and the land is defiled, &mdash; therefore do I visit the in iniquity thereof upon it;<a id="k33a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it.<a id="k33a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, with respect to idolatry it is written, and I will cast your carcases [upon the carcases of your idols];<a id="k33a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries into desolation etc....<a id="k33a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and you will I scatter among the nations.<a id="k33a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Further, in reference to release and jubilee years it is written, Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land, etc.;<a id="k33a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest.<a id="k33a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As a punishment for obscenity,<a id="k33a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; troubles multiply, cruel decrees are proclaimed afresh, the youth of Israel's enemies<a id="k33a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; die, and the fatherless and widows cry out and are not answered; for it is said, Therefore shall the Lord not rejoice over the young men, neither shall he have compassion over their fatherless and their widows: for every one is profane and an evil-doer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all is his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.<a id="k33a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by, 'but his hand is stretched out still'? &mdash; Said R. Hanan b. Rabbah: All know for what purpose a bride enters the bridal canopy, yet against whomsoever who speaks obscenely [thereof], even if a sentence of seventy years' happiness had been sealed for him,<a id="k33a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; it is reversed for evil.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Shila said in R. Hisda's name: He who puts his mouth to folly,<a id="k33a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Gehenna is made deep for him, as it is said, A deep pit is for the mouth [that speaketh] perversity.<a id="k33a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Also [for] one who hears and is silent,<a id="k33a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, he that is abhorred of the Lord<a id="k33a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; shall fall therein.<a id="k33a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Oshaia said: He who devotes himself<a id="k33a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; to sin, wounds and bruises break out over him, as it is said, Stripes and wounds are for him that devoteth himself to evil.<a id="k33a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, he is punished by dropsy, for it is said, and strokes reach the innermost parts of the belly.<a id="k33a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Dropsy is a sign of sin.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: There are three kinds of dropsy: that [which is a punishment] of sin is thick; that caused by hunger is swollen; and what is caused by magic is thin.<a id="k33a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel the Little<a id="k33a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; suffered through it. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' he cried out, who will cast lots?'<a id="k33a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] he recovered. Abaye suffered from it. Said Raba, I know of Nahmani<a id="k33a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; that he practises hunger.<a id="k33a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba suffered from it. But was it not Raba himself who said, More numerous are those slain by delayed calls of nature<a id="k33a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; than the victims<a id="k33a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; of starvation?<a id="k33a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Raba was different, because the scholars compelled him [to practise restraint] at the set times [for lectures].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: There are four signs: &mdash; [i] Dropsy is a sign of sin; [ii] jaundice is a sign of causeless hatred; [iii] poverty is a sign of conceit;<a id="k33a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; croup<a id="k33a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; is a sign of slander.<a id="k33a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Croup comes to the world
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k33b_1:" Rashi: one who eats untithed food (<i>tebel</i>) is liable to death by a divine visitation, which takes the form of croup. Having sinned through his throat (eating), he is punished through his throat."
,k33b_2:" Ps. LXIII, 12. Yissaker is connected here with askera, croup."
,k33b_3:" The famous town north west of Jerusalem, the seat of the Sanhedrin and R. Johanan b. Zakkai's academy after the destruction of the Temple. Sittings were held in a 'vineyard', i.e., members sat in rows similar to vines in a vineyard."
,k33b_4:" The reason is given below, p. 56."
,k33b_5:" 'Counsel' and 'understanding' were ascribed to these two organs respectively. Rashi in Ber. 61a s.v. [H] quotes: Ps. XVI, 7: Yea, my kidney (E.V. reins) admonish me in the night seasons, and Isa. VI, 10: and he understands with his heart."
,k33b_6:" To the words. Lit., 'cuts'."
,k33b_7:" That does not merit so heavy a punishment, particularly as only <i>terumah</i> and sacred food are forbidden when defiled."
,k33b_8:" I.e., untithed."
,k33b_9:" Which is likewise performed with the mouth."
,k33b_10:" Who are not bidden to study (Kid. 29b), and yet suffer from croup. (cf. Sot. III, 4)."
,k33b_11:" Who are not bidden to study the Torah, and are yet subject to it."
,k33b_12:" By childish demands on their time; &mdash; a harsh doctrine, but it is abandoned."
,k33b_13:" This is not to be confused with the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is rejected by Judaism."
,k33b_14:" Cant. I, 8. The Midrash and the <i>Targum </i>interpret the whole of this poem as a dialogue between God and Israel, This verse is explained: If you do not understand how to keep God's commandments, go and learn them for the sake of the flocks, sc. your children, who otherwise may die on your account."
,k33b_15:" The Romans."
,k33b_16:" Rashi: to his parents, without evil intent."
,k33b_17:" Lit., 'and they were heard by'."
,k33b_18:" With the privilege of being the first to speak on all occasions."
,k33b_19:" In Upper Galilee."
,k33b_20:" Lit., 'they wrapped (bread)'; a term derived from the custom of eating bread with a relish wrapped in it."
,k33b_21:" His wife."
,k33b_22:" The context shows that he was not censuring women for constitutional instability, but feared their weakness."
,k33b_23:" Notwithstanding its miraculous elements this story is substantially true. R. Simeon b. Yohai was persecuted very much by the Roman authorities; this explains his anti-Gentile (i.e., Roman) utterances, which are not illustrative of the Talmud as a whole."
,k33b_24:" Elijah the Prophet was believed to appear frequently to men; cf, <i>supra</i> 13b."
,k33b_25:" This story is a protest against super piety and an assertion that practical work is necessary for the world. Their return to the cave is thus depicted as a punishment, not a meritorious deed."
,k33b_26:" Lit., 'judgment'."
