Talmud - Mas. Berachoth 21a
But what of tefillah which is a thing with which the congregation is engaged, and yet we have learnt: If he was standing reciting the tefillah and he suddenly remembered that he was a ba'al keri he should not break off, but he should shorten [each blessing]. Now the reason is that he had commenced; but if he had not yet commenced, he should not do so? — Tefillah is different because it does not mention the kingdom of heaven.1 But what of the grace after meals in which there is no mention of the sovereignty of heaven, and yet we have learnt: AT MEALS HE SAYS GRACE AFTER, BUT NOT THE GRACE BEFORE? — [Rather the answer is that] the recital of the Shema’ and grace after food are Scriptural ordinances, whereas tefillah is only a Rabbinical ordinance.2
Rab Judah said: Where do we find that the grace after meals is ordained in the Torah? Because it says: And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless.3 Where do we find that a blessing before studying the Torah is ordained in the Torah? Because it says: When I proclaim the name of the Lord, ascribe ye greatness to our God.4 R. Johanan said: We learn that a blessing should be said after studying the Torah by an argument a fortiori from grace after food; and we learn that grace should be said before food by an argument a fortiori from the blessing over the Torah. The blessing after the Torah is learnt a fortiori from the grace after food as follows: Seeing that food which requires no grace before it5 requires a grace after it, does it not stand to reason that the study of the Torah which requires a grace before it should require one after it? The blessing before food is learnt a fortiori from the blessing over the Torah as follows: Seeing that the Torah which requires no blessing after it5 requires one before it, does it not stand to reason that food which requires one after it should require one before it? A flaw can be pointed out in both arguments. How can you reason from food [to the Torah], seeing that from the former he derives physical benefit? And how can you reason from the Torah [to food], seeing that from the former he obtains everlasting life? Further, we have learnt: AT MEALS HE SAYS THE GRACE AFTER BUT NOT THE GRACE BEFORE?6 — This is a refutation.
Rab Judah said: If a man is in doubt whether he has recited the Shema’, he need not recite it again. If he is in doubt whether he has said ‘True and firm’, or not, he should say it again. What is the reason? — The recital of the Shema’ is ordained only by the Rabbis, the saying of ‘True and firm’ is a Scriptural ordinance.7 R. Joseph raised an objection to this,8 ‘And when thou liest down, and when thou risest up’. — Said Abaye to him: That was written with reference to words of Torah.9
We have learnt: A BA'AL KERI SAYS MENTALLY, AND SAYS NO BLESSING EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER. AT MEALS HE SAYS THE GRACE AFTER BUT NOT THE GRACE BEFORE. Now if you assume that ‘True and firm’ is a Scriptural regulation, let him say the blessing after the Shema’? — Why should he say [the blessing after]? If it is in order to mention the going forth from Egypt, that is already mentioned in the Shema’! But then let him say the former, and he need not say the latter?10 — The recital of Shema’ is preferable, because it has two points.11 R. Eleazar says: If one is in doubt whether he has recited the Shema’ or not, he says the Shema’ again. If he is in doubt whether he has said the Tefillah or not, he does not say it again. R. Johanan, however, said: Would that a man would go on praying the whole day!
Rab Judah also said in the name of Samuel: If a man was standing saying the Tefillah and he suddenly remembered that he had already said it, he breaks off even in the middle of a benediction. Is that so? Has not R. Nahman said: When we were with Rabbah b. Abbuha, we asked him with reference to disciples who made a mistake and began the weekday benediction on a Sabbath, whether they should finish it, and he said to us that they should finish that blessing! — Are these cases parallel? In that case one12 is in reality under obligation,13 and it is the Rabbis who did not trouble him out of respect for the Sabbath, but in this case he has already said the prayer.
Rab Judah further said in the name of Samuel: If a man had already said the Tefillah and went into a synagogue and found the congregation saying the Tefillah, if he can add something fresh, he should say the Tefillah again, but otherwise he should not say it again. And both these rulings are required.14 For if I had been told only the first, I should have said, This applies only to [a case where he said the Tefillah] alone and [is repeating it] alone
____________________
(1) The words ‘King of the Universe’ are not used in the Eighteen Benedictions.
(2) And therefore he need not say it even mentally.
(3) Deut. VIII, 10.
(4) Ibid. XXXII, 3. E.V. ‘for I will proclaim etc.’. V. Yoma 37a.
(5) I.e., no such grace is distinctly prescribed in the Torah.
(6) Which proves that the grace before food is not Biblical.
(7) Because it mentions the going forth from Egypt, as prescribed in Deut. XVI, 3.
(8) That the Shema’ is not Scriptural.
(9) And it is applied to the Shema’ only as an allusion.
(10) I.e., let him say the blessing openly, and not the Shema’ mentally.
(11) It mentions both the Kingdom of Heaven and the going forth from Egypt.
(12) Lit., ‘the man’.
(13) To say the weekday Tefillah.
(14) This latter ruling and the case where one remembered whilst praying that he had already prayed., or [where he said it] with a congregation and [is repeating it] with a congregation,1 but when [one who has prayed] alone goes into a congregation, it is as if he had not prayed at all. Hence we are told that this is not so. And if we had been told only the second case, I might think that this ruling applies only because he had not commenced, but where he had commenced I might say that he should not [break off]. Therefore both are necessary.
R. Huna said: If a man goes into a synagogue and finds the congregation saying the Tefillah, if he can commence and finish before the reader2 reaches ‘We give thanks’,3 he may say the Tefillah,4 but otherwise he should not say it. R. Joshua b. Levi says: If he can commence and finish before the reader reaches the Sanctification,5 he should say the Tefillah, but otherwise he should not say it. What is the ground of their difference? One authority held that a man praying by himself does say the Sanctification, while the other holds that he does not. So, too, R. Adda b. Abahah said: Whence do we know that a man praying by himself does not say the Sanctification? Because it says: I will be hallowed among the children of Israel;6 for any manifestation of sanctification not less than ten are required. How is this derived? Rabinai the brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba taught: We draw an analogy between two occurrences of the word ‘among’. It is written here, I will be hallowed among the children of Israel, and it is written elsewhere. Separate yourselves from among this congregation.7 Just as in that case ten are implied,8 so here ten are implied. Both authorities, however, agree that he does not interrupt [the Tefillah].9
The question was asked: What is the rule about interrupting [the Tefillah] to respond. May His great name be blessed?10 — When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that R. Judah and R. Simeon11 the disciples of R. Johanan say that one interrupts for nothing except ‘May His great name be blessed’, for even if he is engaged in studying the section of the work of [the Divine] Chariot,12 he must interrupt [to make this response]. But the law is not in accordance with their view.13
R. JUDAH SAYS: HE SAYS THE GRACE BOTH BEFORE AND, AFTER. This would imply that R. Judah was of opinion that a ba'al keri is permitted to [occupy himself] with the words of the Torah. But has not R. Joshua b. Levi said: How do we know that a ba'al keri is forbidden to study the Torah? Because it says, Make them known unto thy children and thy children's children,14 and immediately afterwards, The day that thou stoodest [before the Lord thy God in Horeb],15 implying that just as on that occasion those who had a seminal issue were forbidden,16 so here too those who have a seminal issue are forbidden? And should you say that R. Judah does not derive lessons from the juxtaposition of texts, [this does not matter] since R. Joseph has said: Even those who do not derive lessons from the juxtaposition of texts in all the rest of the Torah, do so in Deuteronomy; for R. Judah does not derive such lessons in all the rest of the Torah, and in Deuteronomy he does. And how do we know that in all the rest of the Torah he does not derive such lessons? — As it has been taught; Ben ‘Azzai says: Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.17 and it says [immediately afterwards], Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.18 The two statements were juxtaposed to tell you that just as one that lieth with a beast is put to death by stoning, so a sorceress also is put to death by stoning. Said R. Judah to him: Because the two statements are juxtaposed, are we to take this one out to be stoned? Rather [we learn it as follows]: They that divine by a ghost or a familiar spirit come under the head of sorceress. Why then were they mentioned separately?19 To serve as a basis for comparison: just as they that divine by a ghost or familiar spirit are to be stoned, so a sorceress is to be stoned. And how do we know that he derives lessons from juxtaposition in Deuteronomy? — As it has been taught: R. Eliezer said, A man may marry a woman who has been raped by his father or seduced by his father, one who has been raped by his son, or one who has been seduced by his son. R. Judah prohibits one who has been raped by his father or seduced by his father. And R. Giddal said with reference to this: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written: A man shall not take his father's wife and shall not uncover his father's skirt;20 which implies, he shall not uncover the skirt which his father saw. And how do we know that the text is speaking of one raped by his father? — Because just before it are the words, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the father, etc.!21 — They replied: Yes, in Deuteronomy he does draw such lessons, but this juxtaposition he requires for the other statement of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If any man teaches his son Torah, the Scripture accounts it to him as if he had received it from Mount Horeb, as it says, ‘And thou shalt make them known unto thy children and thy children's children’, and immediately afterwards it is written, ‘The day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb.22
We have learnt: A sufferer from gonorrhoea who had an emission, a niddah from whom semen has escaped and a woman who became niddah during sexual intercourse require ritual ablution;23 R. Judah, however, exempts them.24 Now R. Judah's exemption extends only to a gonorrhoeic person who had an emission, because ritual ablution in his first condition25 is useless for him,26 but an ordinary person who has an emission requires ritual ablution!27 And should you maintain that R. Judah exempts an ordinary ba'al keri also, and the reason why he and the Rabbis joined issue over the gonorrhoeic person was to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go, then look then at the next clause: ‘A woman who became niddah during sexual intercourse requires a ritual ablution’. Whose opinion is here stated? Shall I say it is the Rabbis? Surely this is self-evident! Seeing that a gonorrhoeic person who has an emission, although a ritual ablution is useless in his first condition, was yet required by the Rabbis to take one, how much more so a woman who becomes niddah during sexual intercourse, for whom in her first condition a ritual ablution was efficacious!28 We must say therefore that it states the opinion of R. Judah, and he meant exemption to apply only to this case.
____________________
(1) I.e., after having prayed with one congregation, he goes in to another.
(2) Lit., ‘the messenger of the congregation’.
(3) The seventeenth benediction, v. P.B. p. 51.
(4) In order that he may be able to bow at this point with the congregation.
(5) Recited in the third benediction. In this also the congregation joins in, v. P.B. p. 45.
(6) Lev. XXII, 32.
(7) Num. XVI, 21.
(8) The ‘congregation’ referred to being the ten spies, Joshua and Caleb being excluded. V. Meg. 23b.
(9) If he has commenced his Tefillah he does not interrupt in order to say the Sanctification with the congregation or to bow down with them.
(10) In the Kaddish, v. Glos.
(11) I.e., Judah b. Pazzi and Simeon b. Abba.