,k33b_27:" On 'Gehenna' v. p. 153, n. 8. Judaism rejects on the whole the idea of eternal punishment, for punishment is regenerative, not vindictive, and therefore must terminate; v. M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, p. 145."
,k33b_28:" With a glance of his eyes."
,k33b_29:" Not to be taken literally."
,k33b_30:" Their fragrance is to beautify the Sabbath and lend cheer to it.-Contrary to the opinion of many, the Sabbath, in spite of its prohibitions, is and has been 'a day of delight' and spiritual nourishment to millions of observant Jews, not a day of gloom; v. Shechter, Studies in Judaism, p. 296."
,k33b_31:" Ex. XX, 8. Remember the Sabbath day; Deut. V, 12: Observe the Sabbath day."
,k33b_32:" Lit., 'dressed'."
,k33b_33:" Caused by the sand,"
,k33b_34:" He felt that all his sufferings were compensated for by the knowledge he had gained. R. Simeon b. Yohai was one of the few Rabbis who devoted himself entirely to learning, 'his study being his profession' (<i>supra</i> 11a) not interrupting it even for prayer."
,k33b_35:" E. V. 'in peace'."
,k33b_36:" Gen. XXXIII, 18."
,k33b_37:" Ibid.; Wa-yihan is thus derived from hanan, to be gracious. E.V.: and he encamped before the city."
,k33b_38:" In place of barter."
,k33b_39:" R. Simeon b. Yohai."
,k33b_40:" A grave or human bones having been lost there. "
}

txt:
<p>
on account of [neglect of] tithes.<a id="k33b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar b. R. Jose said: On account of slander. Said Raba-others maintain, R. Joshua b. Levi-what verse [teaches this]? But the king shall rejoice in God: Everyone that sweareth by him shall glory; For the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped [yissaker].<a id="k33b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Does R. Eleazar son of R. Jose say, [Only] on account of slander, or perhaps on account of slander too? &mdash; Come and hear: For when our Rabbis entered the 'vineyard' in Yabneh,<a id="k33b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah, R. Eleazar son of R. Jose and R. Simeon were present, and this question was raised before them: why does this affliction commence in the bowels and end in the throat? Thereupon R. Judah son of R. Ila'i, the first speaker on all occasions<a id="k33b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; answered and said: Though the kidneys counsel, the heart gives understanding,<a id="k33b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and the tongue gives form,<a id="k33b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; yet the mouth completes it. R. Eleazar son of R. Jose answered: Because they eat unclean food therewith. 'Unclean food!' can you think so?<a id="k33b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [say] because they eat unfit food.<a id="k33b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon answered and said, As a punishment for the neglect of study.<a id="k33b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they to him. Let women prove it!<a id="k33b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; That is because they restrain their husbands [from study]. Let Gentiles prove it!<a id="k33b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; That is because they restrain Israel. Let children prove it! &mdash; That is because they make their fathers to neglect [study].<a id="k33b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let school-children prove it!-There it is as R. Gorion. For R. Gorion-others state, R. Joseph son of R. Shemaiah-said: When there are righteous men in the generation, the righteous are seized [by death] for the [sins of the] generation; when there are no righteous in a generation, school-children are seized for the generation.<a id="k33b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac b. Ze'iri others state, R. Simeon b. Neizra-said: Which verse [teaches this]? If thou know not, O thou, fairest among women, Go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, etc.,<a id="k33b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and we interpret this as [referring to] the goats which are taken in pledge for the [debts of the] shepherds. Thus this proves that he said on account of slander too. This proves it.
</p><p>
	Now, why is he [R. Judah son of R. Ila'i] called the first speaker on all occasions? &mdash; For R. Judah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting, and Judah, a son of proselytes, was sitting near them. R. Judah commenced [the discussion] by observing, 'How fine are the works of this people!<a id="k33b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; They have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths.' R. Jose was silent. R. Simeon b. Yohai answered and said, 'All that they made they made for themselves; they built market-places, to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them.' Now, Judah the son of proselytes went and related their talk,<a id="k33b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which reached<a id="k33b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the government. They decreed: Judah, who exalted [us], shall be exalted,<a id="k33b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Jose, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris;<a id="k33b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Simeon, who censured, let him be executed.
</p><p>
	He and his son went and hid themselves in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>, [and] his wife brought him bread and a mug of water and they dined.<a id="k33b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] when the decree became more severe he said to his son, Women are of unstable temperament: she<a id="k33b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may be put to the torture and expose us.'<a id="k33b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; So they went and hid in a cave. A miracle occurred and a carob-tree and a water well were created for them. They would strip their garments and sit up to their necks in sand. The whole day they studied; when it was time for prayers they robed, covered themselves, prayed, and then put off their garments again, so that they should not wear out. Thus they dwelt twelve years in the cave.<a id="k33b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Then Elijah came and stood at the entrance to the cave and exclaimed, Who will inform the son of Yohai that the emperor is dead and his decree annulled?<a id="k33b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; So they emerged. Seeing a man ploughing and sowing, they exclaimed, 'They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!' Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up. Thereupon a Heavenly Echo came forth and cried out, 'Have ye emerged to destroy My world: Return to your cave!'<a id="k33b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; So they returned and dwelt there twelve months, saying, 'The punishment<a id="k33b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of the wicked in Gehenna is [limited to] twelve months.'<a id="k33b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; A Heavenly Echo then came forth and said, 'Go forth from your cave!' Thus.'; they issued: wherever R. Eleazar wounded,<a id="k33b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon healed. Said he to him, 'My son! You and I are sufficient for the world.'<a id="k33b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; On the eve of the Sabbath before sunset they saw an old man holding two bundles of myrtle and running at twilight. What are these for?' they asked him. 'They are in honour of the Sabbath,' he replied.<a id="k33b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But one should suffice you'? &mdash; One is for 'Remember-' and one for 'Observe.'<a id="k33b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to his son, 'See how precious are the commandments to Israel.' Thereat their minds were tranquilized. 
</p><p>
	R. Phinchas b. Ya'ir his son-in-law heard [thereof] and went out to meet him. He took him into the baths and massaged<a id="k33b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; his flesh. Seeing the clefts in his body<a id="k33b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; he wept and the tears streamed from his eyes. 'Woe to me that I see you in such a state!' he cried out. 'Happy are you that you see me thus,' he retorted, 'for if you did not see me in such a state you would not find me thus [learned].<a id="k33b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; For originally, when R. Simeon b. Yohai raised a difficulty, R. Phinehas b. Ya'ir would give him thirteen answers, whereas subsequently when R. Phinehas b. Ya'ir raised a difficulty, R. Simeon b. Yohai would give him twenty-four answers.
</p><p>
	Since a miracle has occurred, said he, let me go and amend something, for it is written, and Jacob came whole<a id="k33b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [to the city of Shechem],<a id="k33b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; which Rab interpreted. Bodily whole [sound], financially whole, and whole in his learning. And he was gracious to the city.,<a id="k33b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: He instituted coinage for them.<a id="k33b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: He instituted markets for them; R. Johanan said: He instituted baths for them. Is there ought that requires amending? he<a id="k33b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; asked. There is a place of doubtful uncleanness,<a id="k33b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; he was informed,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k34a_1:" Before the doubt arose, was there a time when this place was assumed to be clean, so that it enjoyed the status of cleanness? "
,k34a_2:" I.e., he planted them while <i>terumah</i> and cut them down after they had grown. "
,k34a_3:" As unclean. In the Pesikta and 1. Shab. VII it is stated that a miracle happened and the dead floated upwards (v. Rashi). "
,k34a_4:" Derisively."
,k34a_5:" Lit., 'you were not counted'. &mdash; R. Simeon b. Yohai had acted in accordance with the decision of the majority of the Rabbis."
,k34a_6:" In favour of this."
,k34a_7:" Surely they should pay regard to each other's honour."
,k34a_8:" Lit., 'he made him'."
,k34a_9:" Lit., with darkness (setting in),"
,k34a_10:" Of the food we are to eat on the Sabbath,"
,k34a_11:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The 'erub referred to is for courtyards; v. p. 18, n. 7."
,k34a_12:" Lit., 'dark'."
,k34a_13:" I.e., at twilight."
,k34a_14:" Made fit for use by means of tebillah (immersion) in a ritual bath (mikweh). Both these acts render objects fit for use, which is forbidden at twilight."
,k34a_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k34a_16:" Because the probability is that tithes have already been rendered, and thus this tithing does not really make it fit."
,k34a_17:" To retain its heat."
,k34a_18:" Job V. 24, She'eltoth 63 explains: if an 'erub has not been prepared, so that the carrying of utensils is forbidden, or if the lights have not been kindled, or the tithes rendered, so that the food may not be eaten, the resultant inconvenience and lack of cheer are inimical to the peace of the household."
,k34a_19:" Lit., 'adduced'. V. Marginal Gloss."
,k34a_20:" Which implies that there is no purpose in his saying it then, since an 'erub may not be prepared then."
,k34a_21:" These indicate statements made in the Tractate by R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya on Rab's authority. Doubt arose as to the authorship of some of these, and so this mnemonic was given. 'Self' indicates the present passage, 'This is self contradictory'. For the others v. <i>infra</i> 73b (pruning); 107a (bird), 113a (cord) and 124b (silk). &mdash; Maharsha,"
,k34a_22:" V. p. 18, n. 7. The limitation of boundaries was held to be either Biblical or partaking of the nature of a Scriptural law; therefore the 'erub, whereby that limitation is extended, really makes the territory beyond these boundaries accessible on the Sabbath, and consequently its preparation is forbidden at twilight, when the Sabbath may have commenced, although where it was prepared at twilight, it is effective. But the prohibition of carrying between houses and courtyards was merely a measure of stringency; hence the 'erub permits only what might have been permitted in any case, and so it may be prepared at twilight."
,k34a_23:" 'Acquire their 'erub' means that the 'erub confers upon on them the rights for which it is set. Now, an 'erub must be prepared by day and be still in existence when the Sabbath commences, otherwise it is invalid. Now, in respect of the first, whose 'erub was placed by day and eaten at twilight, twilight is regarded as night, i.e., the commencement of the Sabbath, when the 'erub was still in existence. Whilst in respect of the second twilight is regarded as day, so that it was placed the day. &mdash; Rashi: the reference is to the 'erub of boundaries which, though it may not be set at the outset at twilight, is nevertheless effective. Tosaf.: the 'erub of courtyards is meant."
,k34a_24:" Whether it is day or night."
,k34a_25:" The law of 'erub is Rabbinical, as stated above."
,k34a_26:" The Mishnah states that storing away food is permitted at twilight, whence it follows that it is forbidden after nightfall. And the reference must be to a substance which does not add heat, for if it does, food may not be stored in it even by day (<i>infra</i> 47b)."
,k34a_27:" When he comes to put it away, he may find it cold and heat up it first, which is the equivalent of cooking on the Sabbath."