(12) V. Hag. 11b.
(13) So MS.M. Cur. edd., ‘with him’.
(14) Deut. IV, 9.
(15) Ibid. 10.
(16) V. supra p. 124 n. 1.
(17) Ex. XXII, 27.
(18) Ibid. 18.
(19) In Lev. XX, 27. ‘A man also . . . . that divineth by a ghost or a familiar spirit shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones’.
(20) Deut. XXIII, 1.
(21) Ibid. XXII, 29. This shows that R. Judah derives lessons from juxtaposed texts in Deuteronomy. How then does he permit a ba'al keri to occupy himself with Torah in view of Deut. IV, 9 and 10?
(22) Ibid. IV, 9 and 10.
(23) In order to be able to read Shema’ or other words of the Torah.
(24) V. infra 26a.
(25) I.e., before he experienced the emission.
(26) He has to wait seven days before he is clean.
(27) Contra his own ruling in our Mishnah.
(28) To cleanse her from the seminal issue that took place before the niddah.so that a woman who becomes niddah during sexual intercourse does not require a ritual ablution, but an ordinary ba'al keri does require ritual ablution! — Read [in the Mishnah] not: [R. JUDAH SAYS,] HE SAYS THE BLESSING, but ‘He says mentally’. But does R. Judah [in any case] prescribe saying mentally? Has it not been taught: A ba'al keri who has no water for a ritual ablution recites the Shema’ without saying a blessing either before or after, and he eats bread and says a blessing after it. He does not, however, say a blessing before it, but says it mentally without uttering it with his lips. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: In either case he utters it with his lips? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: R. Judah put it on the same footing as the halachoth of Derek Erez,1 as it has been taught: ‘And thou shalt make them known to thy children and thy children's children’, and it is written immediately afterwards, ‘The day on which thou didst stand before the Lord thy God in Horeb’. Just as there it was in dread and fear and trembling and quaking, so in this case too2 it must be in dread and fear and trembling and quaking. On the basis of this they laid down that sufferers from gonorrhoea, lepers, and those who had intercourse with niddoth are permitted to read the Torah, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, and to study the Mishnah, [Midrash]3 the Talmud,4 halachoth and haggadoth, but a ba'al keri is forbidden.5 R. Jose said: He may repeat those with which he is familiar, so long as he does not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph said: He may expound the Mishnah but he must not expound the Talmud.6 R. Nathan b. Abishalom says: He may expound the Talmud also, provided only he does not mention the divine names that occur7 in it. R. Johanan the sandal-maker, the disciple of R. Akiba, said in the name of R. Akiba: He should not enter upon the Midrash at all. (Some read, he should not enter the Beth Ha-midrash at all.) R. Judah says: He may repeat the laws of Derek Erez.8 Once R. Judah after having had a seminal issue was walking along a river bank, and his disciples said to him, Master repeat to us a section from the laws of Derek Erez, and he went down and bathed and then repeated to them. They said to him: Have you not taught us, Master, ‘He may repeat the laws of Derek Erez’? He replied: Although I make concessions to others, I am strict with myself.
It has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra used to say: Words of Torah are not susceptible of uncleanness. Once a certain disciple was mumbling over against R. Judah b. Bathyra.9 He said to him: My son, open thy mouth and let thy words be clear, for words of Torah are not susceptible to uncleanness, as it says, Is not My word like as fire.10 Just as fire is not susceptible of uncleanness, so words of Torah are not susceptible of uncleanness.
The Master said: He may expound the Mishnah, but he must not expound the Talmud. This supports R. Ila'i; for R. Ila'i said in the name of R. Aha b. Jacob, who gave it in the name of our Master:11 The halachah is that he may expound the Mishnah but he must not expound the Talmud. The same difference of opinion is found among Tannaim. ‘He may expound the Mishnah but he must not expound the Talmud’. So R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel: Both are forbidden. Others report him as having said: Both are permitted. The one who reports ‘Both are forbidden’ concurs with R. Johanan the sandal-maker; the one who reports, ‘both are permitted’ concurs with R. Judah b. Bathyra.
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It has become the custom12 to follow these three elders, R. Ila'i in the matter of the first shearing,13 R. Josiah in the matter of mixed kinds, and R. Judah b. Bathyra in the matter of words of Torah. ‘R. Ila'i in the matter of the first shearing’, as it has been taught: R. Ila'i says: The rule of the first shearing applies only in Palestine. ‘R. Josiah in the matter of mixed kinds’, as it is written, Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seeds.14 R. Josiah says: The law has not been broken until one sows wheat, barley and grape kernels with one throw.15 ‘R. Judah b. Bathyra in the matter of words of Torah,’ as it has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Words of Torah are not susceptible of uncleanness. When Ze'iri came [from Palestine]. he said: They have abolished the ritual ablution. Some report him to have said: They have abolished the washing of hands. The one who reports ‘they have abolished the ritual ablution’ concurs with R. Judah b. Bathyra. The one who reports ‘they have abolished the washing of hands’ is in accord with R. Hisda, who cursed anyone who went looking for water at the hour of prayer.16
Our Rabbis taught: A ba'al keri on whom nine kabs17 of water have been thrown is clean. Nahum a man of Gimzu18 whispered it to R. Akiba, and R. Akiba whispered it to Ben ‘Azzai, and Ben ‘Azzai went forth and repeated it to the disciples in public. Two Amoraim in the West differed in regard to this, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida. One stated: He repeated it, and one taught, He whispered it. The one who taught ‘he repeated it’ held that the reason [for the concession] was to prevent neglect of the Torah and of procreation. The one who taught ‘he whispered it’ thought that the reason was in order that scholars might not always be with their wives like cocks.19
R. Jannai said: I have heard of some who are lenient in this matter,20 and I have heard of some who are strict in it;21 and if anyone is strict with himself in regard to it, his days and years are prolonged.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the sense of those who bathe in the morning? [He asks], What is the sense! Why, it was he himself who said that a ba'al keri is forbidden [to occupy himself] with the words of the Torah! What he meant is this: What is the sense of bathing in forty se'ahs22 when one can make shift with nine kabs? What is the sense of going right in when throwing the water over one is sufficient? R. Hanina said: They put up a very valuable fence by this,23 as it has been taught: Once a man enticed a woman to commit an offence and she said to him: Vagabond,24 have you forty se'ahs to bathe in, and he at once desisted. Said R. Huna to the disciples: My masters, why do you make so light of this bathing? Is it because of the cold? You can use the baths! Said R. Hisda to him: Can ablution be performed in hot baths? — He replied: R. Adda b. Ahabah is of the same opinion as you. R. Ze'ira used to sit in a tub of water in the baths and say to his servant, Go and fetch nine kabs and throw over me. R. Hiyya b. Abba said to him: Why, sir, do you take this trouble, seeing that you are sitting in [that quantity of] water? — He replied: The nine kabs must be like the forty se'ahs: just as the forty se'ahs are for immersion and not for throwing, so the nine kabs are for throwing and not for immersion. R. Nahman prepared an ewer holding nine kabs.25 When R. Dimi came, he reported that R. Akiba and R. Judah Glostera26 had said: The rule,27 was laid down only for a sick person who has an emission involuntarily, but for a sick person who has a voluntary emission28 forty se'ahs [are required]. Said R. Joseph: R. Nahman's ewer was broken.29 When Rabin came, he said: The thing took place in Usha
____________________
(1) Lit., ‘Good Behaviour’, two small tractates which did not enjoy the same authority as the rest of the Mishnah.
(2) Viz., the study of the Torah.
(3) Inserted with MS.M.
(4) So MS.M.; cur. edd. Gemara, v. supra p. 64, n. 9.
(5) Because the seminal issue is a sign of frivolity.
(6) Rashi reads ‘Midrash’.
(7) In the Biblical verses which it expounds (Rashi).
(8) V. M.K. 15a.
(9) He had had an issue and was afraid to say the words distinctly.
(10) Jer. XXIII, 29.
(11) Rab.
(12) Lit., ‘the world is accustomed’.
(13) V. Deut. XVIII, 4.
(14) Deut. XXII, 9.
(15) Wheat and barley being mixed seeds, and grape kernels mixed seeds of the vineyard.
(16) V. supra 15a.
(17) A kab is four logs of twenty-four eggs.
(18) V. Ta'an. 21a.
(19) And therefore he did not want it to be too well known among the scholars.
(20) Of using only nine kabs, or not bathing at all.
(21) Insisting on forty se'ahs.
(22) The minimum quantity of water required for ritual ablution.
(23) Insisting on forty se'ahs.
(24) Rekah (Raka) ‘empty one’, ‘good for nothing’.
(25) For the use of the disciples.
(26) According to some, this word means ‘locksmith’.
(27) That nine kabs are sufficient.
(28) Lit., ‘a sick person who induces it’. I.e., after marital intercourse.