,k34a_28:" At twilight, because it has only just been removed from the fire. "
}

txt:
<p>
and priests have the trouble of going round it. Said he: Does any man know that there was a presumption of cleanness here?<a id="k34a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain old man replied, Here [R. Johanan] b. Zakkai cut down lupines of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k34a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; So he did likewise. Wherever it (the ground] was hard he declared it clean, while wherever it was loose he, marked it out.<a id="k34a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said a certain old man. The son of Yohai has purified a cemetery!<a id="k34a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he, Had you not been with us, even if you have been with us but did not vote,<a id="k34a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; you might have said well. But now that you were with us and voted with us,<a id="k34a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It will be said, [Even] whores paint one another; how much more so scholars!<a id="k34a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; He cast his eye upon him, and he died. Then he went out into the street and saw Judah, the son of proselytes: 'That man is still in the world!' he exclaimed. He cast his eyes upon him and he became<a id="k34a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a heap of bones.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH JUST BEFORE NIGHT<a id="k34a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN MUST SAY THREE THINGS IN HIS HOUSE: HAVE YE RENDERED TITHES?<a id="k34a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HAVE YE PREPARED THE 'ERUB?<a id="k34a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; KINDLE THE [SABBATH] LAMP. WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL, WHETHER IT IS NIGHT<a id="k34a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; OR NOT,<a id="k34a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT WHICH IS CERTAINLY [UNTITHED] MAY NOT BE TITHED, UTENSILS MAY NOT BE IMMERSED,<a id="k34a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE LIGHTS MAY NOT BE KINDLED. BUT DEM'AI<a id="k34a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE TITHED,<a id="k34a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED, AND HOT FOOD MAY BE STORED AWAY.<a id="k34a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whence do we know it? &mdash; Said R. Joshua b. Levi, Scripture saith, And thou, shalt know that thy tent is in peace; and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not err.<a id="k34a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Although the Rabbis said, a man MUST SAY THREE THINGS, etc., yet they must be said with sweet reasonableness, so that they may be accepted from him. R. Ashi observed: I had not heard this [statement] of Rabbah son of b. R. Huna, but understood<a id="k34a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it by logic.
</p><p>
	This is self contradictory. You say, ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH JUST BEFORE NIGHT A MAN MUST SAY THREE THINGS IN HIS HOUSE: only just before night, but not when it is doubtful whether it is night or not;<a id="k34a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; then you teach, WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL, WHETHER IT IS NIGHT OR NOT &hellip; AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED? (Mnemonic: <i>Self, Pruning, Bird, Cord, Silk</i>.)<a id="k34a_21"><sup>21</sup></a> &mdash; Said R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name: There is no difficulty: the one refers to 'erub of boundaries; the other to the 'erub of courtyards.<a id="k34a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Now Raba said: If two men said to one person, 'Go forth and place an 'erub for us', and he placed an 'erub for one while it is yet day, and for the other he made the 'erub at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it by day was eaten at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it at twilight was eaten after nightfall, both acquire [their] 'erub.<a id="k34a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What will you: if twilight is day, the second should acquire, but not the first; while if twilight is night, the first should acquire, but not the second? &mdash; Twilight is doubtful,<a id="k34a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and a doubt in respect to a Rabbinical law is judged leniently.<a id="k34a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: Why was it said, One must not store [food] after nightfall [even] in a substance that does not add heat?<a id="k34a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; For fear lest he make it boil.<a id="k34a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: if so, let us forbid it at twilight too? &mdash; The average pot is at the boil, he replied.<a id="k34a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba also said:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k34b_1:" Even in such, since it is yet day."
,k34b_2:" In the evening."
,k34b_3:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k34b_4:" I.e., dark, no longer red."
,k34b_5:" = Two thousand cubits = 112,037.316 cm, i.e., about three fourths of an English mile; v. J.E. XII, 487,"
,k34b_6:" Night enters and day departs in the twinkling of an eye."
,k34b_7:" If a <i>zab</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) has two discharges on one day or on two consecutive days, or one discharge spread over parts of two days, e.g., the end of one and the beginning of the next, which likewise counts as two discharges, he becomes unclean for seven days, as a <i>zab</i>. If he has three discharges (taking into account that one discharge spread over two days ranks as two), he incurs a sacrifice in addition. Now, if he has discharges for a short period at twilight on Sunday and Monday there are the following possibilities: &mdash; (i) The twilight of both were either day or night, so that he had two discharges on two consecutive days, viz., Sunday and Monday or Monday and Tuesday, the night belonging to the following day, which render him unclean, but not liable to a sacrifice; (ii) the first twilight period was day, while the second was night, so that his two discharges were on Sunday and Tuesday, and he is not unclean for seven days, because the discharges were not on consecutive days; and (iii) the first twilight period was day (Sunday) and the second embraced the end of one day (Monday) and the beginning of the night (Tuesday), so that he had three discharges on three consecutive days, and therefore incurs a sacrifice.-On account of these doubts he is unclean for seven days and must bring a sacrifice, which, however, may not be eaten. Similarly, if he has one discharge at twilight, it is doubtful whether it counts as one or two."
,k34b_8:" For 'the face of the east' includes the lower horizon."
,k34b_9:" As long as it takes to walk this. "
}

txt:
<p>
Why was it said that one must not put away [food] in a substance which adds heat, even by day? For fear lest he put it away in hot ashes containing a burning coal. Said Abaye to him, Then let him put it away!<a id="k34b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; [That is forbidden] for fear lest he rake the coals.<a id="k34b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: As to twilight [period] it is doubtful whether it is partly day and partly night, or the whole of it [belongs to the] day, or the whole of it night: [therefore] it is cast upon the stringencies of both days.<a id="k34b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And what is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow: when the lower [horizon] is pale<a id="k34b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not the upper, it is twilight; [but] when the upper [horizon] is pale and the same as the lower, it is night: this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Nehemiah said: For as long as it takes a man to walk half a <i>mil</i><a id="k34b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from sunset. R. Jose said: Twilight is as the twilight of an eye, one entering and the other departing,<a id="k34b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is impossible to determine it. 
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'One applies to it the stringencies of both days.' In respect of what [point of] law? &mdash; Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, In respect of uncleanness. Even as we learnt: if he saw [discharges] on two days at twilight, he is doubtful in respect of uncleanness and sacrifice: if he sees [a discharge] one day at twilight, he is doubtful in respect of uncleanness.<a id="k34b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This is self-contradictory. You say, 'What is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow.' Hence, if the lower horizon is pale but not the upper, it is night.<a id="k34b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Then it is taught, 'When the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, it is twilight'? &mdash; Rabbah answered in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Combine [them] and learn: What is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow, And if the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, that too is twilight. But when the upper horizon is pale and the same as the lower, it is night. While R. Joseph answered in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name, This is what he teaches: From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow, it is day; if the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, it is twilight; when the upper is pale and the same as the lower, it is night.
</p><p>
	Now, they follow their views. For it was stated: How long is the period of twilight? &mdash; Rabbah said in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name. Three parts of a <i>mil</i>.<a id="k34b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by, 'three parts of a mil'? Shall we say, three half mils? Then let him say, 'A <i>mil</i> and a half'? While if it is three thirds of a <i>mil</i>, let him say, 'One mil'? Hence it must mean three quarters of a <i>mil</i>. While R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in Rab's name: Two parts of a <i>mil</i>. What is 'two parts of a mil'? Shall we say, two halves: let him say, 'One mil'? while if it means two quarters of a <i>mil</i>; let him say, 'half a mil'. Hence
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k35a_1:" Rabbah's period is one twelfth of a <i>mil</i> longer than R. Joseph's; above too Rabbah gives a longer period than R. Joseph. &mdash; In the East night comes more quickly than in the West."
,k35a_2:" Rashi. Jast.: a loose wicker-work used for making bee-hives, etc."
,k35a_3:" One <i>kor</i> = thirty se'ahs = 395,533.2 cu. cent; J.E. XII, 489 (Table)."
,k35a_4:" A utensil may be moved on the Sabbath. Rabbah maintains that if it is more than two kors in capacity it ceases to be a utensil, while R. Joseph holds that it is a utensil up to three kors. Thus R. Joseph's standard here is larger than Rabbah's, while in respect to twilight it is smaller."
,k35a_5:" The Master-i.e., Rabbah."
,k35a_6:" When I actually wished to move it."
,k35a_7:" Two kors &mdash; sixty se'ahs. A utensil held more in dry measure, because it could be heaped up."
,k35a_8:" These are too large to rank as utensils, and only utensils are liable to uncleanness; V. 'Er., Sonc. ed., 14b notes."
,k35a_9:" To see whether the reddish glow was still discernible."
,k35a_10:" By reflection hence the west."
,k35a_11:" Through which light enters and irradiates the opposite wall."
,k35a_12:" I.e., when the sun is going down and its dying rays illumine the top of the mountain."
,k35a_13:" Its waters cannot become unclean and it is fit for ritual purification (tebillah)."
,k35a_14:" According to the Rabbis the well miraculously followed Israel for Miriam's sake; Ta'an. 9a."
,k35a_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Its purpose was to cleanse them and permit them to eat sacred food. Sunset had to follow the tebillah before they might do so, but Rab Judah holds that twilight, as defined by R. Judah, is day, and therefore sunset does follow it."
,k35a_16:" Whether it is day or night. It may be night already, in which case the tebillah is not followed by sunset."
,k35a_17:" R. Judah's twilight period is certainly earlier than that of R. Jose which is but the twinkling of an eye."
,k35a_18:" All those things which are forbidden Friday at twilight are forbidden at the earlier time stated by R. Judah."
,k35a_19:" That priests may perform tebillah during twilight as defined by R. Judah, because the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose that it is still day then."
,k35a_20:" Since he rules that the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, he must regard R. Judah's view as possibly correct. "
}

txt:
<p>
it must mean two thirds of a <i>mil</i>. What is the difference between them? &mdash; One half of a sixth.<a id="k35a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, it is the reverse in respect of a bee-hive.<a id="k35a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; For Rabbah said: A bee-hive of two kors capacity<a id="k35a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; may be moved; of three kors capacity, may not be moved. But R. Joseph said: Three kors capacity also is permitted; four kors is forbidden.<a id="k35a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: I asked it of Mar<a id="k35a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; at the time of action,<a id="k35a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and he did not permit one [to move] even a two-kors size. With whom [does that agree]? &mdash; With the following Tanna. For we learnt: A receptacle of stubble, or of staves, and the cistern of an Alexandrian boat, though they have rims and contain forty se'ahs in liquid measure which is two kors in dry measure,<a id="k35a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; are clean.<a id="k35a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed: This proves that the heap [in dry measures] is a third. 