(29) I.e rendered useless, because in view of his teaching nine kabs can rarely be of effect.in the anteroom of R. Oshaia. They came and asked R. Assi, and he said to them, This rule was laid down only for a sick person whose emission is voluntary, but a sick person whose emission is involuntary requires nothing at all. Said R. Joseph: R. Nahman's ewer has been repaired again.1
Let us see! The dispute between all these Tannaim and Amoraim is as to the ordinance of Ezra. Let us see then what Ezra did ordain! Abaye said: Ezra ordained that a healthy man whose emission is voluntary must immerse in forty se'ahs, and a healthy man whose emission is involuntary must use nine kabs, and the Amoraim came and differed over the sick person.2 One held that a sick person whose emission is voluntary is on the same footing as a healthy person whose emission is voluntary, and a sick person whose emission is involuntary as a healthy person whose emission is involuntary; while the other held that a sick person whose emission is voluntary is on the same footing as a healthy person whose emission is involuntary and a sick person whose emission is involuntary requires nothing at all. Raba said: Granted that Ezra ordained immersion, did he ordain throwing? Has not a master said: Ezra ordained immersion for persons who have had a seminal emission? Rather, said Raba, Ezra ordained for a healthy person whose emission is voluntary forty se'ahs, and the Rabbis [after Ezra] came and ordained for a healthy person whose emission is involuntary nine kabs. and the [Tannaim and]3 Amoraim came and differed with regard to a sick person,4 one holding that a sick person whose emission is voluntary is on the same footing as a healthy person whose emission is voluntary and a sick person whose emission is involuntary as a healthy person whose emission is involuntary, while the other held that a healthy person whose emission is voluntary requires forty se'ahs and a sick person whose emission is voluntary is on the same footing as a healthy person whose emission is involuntary and requires nine kabs, while a sick person whose emission is involuntary requires nothing at all. Raba said: The law is that a healthy person whose emission is voluntary and a sick person whose emission is voluntary require forty se'ahs, a healthy person whose emission is involuntary requires nine kabs, and a sick person whose emission is involuntary requires nothing at all.5
Our Rabbis taught: A ba'al keri over whom nine kabs of water have been thrown is clean. When is this the case? When it is for himself;6 but when it is for others,7 he requires forty se'ahs. R. Judah says: Forty se'ahs in all cases. R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi and R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina [made pronouncements]. One of the first pair and one of the second pair dealt with the first clause of this statement. One said: This statement of yours, ‘When is this the case? When it is for himself, but for others he requires forty se'ahs’, was meant to apply only to a sick person whose emission is voluntary, but for a sick person whose emission is involuntary nine kabs are enough. The other said: Wherever it is for others, even if he is a sick person whose emission is involuntary, there must be forty se'ahs. One of the first pair and one of the second pair differed as to the second clause of the statement. One said: When R. Judah said that ‘forty se'ahs are required in all cases’, he was speaking only of water in the ground,8 but not in vessels. The other said: Even in vessels. On the view of the one who says ‘even in vessels’, there is no difficulty, that is why R. Judah taught: ‘Forty se'ahs in all cases’. But on the view of the one who says ‘in the ground, yes, in vessels, no’, what is added by the words ‘in all cases’? — They add drawn water.9
R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua and Raba b. Samuel were taking a meal together. Said R. Papa to them: Allow me to say the grace [on your behalf] because nine kabs of water have been thrown on me. Said Raba b. Samuel to them: We have learnt: When is this the case? When it is for himself; but if it is for others, forty se'ahs are required. Rather let me say the grace, since forty se'ahs have been thrown on me. Said R. Huna to them: Let me say the grace since I have had neither the one nor the other on me.10 R. Hama bathed on the eve of Passover in order [that he might be qualified] to do duty on behalf of the public,11 but the law is not as stated by him.12
MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS STANDING SAYING THE TEFILLAH AND HE REMEMBERS THAT HE IS A BA'AL KERI, HE SHOULD NOT BREAK OFF BUT HE SHOULD SHORTEN [THE BENEDICTIONS].13 IF HE WENT DOWN TO IMMERSE HIMSELF, IF HE IS ABLE TO COME UP AND COVER HIMSELF AND RECITE THE SHEMA’ BEFORE THE RISING OF THE SUN, HE SHOULD GO UP AND COVER HIMSELF AND RECITE, BUT IF NOT HE SHOULD COVER HIMSELF WITH THE WATER AND RECITE. HE SHOULD, HOWEVER, NOT COVER HIMSELF EITHER WITH FOUL WATER14 OR WITH WATER IN WHICH SOMETHING15 HAS BEEN STEEPED UNTIL HE POURS FRESH WATER INTO IT. HOW FAR SHOULD HE REMOVE HIMSELF FROM IT14 AND FROM EXCREMENT? FOUR CUBITS.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man was standing saying the Tefillah and he remembered that he was a ba'al keri, he should not break off but shorten the benedictions. If a man was reading the Torah and remembered that he was a ba'al keri, he should not break off and leave it but should go on reading in a mumbling tone. R. Meir said: A ba'al keri is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah. Another [Baraitha] taught: If a man was standing saying the Tefillah and he saw excrement in front of him, he should go forward until he has it four cubits behind him. But it has been taught: He should move to the side? — There is no contradiction; one statement speaks of where it is possible for him [to go forward], the other of where it is not possible.16 If he was praying and he discovered some excrement where he was standing, Rabbah says, even though he has sinned,17 his prayer is a valid one. Raba demurred to this, citing the text, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination?18 No, said Raba: Since he has sinned, although he said the Tefillah, his prayer is an abomination.
Our Rabbis taught: If a man was standing saying the Tefillah and water drips over his knees, he should break off until the water stops and then resume his Tefillah. At what point should he resume? — R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna gave different replies. One said that he should go back to the beginning, the other said, to the place where he halted. May we say that the ground of their difference is this
____________________
(1) I.e., the disciples can still make use of it.
(2) Inserted with D.S.
(3) Inserted with MS.M.
(4) Cf. n. 1.
(5) This ruling was previous to, and therefore superseded by, that of R. Nahman, that the law follows R. Judah b. Bathyra.
(6) E.g., if he wants to study.
(7) E.g., if he has to teach.
(8) E.g., in a cistern, river or well.
(9) I.e., water not directly from a spring.
(10) I.e., I have required neither the one nor the other.
(11) Say grace on their behalf.
(12) That immersion is required to qualify for acting on behalf of others. Or it may mean that the law follows R. Judah b. Bathyra.
(13) I.e., say a shorter form of each one.
(14) I.e., urine, as explained below.
(15) E.g., flax.
(16) E.g., if there is a river in the way.
(17) I.e., is himself responsible, v. Tosaf.
(18) Prov. XXI, 27., that one authority holds that if one stops long enough to finish the whole he goes back to the beginning, while the other holds that he goes back [in any event] to the place where he stopped?1 Said R. Ashi: In that case the statement should distinguish between whether he stopped [long enough] or did not stop.2 We must therefore say that both are agreed that if he stopped long enough to finish the whole of it he goes back to the beginning, and here they differ in regard to the case where he did not stop [so long], one holding that the man was unfit3 [to have commenced his prayers] and hence his prayer is no prayer, while the other holds that the man was [nevertheless] in a fit state [to pray] and his prayer is a valid one.
Our Rabbis taught: If a man needs to consult nature he should not say the Tefillah, and if he does, his prayer is an abomination. R. Zebid — or as some say Rab Judah — said: They meant this to apply only if he is not able to hold himself in, but if he is able to hold himself in, his prayer is a valid one. How much must he be able to hold himself in? — R. Shesheth said: Long enough to go a parasang. Some teach this statement as part of the Baraitha [just quoted], thus: When is this the case [that his prayer is an abomination]? When he cannot hold himself in; but if he can hold himself in, his prayer is valid. And how long must he be able to do so? — R. Zebid said: Long enough for him to walk a parasang.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: One who needs to ease himself should not say the Tefillah, as it says, Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.4 R. Samuel b. Nahmani also said in the name of R. Jonathan: What is the meaning of the verse, Guard thy foot when thou goest to the house of God?5 Guard thyself so that thou shouldst not sin, and if thou dost sin, bring an offering before Me. And be ready to hearken.6 Raba said. Be ready to hearken to the words of the wise who, if they sin, bring an offering and repent. It is better than when the fools give!7 Do not be like the fools who sin and bring an offering and do not repent. For they know not to do evil,8 — if that is the case, they are righteous? — What it means is: Do not be like the fools who sin and bring an offering and do not know whether they bring it for a good action or a bad action. Says the Holy One, blessed be He: They do not distinguish between good and evil, and they bring an offering before Me. R. Ashi, — or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa — said: Guard thy orifices9 at the time when thou art standing in prayer before Me.
Our Rabbis taught: One who is about to enter a privy should take off his tefillin at a distance of four cubits and then enter. R. Aha son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Shesheth: This was meant to apply only to a regular privy,10 but if it is made for the occasion, he takes them off and eases himself at once, and when he comes out he goes a distance of four cubits and puts them on, because he has now made it a regular privy. The question was asked, What is the rule about a man going in to a regular privy with his tefillin to make water? Rabina allowed it; R. Adda b. Mattena forbade it. They went and asked Raba and he said to them: It is forbidden, since we are afraid that he may ease himself in them, or, as some report, lest he may break wind in them. Another [Baraitha] taught: One who enters a regular privy takes off his tefillin at a distance of four cubits and puts them in the window on the side of the public way11 and enters, and when he comes out he goes a distance of four cubits and puts them on. So Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel say: He keeps them in his hand and enters. R. Akiba said: He holds them in his garment and enters. ‘In his garment’, do you say? Sometimes they may slip out12 and fall! — Say rather, he holds them in his hand and in his garment, and enters, and he puts them in a hole on the side of the privy, but he should not put them in a hole on the side of the public way, lest they should be taken by passers-by, and he should render himself suspect. For a certain student once left his tefillin in a hole adjoining the public way, and a harlot passed by and took them, and she came to the Beth ha-Midrash and said: See what So-and-so gave me for my hire, and when the student heard it, he went to the top of a roof and threw himself down and killed himself. Thereupon they ordained that a man should hold them in his garment and in his hand and then go in.
The Rabbis taught: Originally they used to leave tefillin in holes on the side of the privy, and mice used to come and take them. They therefore ordained that they should be put in the windows on the side of the public way. Then passers-by came and took them. So they ordained that a man should hold them in his hand and enter. R. Meyasha the son of R. Joshua b. Levi said: The halachah is that he should roll them up like a scroll13 and keep them in his right hand, opposite his heart. R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: He must see that not a handbreadth of strap hangs loose from his hand. R. Jacob b. Aha said in the name of R. Zera: This is the rule only if there is still time left in the day to put them on14 but if there is no time left in the day, he makes a kind of bag for them of the size of a handbreadth and puts them there.15 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: In the daytime [when he enters a privy] he rolls them up like a scroll and keeps them in his hand opposite his heart, and for the night he makes a kind of bag for them of the size of a handbreadth, and puts them there. Abaye said: This rule was meant to apply only to a bag which is meant for them, but if the bag is not meant for them, even less than a handbreadth is sufficient. Mar Zutra — or as some say R. Ashi — said: The proof is that small vessels16 protect [the contents from uncleanness] in a tent of the dead.17
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah further said: When we were following R. Johanan [as disciples], when he wanted to enter a privy, if he had a book of Aggada, he used to give it to us to hold, but if he was wearing tefillin he did not give them to us, saying, since the Rabbis have permitted them18
____________________
(1) V. infra 24b.
(2) I.e., the two Rabbis should have stated their views on this case also.
(3) Since he could not contain himself till he finished. Lit., ‘rejected’. Cur. edd. add ‘and he is unfit’, which is omitted in MS.M.
(4) Amos. IV, 12. Interpreted to mean, Put thyself in a fit state to meet etc.
(5) Eccl. IV, 17.
(6) Eccl. IV, 17.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid. This is the literal rendering; E.V. ‘for they know not that they do evil’.
(9) This is an alternative rendering of the word ragleka (thy foot) which is taken in the same sense as in I Sam. XXIV, 4.
(10) Where there is already excrement.
(11) The privies in Babylon were out in the fields.
(12) V. MS.M.
(13) I.e., wind the straps round them.
(14) It was customary to wear the tefillin the whole of the day and take them off at night-time.
(15) A bag of this size would protect them from uncleanness.
(16) With a tight fitting cover. V. Num. XIX, 15.
(17) Even if they are less than one handbreadth in size.
(18) To hold them to one's hand.they will protect me.1 Raba said: When we were following R. Nahman, if he had a book of Aggada he used to give it to us, but if he was wearing tefillin he did not give them to us, saying, since the Rabbis have permitted them, they will guard me.