</p><p>
	Abaye saw Raba gazing at the West.<a id="k35a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, But it was taught, 'As long as the face of the east has a reddish glow?' Do you think that the face of the east is meant literally? he replied. [It means] the face which casts a red glow upon the east,<a id="k35a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and your token is a window.<a id="k35a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Nehemiah said: For as long as it takes a man to walk half a <i>mil</i> from sunset.' R. Hanina said: One who wishes to know R. Nehemiah's period should leave the sun on the top of the Carmel,<a id="k35a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; descend, dip in the sea, and reascend, and this is R. Nehemiah's period. R. Hiyya said: One who wishes to see Miriam's well should ascend to the top of the Carmel and gaze, when he will observe a kind of sieve in the sea, and that is Miriam's well. Rab said: A moveable well is clean,<a id="k35a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and that is Miriam's well.<a id="k35a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: At twilight, as defined by R. Judah, unclean priests may perform tebillah.<a id="k35a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; According to whom? Shall we say, according to R. Judah [himself]? but it is doubtful!<a id="k35a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it means twilight, as defined by R. Judah, according to R. Jose; [why state] priests may perform tebillah then-it is obvious!<a id="k35a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; I might think that twilight, as defined by R. Jose, is a continuation of R. Judah's; [therefore] we are told that R. Judah's twilight ends and then R. Jose's commences.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, and the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose in respect to <i>terumah</i>. Now, as for the <i>halachah</i> being as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, it is well: this is in the direction of stringency.<a id="k35a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But in respect of <i>terumah</i>, what is it? Shall we say, for tebillah?<a id="k35a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it is doubtful!<a id="k35a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k35b_1:" Only then is it evening for certain, but not at the end of R. Judah's period."
,k35b_2:" So the text as amended by BaH."
,k35b_3:" Of Friday and Saturday. It means either during the whole of both twilights or at exactly the same point in each (Tosaf. 34b s.v. [H]."
,k35b_4:" Whether twilight is day or night, he has worked on the Sabbath."
,k35b_5:" I.e., by day."
,k35b_6:" Fowls and ravens retire to roost at night: hence the lamp should be lit before. Arone is a plant whose leaves turn eastward by day and westward by night (Rashi). MS.M. reads: in marsh-land observe arone (Jast.: name of certain plants growing in marshes which close their leaves at nightfall)."
,k35b_7:" In Talmudic times they were worn all day; but they are not worn on the Sabbath."
,k35b_8:" The word literally means to cause it to cleave, because the loaf was pressed to the side of the oven."
,k35b_9:" Teki'ah is a long blast; teru'ah, a series of very short blasts, all counted as one. These three were blown in rapid succession."
,k35b_10:" I.e., hard on the heels of (or, immediately they hear) the teru'ah."
,k35b_11:" This was a very ancient custom; v. Neh. XIII, 19 and Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 336f."
,k35b_12:" To protect the more distant ones from the suspicion of continuing their work after the first blast."
,k35b_13:" The shutters were placed on trestles during the day to serve as stalls."
,k35b_14:" For the evening meal."
,k35b_15:" For the next day."
,k35b_16:" Lit., 'and the lighter lit'."
,k35b_17:" V. p. 41, n. 7."
,k35b_18:" The ram's horn, on which these blasts were produced."
,k35b_19:" The <i>shofar</i> was blown on the top of a high roof, and R. Jose b. Hanina assumed that the hazzan then took it home."
,k35b_20:" The commencement of the Sabbath will depend on the distance of that roof from his house."
,k35b_21:" A <i>shofar</i> was curved, whereas a trumpet was straight."
,k35b_22:" The <i>shofar</i>, being curved, could be used for taking up a drink of water; this being permitted, its handling too (even without that use) is permitted. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Rather it is in respect of the eating of <i>terumah</i>, viz., the priests may not eat <i>terumah</i> until twilight, as defined by R. Jose, ends.<a id="k35b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When [only] one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. It was taught likewise: When one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. R. Jose b. Abin<a id="k35b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; said: Not the large stars, which are visible by day, nor the small ones, which are visible only at night, but the medium sized.
</p><p>
	R. Jose son of R. Zebida said: If one performs work at two twilights,<a id="k35b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he incurs a sin-offering, whatever view you take.<a id="k35b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said to his attendant: You, who are not clear in the Rabbinical standards, light the lamp when the sun is at the top of the palm trees.<a id="k35b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it on a cloudy day? &mdash; In town, observe the fowls; in the field, observe the ravens or arone.<a id="k35b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Six blasts were blown on the eve of the Sabbath. The first, for people to cease work in the fields; the second, for the city and shops to cease [work]; the third, for the lights to be kindled: that is R. Nathan's view. R. Judah the Nasi said: The third is for the tefillin to be removed.<a id="k35b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Then there was an interval for as long as it takes to bake a small fish, or to put a loaf in the oven,<a id="k35b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and then a teki'ah, teru'ah, and a teki'ah were blown,<a id="k35b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and one commenced the Sabbath. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, What shall we do to the Babylonians who blow a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and commence the Sabbath in the midst of the teru'ah?<a id="k35b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; (They blow a teki'ah and a teru'ah [only]: but then there are five? &mdash; Rather they blow a teki'ah, repeat the teki'ah, and then blow a teru'ah and commence the Sabbath in the midst of the teru'ah.) &mdash; They retain their fathers' practice.<a id="k35b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah recited to R. Isaac, his son: The second is for the kindling of the lights. As which [Tanna]? Neither as R. Nathan nor as R. Judah the Nasi!-Rather [read] 'the third is for the kindling of the lights'. As which [Tanna]? &mdash; As R. Nathan.
</p><p>
	The School of R. Ishmael taught: Six blasts were blown on the eve of the Sabbath. When the first was begun, those who stood in the fields ceased to hoe, plough, or do any work in the fields, and those who were near [to town] were not permitted to enter [it] until the more distant ones arrived, so that they should all enter simultaneously.<a id="k35b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But the shops were still open and the shutters were lying.<a id="k35b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; When the second blast began, the shutters were removed and the shops closed. Yet hot [water] and pots still stood on the range. When the third blast was begun, what was to be removed<a id="k35b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; was removed, and what was to be stored away<a id="k35b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was stored away, and the lamp was lit.<a id="k35b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Then there was an interval for as long as it takes to bake a small fish or to place a loaf in the oven; then a teki'ah, teru'ah and a teki'ah were sounded, and one commenced the Sabbath. R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: I have heard that if one  comes to light after the six blasts he may do so, since the Sages gave the hazzan of the community<a id="k35b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; time to carry his <i>shofar</i><a id="k35b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; home.<a id="k35b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they to him, If so, your rule depends on [variable] standards.<a id="k35b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather the hazzan of the community had a hidden place on the top of his roof, where he placed his <i>shofar</i>, because neither a <i>shofar</i> nor a trumpet may be handled [on the Sabbath].<a id="k35b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: A <i>shofar</i> may be handled, but not a trumpet?<a id="k35b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty: The one refers to an individual['s]; the other to a community['s]. Said Abaye to him, And in the case of an individual's, what is it fit for? &mdash; It is possible to give a child a drink therewith?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k37a_1:" That it is permissible provided the stove is swept."
,k37a_2:" It is intelligible that a pot may not be replaced within the oven, even after it is swept or covered with ashes, since the heat there is naturally greater than on top (Ri in Tosaf)."
,k37a_3:" Though heat reaches it from the second stove."
,k37a_4:" In our Mishnah they permit hot water to be kept there even if it is not swept or covered with ashes, whilst here they permit nothing."
,k37a_5:" In the Mishnah they permit hot water and a dish to be kept there even if it is unswept, etc., whilst here it is stated that if it is swept hot water only may be kept there, and nothing at all if it is unswept. Again, in the Mishnah they state that it may be replaced if it is swept, whereas here it is taught that all agree that it may not be replaced."
,k37a_6:" Here it is stated that nothing at all may be kept there, while in the Mishnah either hot water alone or a dish too may be kept there according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively."
,k37a_7:" Sc. a stove that is unswept etc."
,k37a_8:" Our problem is similar, and this shows that it is permitted."
,k37a_9:" The pot stands on the stove and is surrounded by air, which cools it, and therefore the heat from the other stove is disregarded. But leaning against an unswept stove, without air interposing, may be forbidden."
,k37a_10:" Surely not!"
,k37a_11:" Yet covering with ashes may not be required for leaning."
,k37a_12:" Not being entirely extinguished, but burning dully and feebly."
,k37a_13:" Thus for leaning it need not be swept, etc. "
}

txt:
<p>
After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but the text is defective, and this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT may be placed thereon; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one must not replace it UNTIL HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES; but as for keeping it there, that is permitted even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes. Yet what may be kept there? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN; HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; WHILE BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. And as to this replacing, of which I tell you,<a id="k37a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not an agreed ruling, but [the subject of] a controversy between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. For BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT REPLACE [IT]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO. 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: For R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top [of the stove]; but within it is forbidden. Now, if you say that we learnt about replacing it, it is well: hence there is a difference between the inside and the top.<a id="k37a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say that we learnt about keeping it there, what does it matter whether it is within or on top? &mdash; Do you think that R. Helbo refers to the first clause? He refers to the last: BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO, Whereon R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top; but within it is forbidden.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If two stoves that are joined, one being swept or covered with ashes, whilst the other is not, we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes<a id="k37a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes. And what may be kept there? Beth Shammai maintain: Nothing at all; while Beth Hillel rule: Hot water, but not a dish. If one removes it, all agree that he must not replace it: that is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: Beth Shammai maintain: Hot water, but not a dish; while Beth Hillel rule: Both hot water and a dish. Beth Shammai maintain: We may remove, but not replace it; while Beth Hillel rule: We may replace it too. Now, if you say that we learnt about keeping [it] there, it is well; with whom does our Mishnah agree? R. Judah. But if you say that we learnt about replacing, who is the authority of our Mishnah? neither R. Judah nor R. Meir! [For] if R. Meir, there is a difficulty on Beth Shammai's view in one respect,<a id="k37a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and on Hillel's in two?<a id="k37a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If R. Judah, [the case of a stove that is] swept or covered with ashes is difficult!<a id="k37a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but our Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one respect and disagrees with him in another. He agrees with R. Judah in one respect, viz., in respect to hot water, and a dish, and removing and replacing [them]. But he disagrees with him in another. For whereas our Tanna holds that keeping them [there is permitted] even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes, R. Judah maintains that even keeping [them there] is [permitted] only if it is swept or covered with ashes, but not otherwise.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: May one lean [a pot] against it?<a id="k37a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; on the inside and top thereof it is forbidden, but leaning against it may be permitted; or perhaps, there is no difference? &mdash; Come and hear: If two stoves are joined, one being swept and covered with ashes, whilst the other is neither swept nor covered with ashes: we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes, but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes, though the heat reaches it from the other.<a id="k37a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps there it is different, because since it is elevated, the air affects it.<a id="k37a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: For R. Safra said in R. Hiyya's name: If it [the stove] was covered with ashes, yet blazed up again, one may lean [a pot] against it, keep [a pot) upon it, remove [it] thence and replace [it]. This proves that even leaning is [permitted] only when it is covered with ashes, but not otherwise. Yet according to your reasoning, when he states, 'one may remove [it] thence,'[does this imply] only if covered with ashes, but not otherwise?<a id="k37a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But [you must answer,] removing is mentioned on account of replacing; so here too, leaning is stated on account of keeping.<a id="k37a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; How compare! There, since removing and replacing refer to the same place, removing is stated on account of replacing; but here, the leaning is in one place whereas the keeping is in another! 