Our Rabbis taught: A man should not hold tefillin in his hand or a scroll of the Law in his arm while saying the Tefillah,2 nor should he make water while wearing them, nor sleep in them, whether a regular sleep or a short snatch. Samuel says: A knife, money, a dish and a loaf of bread are on the same footing as tefillin.3 Raba said in the name of R. Shesheth: The law is not in accordance with this Baraitha,4 since it expresses the view of Beth Shammai. For seeing that Beth Hillel declare it permissible in a regular privy [to hold the tefillin] is there any question that they would permit it in an ad hoc privy?
An objection was raised: The things which I have permitted to you in the one place I have forbidden to you in the other. Presumably this refers to tefillin. Now if you say the Baraitha quoted follows Beth Hillel, there is no difficulty. ‘l have permitted it to you in the one place’ — the regular privy, ‘and I have forbidden it to you in the other’ — the ad hoc privy. But if you say it is Beth Shammai, they do not permit anything! — That statement5 refers to the baring of the handbreadth and two handbreadths, as one [Baraitha] taught: When a man eases himself, he may bare a hand breadth behind and two handbreadths in front, and another taught: a handbreadth behind and in front not at all. Is it not the case that both statements refer to a man, and there is no contradiction, the former referring to easing and the latter to making water? But do you think so? If for making water, why a handbreadth behind? Rather both refer to easing, and there is no contradiction, the one referring to a man and the other to a woman. If that is the case,6 what of the succeeding statement, ‘This is an a fortiori which cannot be rebutted’? What is the point of ‘which cannot be rebutted’? This7 is merely the natural way! We must say therefore that tefillin are referred to [in the Baraitha], and it is a refutation of what Raba said in the name of R. Shesheth. — It is a refutation. Still a difficulty remains: If it is permissible in a regular privy, how much more so in an ad hoc privy! — What it means is this: In a regular privy where there is no splashing, it is permitted; in an ad hoc privy where there is splashing,8 it is forbidden. If that is the case, how can you say, ‘which cannot be rebutted’? There is an excellent refutation? — What it means is this: This9 rule is based upon a reason10 and not upon an argument a fortiori; for if we were to employ here an argument a fortiori,11 it would be one which could not be rebutted.
Our Rabbis taught: One who wishes to partake [in company] of a regular meal,12 should walk four cubits ten times or ten cubits four times and ease himself and then go in. R. Isaac said: One who wishes to [partake of] a regular meal should take off his tefillin13 and then go in. He differs from R. Hiyya; for R. Hiyya said: He places them on his table, and so it is becoming for him. How long does he leave them there? Until the time for grace.14
One [Baraitha] taught: A man may tie up his tefillin in his headgear15 along with his money, while another teaches, He should not so tie them! — There is no contradiction; in the one case he sets it aside for this purpose, in the other he does not set it aside. For R. Hisda said: If a man has [mentally] set aside a cloth to tie up tefillin in, once he has tied up tefillin in it, it is forbidden to tie up in it money; if he has set it aside but not tied up the tefillin in it, or if he has tied them up in it without setting it aside for the purpose, he may tie up money in it. According to Abaye, however, who says that mere setting aside is operative,16 once he has set it aside, even though he has not tied up tefillin in it, it is forbidden to tie up money, and if he has tied up tefillin in it, if he has set it aside it is forbidden to tie up money, but if he has not set it aside it is not forbidden.
R. Joseph the son of R. Nehunia asked Rab Judah: What is the rule about placing one's tefillin under one's pillow? About putting them under the place of his feet I have no need to ask, because that would be treating them contemptuously. What I do want to know is, what is the rule about putting them under his pillow? — He replied: Thus said Samuel: It is permitted, even if his wife is with him. An objection was raised. A man should not put his tefillin under the place of his feet, because this is treating them contemptuously, but he may place them under his pillow, but if his wife is with him this is forbidden. If, however, there is a place three handbreadths above his head or three handbreadths below,17 he may put them there. Is not this a refutation of Samuel? It is. Raba said: Although it has been taught that this is a refutation of Samuel, the law follows his opinion. What is the reason?
____________________
(1) From evil spirits. Var. lec.: we need not trouble (to take them off).
(2) The fear of dropping them will distract his attention.
(3) They also will distract his attention if he is holding them.
(4) That it is forbidden to make water in tefillin.
(5) ‘The things I have forbidden to you, etc.’.
(6) If the Baraitha, ‘The things which I have permitted to you in the one place’ etc. refers to the difference between a man and a woman.
(7) Difference between man and woman.
(8) Since it is used for urine only.
(9) To permit in a regular privy and prohibit in an ad hoc one.
(10) The risk of soiling the hand.
(11) Viz., from a regular one to an ad hoc one.
(12) And is doubtful if he can contain himself, and to leave the company would be impolite. (Rashi.)
(13) As it would not be respectful to eat in them.
(14) When he puts them on again.
(15) Aparkesuth, a head-covering which flowed down over the body. Aliter: ‘underwear’, or ‘sheet’.
(16) In the matter of weaving a sheet for a dead body, Sanh. 47b.
(17) Projecting from the bed.— Whatever conduces to their safe keeping1 is of more importance.2 Where should he put them? R. Jeremiah said: Between the coverlet and the pillow, not opposite to his head. But R. Hiyya taught: He puts them in a turban3 under his pillow? — It must be in such a way as to make the top of the turban4 project outside [the pillow]. Bar Kappara used to tie them in the bed-curtain and make them project outside.5 R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi used to put them on a stool and spread a cloth over them. R. Hamnuna the son of R. Joseph said: Once when I was standing before Raba he said to me: Go and bring me my tefillin, and I found them between the coverlet and the pillow, not just opposite his head, and I knew that it was a day of ablution [for his wife],6 and I perceived that he had sent me in order to impress upon me a practical lesson.
R. Joseph the son of R. Nehunia inquired of Rab Judah: If two persons are sleeping in one bed, how would it be for one to turn his face away and recite the Shema’, and for the other to turn his face away and recite? — He replied: Thus said Samuel: [It is permitted] even if his wife is with him. R. Joseph demurred to this. [You imply, he said] ‘His wife’, and needless to say anyone else. On the contrary, [we should argue]: His wife is like himself,7 another is not like himself! An objection was raised: If two persons are sleeping in one bed, one turns his face away and recites the Shema’ and the other turns his face away and recites the Shema’. And it was taught in another [place]: If a man is in bed and his children and the members of his household8 are at his side, he must not recite the Shema’ unless there is a garment separating them, but if his children and the members of his household are minors, he may. Now I grant you that if we accept the ruling of R. Joseph there is no difficulty, as we can explain one [statement] to refer to his wife and the other to another person. But if we accept Samuel's view there is a difficulty? — Samuel can reply: And on R. Joseph's view is there no difficulty, seeing that it has been taught: If a man was in bed, and his sons9 and the members of his household with him,10 he should not recite the Shema’ unless his garments separated them from him? What then must you say? That in R. Joseph's opinion there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim as to his wife. In my opinion also there is a difference among Tannaim.11
The Master has said: ‘One turns his face away and recites the Shema’. But there is the contact of the buttocks? — This supports the opinion of R. Huna, who said: Contact of the buttocks is not sexual. May we say that it supports the following opinion of R. Huna: A woman may sit and separate her hallah12 naked, because she can cover her nakedness in the ground13 but not a man! — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It means, if her nakedness was well covered by the ground.14
The Master said: ‘If his children and the members of his household were minors, it is permitted’. Up to what age? — R. Hisda said: A girl up to three years and one day, a boy up to nine years and one day. Some there are who say: A girl up to eleven years and a day, and a boy up to twelve years and a day; with both of them [it is] up to the time when Thy breasts were fashioned and thy hair was grown.15 Said R. Kahana to R. Ashi: In the other case16 Raba said that, although there was a refutation of Samuel, yet the law followed his ruling. What is the ruling here?17 — He replied to him: Do we weave them all in the same web?18 Where it has been stated [that the law follows him] it has been stated, and where it has not been stated it has not been stated.
R. Mari said to R. Papa: If a hair protrudes through a man's garment,19 what is the rule? — He exclaimed: ‘Tis but a hair, a hair!20
R. Isaac said: A handbreadth [exposed] in a [married] woman constitutes sexual incitement.21 In which way? Shall I say, if one gazes at it? But has not R. Shesheth [already] said: Why did Scripture enumerate the ornaments worn outside the clothes with those worn inside?22 To tell you that if one gazes at the little finger of a woman, it is as if he gazed at her secret place! — No, It means, in one's own wife, and when he recites the Shema’. R. Hisda said: A woman's leg is a sexual incitement, as it says. Uncover the leg, pass through the rivers,23 and it says afterwards, Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.24 Samuel said: A woman's voice is a sexual incitement, as it says, For sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is comely.25 R. Shesheth said: A woman's hair is a sexual incitement, as it says, Thy hair is as a flock of goats.26
R. Hanina said: I saw Rabbi hang up his tefillin. An objection was raised: If one hangs up his tefillin, his life will be suspended. The Dorshe hamuroth27 said: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee:28 this refers to one who hangs up his tefillin! — This is no difficulty: the one statement refers to hanging by the strap, the other to hanging by the box. Or if you like, I can say that in either case, whether by the strap or by the box, it is forbidden, and when Rabbi hung his up it was in a bag. If so, what does this tell us? — You might think that they must be resting on something like a scroll of the Law. Therefore we are told that this is not necessary.
R. Hanina also said: I saw Rabbi [while Saying the Tefillah] belch and yawn and sneeze and spit
____________________
(1) From mice or robbers.
(2) Than preserving them from disrespect.
(3) Which he uses as a bag.
(4) I.e., the side where the cases of the tefillin can be recognized.
(5) I.e., away from the bed.
(6) Which showed that he had slept with her.
(7) Lit., ‘like his body’.
(8) I.e., slaves.
(9) Bah. omits this word.
(10) ‘Members of the household’ must here be understood to include the wife. This is a very unusual use of the expression, and Tosaf. emends, ‘If he was in bed and his wife was by his side, etc.’.
(11) As to his wife or another person.
(12) V. Num. XV, 20. A blessing is prescribed for this rite.
(13) Although the posteriors are exposed.
(14) So that even the posteriors are covered.
(15) Ezek. XVI, 7.
(16) Of putting the tefillin under the pillow, supra.
(17) In regard to reciting the Shema’ in bed.
(18) I.e., adopt all his rulings indiscriminately.
(19) Is it regarded as indecent exposure?
(20) I.e., it does not matter.
(21) Lit. — ‘nakedness’.
(22) Among the ornaments taken by the Israelites from the women of Midian (Num. XXXI, 50) was the kumaz (E.V. ‘girdles’) which the Rabbis supposed to have been worn inside under the garments, while the others were worn outside.