</p><p>
	What is our decision thereon? &mdash; Come and hear: If a stove is heated with peat or wood, one may lean [a pot] against it, but must not keep [it there] unless it is swept or covered with ashes. If the coals have died down,<a id="k37a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or thoroughly beaten flax is placed upon it, it is as though covered with ashes.<a id="k37a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in R. Oshaia's name: If he covered it with ashes yet it blazed up again, one may keep upon it hot water that has [previously] been heated as much as is required, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k37b_1:" Through cooking."
,k37b_2:" Rashi: the reference must be to a dish which improves the longer it is kept on the stove, for if it deteriorates, it may obviously be kept there, as we certainly need not fear that the owner may rake up the coals, and the dictum is superfluous. Ri: the reference is presumably to the average dish, which improves with shrinking."
,k37b_3:" And the dish may not be kept there."
,k37b_4:" For by covering it with ashes he showed that he did not desire any further shrinkage."
,k37b_5:" Rothem is a species of broom growing in the desert (Jast.), which retains its heat longer than other coals and is slower to go out."
,k37b_6:" V. <i>supra</i> 37a."
,k37b_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 19b."
,k37b_8:" To keep it there, though the oven is not swept, etc."
,k37b_9:" What need then of R. Johanan's dictum?"
,k37b_10:" This is the answer: R. Shesheth informs us that the Mishnah refers to replacing (v. Tosaf. a.l.). Though Raba takes that for granted, the matter was in doubt (<i>supra</i> 36b)."
,k37b_11:" To keep it on the stove."
,k37b_12:" That it is permitted."
,k37b_13:" In Babylon: it is the island formed by the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Royal Canal."
,k37b_14:" Though they too were much nearer to the academies of Rab and Samuel than to R. Johanan's, the communities of Mesene preferred the authority of Palestine; v. Obermeyer, p. 204."
,k37b_15:" If the stove is unswept."
,k37b_16:" He suffered from bulimy, and had to eat hot food."
,k37b_17:" A town on the Euphrates, where Rab founded his famous academy."
,k37b_18:" Rashi. Or perhaps, a master of practice (Jast,), i.e., thoroughly versed in correct practice."
,k37b_19:" To keep it on the stove."
,k37b_20:" When intended for personal consumption it is cut up into small pieces before being placed in the pot, and so the fat pervades the whole and prevents deterioration. But when intended for guests it is cut up in large chunks; since the fat cannot pervade the whole the shrinking causes it to deteriorate."
,k37b_21:" A dish of pounded grain. "
}

txt:
<p>
Then this proves that when it shrinks<a id="k37b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and is improved thereby, it is permitted?<a id="k37b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; [No.] There it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it? &mdash; It is necessary [to state it, because] it blazed up again. You might argue, since it blazed up again, it reverts to its original state;<a id="k37b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he informs us [that it is not so].<a id="k37b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: If he covered it with ashes, yet it blazed up again; one may keep upon it hot water, if that has been heated all it needs, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs, even if they are coals of broom.<a id="k37b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Then this proves that when it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted? &mdash; [No.] Here it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it? It is necessary [to state it where] it blazed up again. Then it is identical with the first [dictum]? &mdash; It is necessary [to state it] of coals of broom.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, hot water insufficiently heated, and a dish insufficiently cooked, may be kept upon it. But if he [the owner] moved [them], he must not replace [them] before he sweeps or covers [it] with ashes. Thus he holds that we learnt our Mishnah with respect to replacing, but keeping is permitted even if it is not swept or covered with ashes.<a id="k37b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: We learnt both: We learnt with respect to keeping: 'Bread may not be set in an oven before nightfall, nor a cake set upon coals, unless its surface can form a crust while it is yet day'.<a id="k37b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence if its surface formed a crust, it is permitted.<a id="k37b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; With respect to replacing we also learnt: BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE TOO. Now Beth Hillel permit it only when it is swept or covered with ashes, but not if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes.<a id="k37b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Shesheth indeed informs us of the deduction of the Mishnah.<a id="k37b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Judah said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, one may keep upon it a dish sufficiently cooked or hot water which is sufficiently heated, even if it [the dish] shrinks and is improved thereby. Said one of the Rabbis to R. Samuel b. Judah. But Rab and Samuel both maintain: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden?<a id="k37b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He answered him: Do I then not know that R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden? I tell it to you<a id="k37b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Johanan. R. 'Ukba of Mesene<a id="k37b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Ashi: You, who are near to Rab and Samuel, do act as Rab and Samuel; but we will act according to R. Johanan.<a id="k37b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye asked R. Joseph, What about keeping [a pot on the stove]?<a id="k37b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He answered him, It is indeed kept for Rab Judah, and he eats thereof! Put Rab Judah aside, said he, for since he is in danger,<a id="k37b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be done for him even on the Sabbath. What about keeping it for me and you? &mdash; in Sura,<a id="k37b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied, they do keep it. For R. Nahman b. Isaac is most particular,<a id="k37b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet they keep it for him and he eats.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: I was standing before R. Huna, when he ate a fish pie which they bad kept [on the stove] for him. And I do not know whether it is because he holds that if it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted, or because since it contains flour paste it deteriorates in shrinking. R. Nahman said: If it shrinks and is improved thereby, it is forbidden;<a id="k37b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; if it shrinks and deteriorates, it is permitted. This is the general rule of the matter: whatever contains flour paste, shrinks and deteriorates, except a stew of turnips, which though containing flour paste shrinks and improves. Yet that is only if it contains meat; but if it contains no meat, it shrinks and deteriorates. And even if it contains meat, we say thus only if it is not intended for guests; but if it is intended for guests, it deteriorates in the shrinking.<a id="k37b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Pap of dates, daysa,<a id="k37b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and a dish of dates shrink and deteriorate.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba was asked:
</P>