(23) Isa. XLVII, 2.
(24) Ibid. 3.
(25) Cant. II, 14.
(26) Ibid. IV, 1.
(27) Lit., ‘Expounders of essentials’, a school of early homiletical exegetes; v. Pes. (Sonc. ed.) p. 266, n. 9.
(28) Deut. XXVIII, 66.and adjust his garment,1 but he did not pull it over him;2 and when he belched, he would put his hand to his chin. The following objection was cited: ‘One who says the Tefillah so that it can be heard is of the small of faith;3 he who raises his voice in praying is of the false prophets;4 he who belches and yawns is of the arrogant; if he sneezes during his prayer it is a bad sign for him — some say, it shows that he is a low fellow; one who spits during his prayer is like one who spits before a king’. Now in regard to belching and yawning there is no difficulty; in the one case it was involuntary, in the other case deliberate. But the sneezing in Rabbi's case does seem to contradict the sneezing in the other? — There is no contradiction between sneezing and sneezing either; in the one case it is above, in the other below.5 For R. Zera said: This dictum was casually imparted to me in the school of R. Hamnuna, and it is worth all the rest of my learning: If one sneezes in his prayer it is a good sign for him, that as they give him relief below [on earth] so they give him relief above [in heaven]. But there is surely a contradiction between the spitting in the one case and the other? — There is no contradiction between the two cases of spitting either, since it can be done as suggested by Rab Judah. For Rab Judah said: If a man is standing saying the Tefillah, and spittle collects in his mouth, he covers it up in his robe, or, if it is a fine robe, in his scarf.6 Rabina was once standing behind R. Ashi and he wanted to spit, so he spat out behind him. Said R. Ashi to him: Does not the Master accept the dictum of Rab Judah, that he covers it up in his scarf? He replied: I am rather squeamish.
‘One who says the Tefillah so that it can be heard is of the small of faith’. R. Huna said: This was meant to apply only if he is able to concentrate his attention when speaking in a whisper, but if he cannot concentrate his attention when speaking in a whisper, it is allowed. And this is the case only when he is praying alone, but if he is with the congregation [he must not do so because] he may disturb the congregation.
R. Abba kept away from Rab Judah because he wanted to go up to Eretz Israel; for Rab Judah said, Whoever goes up from Babylon to Eretz Israel transgresses a positive precept, since it says, They shall be carried to Babylon and there shall they be, until the day that I remember them, saith the Lord.7 He said: I will go and listen to what he is saying from outside8 the Academy.9 So he went and found the Tanna10 reciting in the presence of Rab Judah: If a man was standing saying the Tefillah and he broke wind, he waits until the odour passes off and begins praying again. Some say: If he was standing saying the Tefillah and he wanted to break wind, he steps back four cubits and breaks wind and waits till the wind passes off and resumes his prayer, saying, Sovereign of the Universe, Thou hast formed us with various hollows and various vents. Well dost Thou know our shame and confusion, and that our latter end is worms and maggots! and he begins again from the place where he stopped. He said:11 Had I come only to hear this, it would have been worth my while. Our Rabbis taught: If a man is sleeping in his garment and cannot put out his head on account of the cold, he folds his garment round his neck to make a partition12 and recites the Shema’. Some say, round his heart. But how can the first Tanna [say thus]? His heart is surely in sight of the sexual organ! — He was of opinion that if the heart is in sight of the sexual organ, it is still permissible [to say the Shema’]. R. Huna said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man is walking in a dirty alley way, he puts his hand over his mouth and recites the Shema’. Said R. Hisda to him: By God, had R. Johanan said this to me with his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.13 (Some report: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If a man is walking in a dirty alley way, he puts his hand over his mouth and recites the Shema’. Said R. Hisda to him: By God, had R. Joshua b. Levi said this to me with his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.) But could R. Huna have said this, seeing that R. Huna has said: A scholar is forbidden to stand in a place of filth, because he must not stand still without meditating on the Torah? — There is no contradiction: one statement speaks of standing, the other of walking. But could R. Johanan have said this, seeing that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah has said in the name of R. Johanan: In every place it is permitted to meditate on words of Torah except in the bath and in a privy? And should you reply, here also one statement speaks of standing and one of walking, can that be so, seeing that R. Abbahu was once walking behind R. Johanan and reciting the Shema’, and when he came to a dirty alley way, he stopped; and [when they emerged] he said to R. Johanan, Where shall I commence again, and he replied: If you have stopped long enough to finish it, go back to the beginning? — What he meant to say to him was this: I do not hold [that you need have stopped]. But taking your view, that it was necessary, if you have stopped long enough to finish it, go back to the beginning. There is a teaching in accordance with R. Huna, and there is a teaching in accordance with R. Hisda. It has been taught in accordance with R. Huna: If one was walking in a dirty alley way, he puts his hand over his mouth and recites the Shema’. It has been taught in accordance with R. Hisda: If one was walking in a dirty alley way, he should not recite the Shema’; and what is more, if he was reciting and came to one, he should stop. Suppose he does not stop, what happens? R. Meyasha the grandson of R. Joshua b. Levi said: Of him Scripture says: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and ordinances whereby they should not live.14 R. Assi said: Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity.15 R. Adda b. Ahabah said: Because he hath despised the word of the Lord.16 And if he stops, what is his reward? — R. Abbahu said: Of him Scripture says: Through this word17 ye shall prolong your days.18
R. Huna said: If a man's garment is girded round his waist,19 he may recite the Shema’. It has been taught similarly: If his garment, whether of cloth or of leather or of sacking, is girded round his waist, he may recite the Shema’
____________________
(1) Aliter: ‘feel his garment’, to remove insects.
(2) If it fell right off, as this would constitute an interruption in the Tefillah. So Rashi. R. Hananel, however, renders: He adjusted his robe so that it should not fall off his head, but if it did fall he did not replace it.
(3) Because he imagines that otherwise God will not hear him.
(4) Cf. I Kings XVIII, 28.
(5) Euphemism.
(6) Aliter: underwear. V. supra p. 142, n. 1.
(7) Jer. XXVII, 22; v. Keth. 110b.
(8) V. Rashi.
(9) Lit., ‘House of Meeting’.
(10) V. Glos. s.v. (b).
(11) Omitting ‘to him’ of cur. edd. V. Bah.
(12) Between his face and the lower part of his body, if it was bare.
(13) I.e., he would not permit it.
(14) Ezek. XX, 25.
(15) Isa. V, 18.
(16) Num. XV, 31.
(17) E.V. ‘thing’.
(18) I.e., through being careful with regard to the utterance of the Torah. Deut. XXXII, 47.
(19) And hangs down from there, leaving his upper part uncovered., but the Tefillah he may not say until he covers his chest.1 R. Huna further said: If a man forgot and entered a privy while wearing his tefillin, he places his hand over them till he finishes. ‘Till he finishes’? How can this be assumed? Rather it is as R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Until he finishes the first discharge. But why should he not stop at once and get up? — On account of the dictum of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Keeping back the faeces brings on dropsy, keeping back urine brings on jaundice.
It has been stated: If there is some excrement on a man's flesh or if his hand is inside a privy,2 R. Huna says that he is permitted to say the Shema’, while R. Hisda says he is forbidden to say the Shema’. Raba said: What is the reason of R. Huna? — Because it is written, Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord.3 R. Hisda says that it is forbidden to say the Shema’. What is the reason of R. Hisda? — Because it is written, All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto Thee.4
It has been stated: [If there is] an evil smell [proceeding] from some tangible source, R. Huna says that one removes [from the source of the smell] four cubits and recites the Shema’; R. Hisda says: He removes four cubits from the place where the smell ceases, and then recites the Shema’. It has been taught in accordance with R. Hisda: A man should not recite the Shema’ either in front of human excrement or of the excrement of dogs or the excrement of pigs or the excrement of fowls or the filth of a dungheap which is giving off an evil smell. If, however, it is in a place ten handbreadths above him or ten handbreadths beneath him, he can sit at the side of it and recite the Shema’; otherwise he removes himself out of sight of it; and similarly for the Tefillah. [If there is] an evil smell [proceeding] from a tangible object, he removes four cubits from [the source of] the smell and recites the Shema’. Raba said: The law is not as stated in this Baraitha,5 but it has been taught in the following: A man should not recite the Shema’ in front either of human excrement or excrement of pigs or excrement of dogs when he puts skins in them.6 They asked R. Shesheth: What of an evil smell which has no tangible source?7 He said to them: Come and see these mats in the school house; some sleep on them8 while others study. This, however, applies only to study,9 but not to the Shema’. And even as regards study it applies only if the smell is made by another but not if it is made by himself.
It has been stated: If manure is being carried past one, Abaye says it is permitted to recite the Shema’,10 while Raba says it is forbidden to recite the Shema’. Said Abaye: Whence do I derive my opinion? Because we have learnt: If an unclean person is standing under a tree and a clean one passes by, he becomes unclean. If a clean person is standing under a tree and an unclean one passes by, he remains clean, but if he [the unclean person] stands still, he becomes unclean. And similarly with a stone smitten with leprosy.11 To which Raba can reply: In that case the deciding factor is the permanence,12 as it is written, He shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his dwelling be.13 But in this case, the All-Merciful has said, Therefore shall thy camp be holy,14 and this condition is not fulfilled.
R. Papa said: The snout of a pig is like manure being carried past. This is obvious?15 — It required to be stated, to show that it applies even if the animal is coming up from the river.
Rab Judah said: If there is a doubt about [the presence of] excrement, it is forbidden; if there is a doubt about urine, it is permitted. Some there are who say: Rab Judah said: If there is a doubt about excrement in the house, it is permitted,16 in the dungheap it is forbidden. If there is a doubt about urine, it is permitted even in the dungheap. He adopted the view of R. Hamnuna; for R. Hamnuna said: The Torah forbade the recital of the Shema’ only in face of the Stream [of urine]. And this is as taught by R. Jonathan; for R. Jonathan contrasted two texts. It is written: Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad,17 and it is also written, And thou shalt have a paddle . . . thou shalt cover that which cometh from thee.18 How are these two statements to be reconciled? The one speaks of easing, the other of urine. This proves that urine was not forbidden by the Torah save in face of the stream only, and once it has fallen to the ground it is permitted, and it is the Rabbis who imposed a further prohibition, and when they did so, it was only in a case of certainty but not in a case of doubt. And in a case of certainty, how long is it forbidden? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: So long as it moistens [the ground]. And so said Rabbah b. Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: So long as it moistens [the ground]. So too said ‘Ulla: So long as it moistens [the ground]. Ganiba said in the name of Rab: So long as the mark is discernible. Said R. Joseph: May Ganiba be forgiven by his Master!19 Seeing that even of excrement Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab that as soon as it has dried on top it is permitted, is there any question about urine! Said Abaye to him: What reason have you for relying on this statement? Rely rather on this one which was made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of Rab: Even if excrement is as a potsherd, it is forbidden [to recite the Shema’ near it]. What is the test of its being as dry as a potsherd? — So long as one can throw it [on to the ground] and it does not break, [it is not so dry]. Some say: So long as one can roll it without breaking it.20 Rabina said: I was once standing before Rab Judah of Difti, and he saw dung and said to me, Look if the top has dried, or not. Some say that what he said to him was this: Look if it has formed cracks. What is the ultimate decision?21 It has been stated: When dung is like a potsherd, Amemar says it is forbidden and Mar Zutra says it is permitted [to say the Shema’ near it]. Raba said: The law is that if dung is as dry as a potsherd it is forbidden, and in the case of urine as long as it is moistening [the ground]. An objection was raised: As long as urine is moistening [the ground] it is forbidden; if it has been absorbed [in the ground] or has dried up,22 it is permitted. Now are we not to understand that ‘absorption’ here is compared to ‘drying’, and that just as after drying there is no mark left, so after absorption there must be no mark left, and that if there is still a mark it is forbidden, even though it no longer moistens? — But adopting your line of argument, let us see the first clause: ‘As long [as urine] is moistening [the ground] it is forbidden’, which implies that if there is a mark it is permitted.23 — The fact is from this [Baraitha] we cannot infer [either way].
Shall we say that there is a difference of Tannaim [on this point]? [For it was taught:] If Urine has been poured out of a vessel, it is forbidden to recite the Shema’ in front of that vessel. As for urine itself, if it has been absorbed in the ground it is permitted, if it has not been absorbed it is forbidden. R. Jose says: So long as it moistens the ground. Now what is meant by the ‘absorbed’ and ‘not absorbed’ mentioned by the first Tanna? Shall I say that ‘absorbed’ means that it does not moisten and that ‘not absorbed’ means that it still moistens, and R. Jose came and said that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, but if only the mark is discernible it is permitted? This is the same as the first Tanna says! We must say then that ‘absorbed’ means that the mark is not discernible and ‘not absorbed’ means that the mark is discernible, and R. Jose came and said that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, but if only the mark is discernible it is permitted? — No; both agree that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, and if only the mark is discernible it is permitted,
____________________
(1) Because in the Tefillah he is like one standing before a king.
(2) I.e., he was standing outside with his hand inside the window.
(3) Ps. CL. 6. As much as to say, only the mouth and other breathing organs are concerned with praise.
(4) Ibid. XXXV, 10.
(5) With reference to the excrement of dogs etc.
(6) The excrement of pigs and dogs was used for tanning.
(7) I.e., from the breaking of wind.
(8) And break wind.
(9) Rashi: lit., ‘words of Torah’. He cannot study if he has to leave the school-house.
(10) And one need not break off.
(11) V. Kid. 33b. Neg. XIII, 7.
(12) I.e., the standing still of the unclean object.
(13) Lev. XIII, 46. This implies that the leper spreads uncleanness only if he remains in one place.
(14) Deut. XXIII, 15.
(15) That a pig's snout must always contain filth.
(16) Because excrement is not usually found in the house.
(17) Deut. XXIII, 13.
(18) Ibid. 14. Here ‘covering’ is mentioned.
(19) For reporting Rab wrongly.
(20) This is a more severe test.
(21) With regard to urine.
(22) On stones.
(23) Which is apparently in contradiction to the implication of the second clause.and here the difference between them is whether it must be wet enough to moisten something else?1 IF HE WENT DOWN [TO IMMERSE HIMSELF], IF HE IS ABLE TO COME UP etc. May we say that the Mishnah teaches anonymously the same as R. Eliezer, who said that [the Shema’ may be recited] until the rising of the sun?2 You may even say that it is the same as R. Joshua,3 and perhaps [the Mishnah] means this to apply to the wathikin, of whom R. Johanan said: The wathikin used to finish the recital with the rising of the sun.4
IF NOT, HE SHOULD COVER HIMSELF WITH WATER AND RECITE. But in this case his heart sees the sexual organs? — R. Eleazar said? — or as some also say, R. Aha b. Abba b. Aha said in the name of our teacher:5 They meant this to apply to turbid water which is like solid earth, in order that his heart should not see his sexual organ. Our Rabbis taught: If the water is clear, he may sit in it up to his neck and say the Shema’; some say, he should stir it up with his foot. On the ruling of the first Tanna, his heart sees his nakedness? — He held that if his heart sees the sexual organ it is permitted. But his heel sees his nakedness?6 — He held that if his heel sees his nakedness it is permitted. It has been stated: If his heel sees his nakedness it is permitted [to read the Shema’]; if it touches, Abaye says it is forbidden and Raba says it is permitted. This is the way in which R. Zebid taught this passage. R. Hinnena the son of R. Ika thus: If it touches, all agree that it is forbidden. If it sees, Abaye says it is forbidden and Raba says it is permitted; the Torah was not given to the ministering angels.7 The law is that if it touches it is forbidden, but if it sees it is permitted.
Raba said: If one sees excrement through a glass,8 he may recite the Shema’ in face of it; if he sees nakedness through a glass, he must not recite the Shema’ in face of it. ‘If he sees excrement through a glass he may recite the Shema’ in face of it’, because [the permission or otherwise] in the case of excrement depends on whether it is covered.9 ‘If he sees nakedness through a glass it is forbidden to recite in face of it’, because the All-Merciful said, that He see no unseemly thing in thee,10 and here it is seen.
Abaye said: A little excrement may be neutralized with spittle; to which Raba added: It must be thick spittle. Raba said: If the excrement is in a hole, he may put his shoe over it and recite the Shema’. Mar the son of Rabina inquired: What is the rule if there is some dung sticking to his shoe? — This was left unanswered.
Rab Judah said: It is forbidden to recite the Shema’ in face of a naked heathen. Why do you say a heathen? The same applies even to an Israelite! — In the case of an Israelite there is no question to him that it is forbidden, but this had to be stated in the case of a heathen. For you might have thought that since Scripture says of them, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is as the issue of horses,11 therefore he is just like a mere ass. Hence we are told that their flesh also is called ‘nakedness’, as it says. And they saw not their father's nakedness.12
HE SHOULD NOT COVER HIMSELF EITHER WITH FOUL WATER OR WITH WATER IN WHICH SOMETHING HAS BEEN STEEPED UNTIL HE POURS WATER INTO IT. How much water must he go on pouring?13 — What it means is this: He must not cover himself with foul water or with water used for steeping at all, nor [may he recite in face of] urine until he pours water into it.
Our Rabbis taught: How much water must he pour into it? A few drops [are enough]. R. Zakkai says: A rebi'ith.14 R. Nahman said: Where they differ is when the water is poured in last, but if the water was there first, a few drops are sufficient.15 R. Joseph, however, said: Where they differ is if the water was there first; but if the water was poured in afterwards both agree that there must be a rebi'ith?. R. Joseph once said to his attendant: Bring me a rebi'ith of water, as prescribed by R. Zakkai.
Our Rabbis taught: It is forbidden to recite the Shema’ in face of a chamber pot for excrement or urine even if there is nothing in it, or in face of urine itself [if it is in another vessel] until he pours water into it. How much must he pour? A few drops. R. Zakkai says: A Rebi'ith, whether it is in front of the bed or behind the bed.16 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If it is behind the bed, he may recite the Shema’, if it is in front of the bed he may not recite, but he must remove four cubits and then recite. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Even if the room is a hundred cubits long he should not say the Shema’ in it until he takes it away or places it under the bed. The question was asked: How did he [R. Simeon b. Gamaliel] mean? That if it is behind the bed he may recite at once and that if it is in front of the bed he must remove four cubits and then recite? Or did he perhaps mean it this way, that if it is behind the bed he removes to a distance of four cubits, but if it is in front of the bed he does not recite at al? — Come and hear, for it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If it is behind the bed he may recite at once, if it is in front of the bed he removes four cubits. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel Says: Even in a room a hundred cubits long he should not recite until he takes it out or puts it under the bed. Our question has been answered, but there is a contradiction between the Baraitha? — Reverse the [names in] the second one. What reason have you for reversing the second one? Why not reverse the first? — Who is recorded to have said that the whole room is like four cubits? R. Simeon b. Eleazar.17
R. Joseph said: I asked R. Huna as follows: There is no question in my mind that a bed with legs less than three handbreadths long is reckoned as being attached to the soil.18 What of one with legs four, five, six, seven, eight or nine handbreadths long? — He replied: I do not know. About ten I was certain and did not need to ask. Said Abaye: You did well not to ask; ten handbreadths constitutes a different domain.19 Raba said: The law is that less than three is regarded as attached to the soil, ten constitutes a different domain, from ten to three is what R. Joseph asked R. Huna about and he did not decide it for him. Rab said: The halachah follows R. Simeon b. Eleazar. So too said Bali in the name of R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Samuel:20 The halachah follows R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Raba, however, said: The halachah does not follow R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
R. Ahai contracted a match for his son with the house of R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Marta. He brought him into the bridal chamber but it was not a success.21 He went in after him to look, and saw a scroll of the Torah lying there. He said to them:22 Had I not come now, you would have endangered the life of my son, for it has been taught: It is forbidden to have marital intercourse in a room in which there is a scroll of the Law or tefillin, until they are taken out or placed in one receptacle inside of another. Abaye said: This rule applies only to a receptacle which is not meant for them, but if the receptacles are specially meant for them, ten are no better than one. Raba said: A covering
____________________
(1) Only in this case does the first Tanna forbid, but R. Jose is more stringent.
(2) V. supra 9b. And so the halachah is according to him.
(3) Who says that the time is up to the third hour, v. supra 9b.
(4) V. supra p. 49 n. 4.
(5) Rab.
(6) Since his knees are bent under him.
(7) As much as to say, too much must not be expected of human beings.
(8) Lit., ‘a lantern’ or ‘anything transparent’.
(9) I.e., there is a partition between.
(10) Deut. XXIII, 15.
(11) Ezek. XXIII, 20.
(12) Gen. IX, 23 — of the sons of Noah.
(13) As much as to say, how can he hope to neutralize such a quantity?
(14) A quarter of a log.
(15) Because each drop of urine becomes neutralized as it falls in.
(16) I.e., whether the bed is between him and it or not.
(17) The source (If this dictum is not known (Rashi).
(18) Labud, v. Glos. And therefore anything placed under it is like being buried in the ground, (e.g., a chamber pot) and the Shema’ may be recited.
(19) And therefore it is no covering.
(20) V. supra p. 94. n. 4.
(21) Euphemism.
(22) To the relatives of his daughter-in-law.over a chest is like a receptacle within a receptacle.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: For a scroll of the Law it is necessary to make a partition of ten [handbreadths].1 Mar Zutra was visiting R. Ashi, and he saw that in the place where Mar the son of R. Ashi slept there was a scroll of the Law and a partition of ten [handbreadths] was made for it. He said to him: Which authority are you following? R. Joshua b. Levi, is it not? I presume that R. Joshua b. Levi meant this to apply only where one had not another room, but your honour has another room! He replied: I had not thought of it.
HOW FAR SHOULD HE REMOVE FROM IT AND FROM EXCREMENT? FOUR CUBITS. Raba said in the name of R. Sehora reporting Rab: This was meant only if he leaves it behind him, but if he keeps it in front of him he must remove completely out of sight. The same rule applies to Tefillah. Is that so? Has not Rafram b. Papa said in the name of R. Hisda: A man can stand facing a privy [four cubits away] and say the Tefillah? What is referred to here?2 A privy in which there is no excrement. Is that so? Has not R. Joseph b. Hanina said: When they spoke of a privy, they meant, even if there is no excrement in it, and when they spoke of a bath,3 they meant even if there is no one in it! But in fact what is referred to here?4 A new one. But surely this is the very thing about which Rabina asked a question: If a place has been set aside for a privy [but not yet used], what is the rule? Does setting aside count or does it not count?5 — What Rabina wanted to know was whether one might stand in it to pray therein, but as to facing it [he was] not [in doubt].6 Raba said: These Persian privies, although there is excrement in them, are counted as closed in.7
MISHNAH. A GONORRHOEIC PERSON WHO HAS AN EMISSION AND A NIDDAH FROM WHOM SEMEN ESCAPES AND A WOMAN WHO BECOMES NIDDAH DURING INTERCOURSE REQUIRE A RITUAL BATH; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER EXEMPTS THEM.8
GEMARA. The question was raised: What is R. Judah's opinion about a ba'al keri who has become gonorrhoeic? Are we to say that the case in which R. Judah exempted was that of a gonorrhoeic patient who had a seminal issue, because his first condition precludes him from ablution,9 but he does not exempt a ba'al keri who becomes gonorrhoeic because in his first condition he does require ablution,10 or are we to say that there is no difference? — Come and hear: A WOMAN WHO BECOMES NIDDAH DURING INTERCOURSE REQUIRES A RITUAL BATH: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, EXEMPTS HER. Now a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse is on the same footing as a ba'al keri who becomes gonorrhoeic, and R. Judah exempts her. This proves [that there is no difference]. R. Hiyya taught expressly: A ba'al keri who has become gonorrhoeic requires ablution; R. Judah, however, exempts him.
MISHNAH. THE MORNING TEFILLAH [CAN BE SAID] UNTIL MIDDAY; R. JUDAH SAYS TILL THE FOURTH HOUR. THE AFTERNOON PRAYER11 [CAN BE SAID] TILL EVENING; R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON.12 THE EVENING PRAYER HAS NO FIXED LIMIT.13 THE TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRAYERS14 IS THE WHOLE OF THE DAY; R. JUDAH SAYS, TILL THE SEVENTH HOUR.
GEMARA. [TILL MIDDAY]. This was contrasted with the following: The proper time for it [the Shema’] is at the rising of the sun, so that ge'ullah should be followed immediately by Tefillah, with the result that he would say the Tefillah in the day time!15 — That was taught in reference only to the wathikin; for R. Johanan said: The wathikin used to conclude it [the Shema’] as the sun rose.16 And may other people delay till midday, but no longer? Has not R. Mari the son of R. Huna the son of R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man erred and did not say the evening Tefillah, he says it twice in the morning. [If he erred] in the morning, he says it twice in the afternoon? — He may go on praying the whole day. But up to midday he is given the reward of saying the Tefillah in its proper time; thereafter he is given the reward of saying Tefillah, but not of saying Tefillah in its proper time.
The question was raised: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah, should he say it twice in the evening? Should you argue from the fact that if he erred in the evening he prays twice in the morning, [I may reply that] this is because it is all one day, as it is written, And there was evening and there was morning, one day;17 but in this case, prayer being in the place of sacrifice,18 since the day has passed the sacrifice lapses. Or should we rather say that since prayer is supplication for mercy, a man may go on praying as long as he likes ? — Come and hear: For R. Huna h. Judah said in the name of R. Isaac reporting R. Johanan: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah, he says it twice in the evening, and we do not apply here the principle that if the day has passed the offering lapses. An objection was raised: That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.19 ‘That which is crooked cannot be made straight’; this applies to one who omitted the Shema’ of the evening or the Shema’ of the morning or the Tefillah of the evening or the Tefillah of the morning. ‘And that which is wanting cannot be numbered’: this applies to one whose comrades formed a group to perform a religious act and he was not included with them. — R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan: With what case are we dealing here?20 With one who omitted deliberately. R. Ashi said: The proof of this is that it says ‘omitted’, and it does not say, ‘erred’. This proves it.
____________________
(1) To permit intercourse in the same room.
(2) In the ruling of R. Hisda.
(3) As being a forbidden place for meditating on words of Torah.
(4) In the ruling of R. Hisda.
(5) Shab. 10a; Ned. 7a.
(6) That it was permitted at a distance of four cubits.
(7) They were sloping and the excrement rolled into a deep hole out of sight.
(8) V. supra, p. 129, n. 4.
(9) A gonorrhoeic patient has to wait seven days.
(10) Before being able to study the Torah, according to the ordinance of Ezra, supra. p. 134.
(11) Minhah, v. Glos.
(12) This is explained in the Gemara.
(13) V. infra in the Gemara.
(14) Musaf, v. Glos.
(15) I.e., just after day-break.
(16) V. supra 9b.
(17) Gen. I, 5.
(18) V. infra 26b.
(19) Eccl. I, 25.
(20) In the teaching cited.Our Rabbis taught: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon prayer on the eve of Sabbath, he says the [Sabbath] Tefillah1 twice on the night of the Sabbath. If he erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah on Sabbath, he says the [weekday] Tefillah twice on the outgoing of the Sabbath; he says habdalah2 in the first but not in the second;3 and if he said habdalah in the second and not in the first, the second is counted to him, the first is not counted to him. This is equivalent, is it not, to saying that since he did not say habdalah in the first, it is as if he had not said the Tefillah and we make him say it again. To this was opposed the following: If one forgot and did not mention the miracle of rain4 in the benediction for the resurrection of the dead5 and prayed for rain in the benediction of the years,6 he is turned back; if he forgot habdalah in ‘who graciously grants knowledge’,7 he is not turned back, because he can say it over wine! — This is indeed a difficulty.
It has been stated: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: The Tefillahs were instituted by the Patriarchs. R. Joshua b. Levi says: The Tefillahs were instituted8 to replace the daily sacrifices. It has been taught in accordance with R. Jose b. Hanina, and it has been taught in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi. It has been taught in accordance with R. Jose b. Hanina: Abraham instituted the morning Tefillah, as it says, And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood,9 and ‘standing’ means only prayer, as it says, Then stood up Phineas and prayed.10 Isaac instituted the afternoon Tefillah, as it says, And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at eventide,11 and ‘meditation’ means only prayer, as it says, A prayer of the afflicted when he fainteth and poureth out his meditation12 before the Lord.13 Jacob instituted the evening prayer, as it says, And he lighted [wa-yifga’] upon the place,14 and ‘pegi'ah’ means only prayer, as it says, Therefore pray not thou for this people neither lift up prayer nor cry for them, neither make intercession to [tifga’] Me.15 It has been taught also in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi: Why did they say that the morning Tefillah could be said till midday? Because the regular morning sacrifice could be brought up to midday. R. Judah, however, says that it may be said up to the fourth hour because the regular morning sacrifice may be brought up to the fourth hour. And why did they say that the afternoon Tefillah can be said up to the evening? Because the regular afternoon offering can be brought up to the evening. R. Judah, however, says that it can be said only up to the middle16 of the afternoon, because the evening offering could only be brought up to the middle of the afternoon. And why did they say that for the evening Tefillah there is no limit? Because the limbs17 and the fat17 which were not consumed [on the altar] by the evening could be brought for the whole of the night. And why did they say that the additional Tefillahs18 could be said during the whole of the day? Because the additional offering could be brought during the whole of the day. R. Judah, however, said that it can be said only up to the seventh hour, because the additional offering can be brought up to the seventh hour. Which is the ‘greater afternoon’? From six hours and a half onwards.19 And which is the ‘small afternoon’? From nine hours and onwards.20 The question was raised: Did R. Judah refer to the middle of the former afternoon-tide or the middle of the latter afternoon-tide?21 Come and hear: for it has been taught: R. Judah said: They referred to the middle of the latter afternoon-tide, which is eleven hours less a quarter.22 Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. Hanina?23 R. Jose b. Hanina can answer: I can still maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillahs, but the Rabbis found a basis for them in the offerings. For if you do not assume this,24 who according to R. Jose b. Hanina instituted the additional Tefillah? He must hold therefore that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillahs and the Rabbis found a basis for them in the offerings.25
R. JUDAH SAYS: TILL THE FOURTH HOUR. It was asked: Is the point mentioned itself included in the UNTIL or is it not included?22 — Come and hear: R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON. If you say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL, then there is no difficulty; this is where the difference lies between R. Judah and the Rabbis.18 O But if you say that the point mentioned is not included,26 then R. Judah says the same thing as the
____________________
(1) V. Glosses. Vilna Gaon.
(2) V. P.B. p. 46.
(3) Because the one which is said in compensation is always said second.
(4) Lit., ‘the (divine) power (manifested) in rain’.
(5) The second benediction.
(6) The ninth benediction.
(7) The fourth benediction.
(8) By the Men of the Great Synagogue.
(9) Gen. XIX, 27.
(10) Ps. CVI, 30.
(11) Gen. XXIV, 63.
(12) E.V. ‘complaint’.
(13) Ps. CII, 1.
(14) Gen. XXVIII, 11.
(15) Jer. VII, 16.
(16) The precise time meant is discussed infra.
(17) Of the burnt-offerings. (12) Of the other offerings
(18) Said on Sabbaths, New Moons, and holy days.
(19) From 12.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. taking the day from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
(20) From 3.30 onwards.
(21) I.e., does he in his statement in the Mishnah mean midway between 12.30 and 6 or between 3.30 and 6?
(22) Viz., midway between 9 1/2 hours and 12.
(23) According to him it was the Patriarchs who instituted the prayers, and the time of the sacrifice should have no bearing on the time of the recital of the prayers.
(24) That R. Jose admits that the Rabbis based the Tefillah on the offerings.
(25) And accordingly added a musaf tefillah to those instituted by the Patriarchs, and for the same reason they made the time of the prayers to be determined by the time of the sacrifices. (9) I.e., does he mean the beginning or the end of the fourth hour? (10) Assuming that R. Judah meant the middle of the latter afternoontide, i.e., eleven hours less a quarter.
(26) So that ‘until’ means until the end of the point fixed by him.Rabbis? — You conclude then that the point mentioned is not included in the UNTIL? Look now at the next clause: THE TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRAYERS IS THE WHOLE DAY; R. JUDAH SAYS, TILL SEVEN HOURS, and it has been taught: If a man had two Tefillahs to say, one for musaf1 and one for minhah,1 he says first the minhah prayer and afterwards the musaf one, because the former is daily and the latter is not daily. R. Judah. however, says: He says the musaf one and afterwards the minhah one, because the [time for] the former [soon] lapses, while the [time for] the latter does not [so soon] lapse.2 Now if you say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL there is no difficulty: on this supposition you can find a time which is appropriate to both of the Tefillahs.3 But if you say that the point mentioned is not included in the UNTIL where can you find a time which is appropriate to both the Tefillahs?4 As soon as the time for minhah has arrived, the time for musaf has passed! — What then? You say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL? Then there is the [afore-mentioned] difficulty of the first clause — what difference is there between R. Judah and the Rabbis? — Do you think that this MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON mentioned by R. Judah means the second half? It means the first half, and what he meant is this: When does the first half [of the second part of the afternoon] end and the second half begin? At the end of eleven hours less a quarter.
R. Nahman said: We also have learnt: R. Judah b. Baba testified five things — that they instruct a girl-minor to refuse,5 that a woman may remarry on the evidence of one witness [that her husband is dead],6 that a cock was stoned in Jerusalem because it killed a human being,7 that wine forty days old was poured as a drink-offering on the altar,8 and that the morning daily offering was brought at four hours.9 This proves, does it not, that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL? It does. R. Kahana said: The halachah follows R. Jose because we have learnt in the Select Tractate10 as taught by him.
‘And concerning the regular daily offering that it was brought at four hours’. Who is the authority for what we have learnt: And as the sun waxed hot it melted:11 this was at four hours. You say at four hours; or is it not so, but at six hours? When it says ‘in the heat of the day’,12 here we have the expression for six hours. What then am I to make of ‘as the sun waxed hot it melted’? At four hours. Whose opinion does this represent? Apparently neither R. Judah's nor the Rabbis’. For if we go by R. Judah, up to four hours also is still morning;13 if we go by the Rabbis, up to six hours is also still morning! — If you like I can say it represents the opinion of R. Judah. and if you like of the Rabbis. ‘If you like I can say it represents the opinion of the Rabbis’: Scripture says, morning by morning,14 thus dividing the morning into two.15 ‘If you like I can say R. Judah’: this extra ‘morning’ indicates that they began [gathering] an hour beforehand.16 At any rate all agree that ‘as the sun waxed hot it melted’ refers to four hours. How does the text imply this? R. Aha b. Jacob said: The text says, As the sun waxed hot it melted. Which is the hour when the sun is hot and the shade is cool? You must say, at four hours.
THE AFTERNOON TEFILLAH TILL EVENING. R. Hisda said to R. Isaac: In the other case [of the morning offering] R. Kahana said that the halachah follows R. Judah because we have learnt in the Select Tractate as [taught] by him. What is the decision in this case? — He was silent, and gave him no answer at all. Said R. Hisda: Let us see for ourselves. Seeing that Rab says the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath while it is still day, we conclude that the halachah follows R. Judah!17 — On the contrary, from the fact that R. Huna and the Rabbis did not pray till night time, we conclude that the halachah does no follow R. Judah! Seeing then that it has not been stated definitely that the law follows either one or the other, if one follows the one he is right and if one follows the other he is right. Rab was once at the house of Genibah and he said the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath, and R. Jeremiah b. Abba was praying behind Rab and Rab finished but did not interrupt the prayer of R. Jeremiah.18 Three things are to be learnt from this. One is that a man may say the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath. The second is that a disciple may pray behind his master. The third is that it is forbidden to pass in front of one praying. But is that so? Did not R. Ammi and R. Assi use to pass? — R. Ammi and R. Assi used to pass outside a four cubit limit. But how could R. Jeremiah act thus, seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should never pray
____________________
(1) V. Glos.
(2) Musaf can be said up to seven hours and minhah up to eleven hours less a quarter.
(3) Viz., the second half of the seventh hour.
(4) Because when R. Judah says that the time for musaf is ‘till the seventh hour’, he must exclude the whole of the seventh hour itself.
(5) If a girl-minor who has lost her father is betrothed by her mother, when she becomes mature she can refuse to continue to be bound to her husband, and on some occasions the Beth din instruct her to refuse. V. Glos. s.v. mi'un; Yeb. 109a.
(6) V. Yeb. 122a.
(7) It pierced the skull of a child.
(8) Being no longer ‘new wine’, v. ‘Ed. VI, 1.
(9) As R. Judah says; which shows that he included the ‘four hours’ in the ‘until’.
(10) Behirta (selected). Eduyyoth is so called because all its statements are accepted as halachah; v. Introduction to ‘Ed. (Sonc. ed.).
(11) Ex. XVI, 21.
(12) Gen. XVIII, 1. Here the word ‘day’ is used, implying that it was hot everywhere, and not only in the sun, v. infra.
(13) It says that the Israelites gathered the manna every morning; why then had they stopped at this hour if it was still morning?
(14) Ex. loc. cit. Lit., ‘in the morning, in the morning’.
(15) And the Israelites gathered in the first ‘morning’.
(16) Thus finishing in the third hour of the day.
(17) That after the middle of the afternoon-tide, the afternoon Tefillah can no longer be said, and evening begins.
(18) By passing in front of him to resume his seat.either next to this master1 or behind his master?2 And it has been taught: R. Eleazar says: One who prays behind his master, and one who gives [the ordinary] greeting to his master3 and one who returns a greeting to his master4 and one who joins issue with [the teaching of] the Academy of his master and one who says something which he has not heard from his master causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel? — R. Jeremiah b. Abba is different, because he was a disciple-colleague; and that is why R. Jeremiah b. Abba said to Rab: Have you laid aside,5 and he replied: Yes, I have; and he did not say to him, Has the Master laid aside. But had he laid aside? Has not R. Abin related that once Rab said the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath and he went into the bath6 and came out and taught us our section, while it was not yet dark? — Raba said: He went in merely to perspire, and it was before the prohibition had been issued.7 But still, is this the rule?8 Did not Abaye allow R. Dimi b. Levai to fumigate some baskets?9 — In that case there was a mistake.10 But can [such] a mistake be rectified? Has not Abidan said: Once [on Sabbath] the sky became overcast with clouds and the congregation thought that is was night-time and they went into the synagogue and said the prayers for the termination of Sabbath, and then the clouds scattered and the sun came out and they came and asked Rabbi, and he said to them, Since they prayed, they have prayed?11 — A congregation is different, since we avoid troubling them [as far as possible].12
R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Rab used to say the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath;13 R. Josiah said the Tefillah of the outgoing of Sabbath on Sabbath. When Rab said the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath, did he say sanctification over wine or not? — Come and hear: for R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: A man may say the Tefillah of Sabbath on the eve of Sabbath, and say sanctification over wine; and the law is as stated by him. R. Josiah used to say the end-of-Sabbath Tefillah while it was yet Sabbath. Did he say habdalah over wine or did he not say habdalah over wine? — Come and hear: for Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: A man may say the end-of-Sabbath Tefillah while it is yet Sabbath and say habdalah over wine. R. Zera said in the name of R. Assi reporting R. Eleazar who had it from R. Hanina in the name of Rab: At the side of this pillar R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath. When ‘Ulla came he reported that it was at the side of a palm tree and not at the side of a pillar, and that it was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose but R. Eleazar son of R. Jose, and that it was not the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath but the end-of-Sabbath Tefillah on Sabbath.
THE EVENING PRAYER HAS NO FIXED LIMIT. What is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? Shall I say it means that if a man wants he can say the Tefillah any time in the night? Then let it state, ‘The time for the evening Tefillah is the ‘whole night’! — But what in fact is the meaning of HAS NO FIXED LIMIT? It is equivalent to saying, The evening Tefillah is optional. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: With regard to the evening Tefillah, Rabban Gamaliel says it is compulsory, whereas R. Joshua says it is optional. Abaye says: The halachah is as stated by the one who says it is compulsory; Raba says the halachah follows the one who says it is optional.
It is related that a certain disciple came before R. Joshua and asked him, Is the evening Tefillah compulsory or optional? He replied: It is optional. He then presented himself before Rabban Gamaliel and asked him: Is the evening Tefillah compulsory or optional? He replied: It is compulsory. But, he said, did not R. Joshua tell me that it is optional? He said: Wait till the champions14 enter the Beth ha-Midrash. When the champions came in, someone rose and inquired, Is the evening Tefillah compulsory or optional? Rabban Gamaliel replied: It is compulsory. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: Is there anyone who disputes this? R. Joshua replied to him: No. He said to him: Did they not report you to me as saying that it is optional? He then went on: Joshua, stand up and let them testify against you! R. Joshua stood up and said: Were I alive and he [the witness] dead, the living could contradict the dead. But now that he is alive and I am alive, how can the living contradict the living?15 Rabban Gamaliel remained sitting and expounding and R. Joshua remained standing, until all the people there began to shout and say to Huzpith the turgeman,16 Stop! and he stopped. They then said: How long is he [Rabban Gamaliel] to go on insulting him [R. Joshua]? On New Year last year he insulted him;17 he insulted him in the matter of the firstborn in the affair of R. Zadok;18 now he insults him again! Come, let us depose him! Whom shall we appoint instead? We can hardly appoint R. Joshua, because he is one of the parties involved. We can hardly appoint R. Akiba because perhaps Rabban Gamaliel will bring a curse on him because he has no ancestral merit. Let us then appoint R. Eleazar b. Azariah, who is wise and rich and the tenth in descent from Ezra. He is wise, so that if anyone puts a question to him he will be able to answer it. He is rich, so that if occasion arises for paying court19 to Caesar he will be able to do so. He is tenth in descent from Ezra, so that he has ancestral merit and he [Rabban Gamaliel] cannot bring a curse on him. They went and said to him: Will your honour consent to become head of the Academy? He replied: I will go and consult the members of my family. He went and consulted his wife. She said to him:
____________________
(1) Because he seems to put himself on a level with him.
(2) This also is a sign of pride. Or perhaps, because he seems to be bowing down to him (Tosaf.).
(3) I.e., he says, ‘Peace upon thee’ simply instead of ‘Pace upon thee, my master’.
(4) Omitted by Alfasi and Asheri.
(5) Have you laid aside all work, since you said the Sabbath Tefillah so early? Lit., ‘have you made the distinction’ (sc. between weekdays and Sabbath)?
(6) An act forbidden on the Sabbath.
(7) Against bathing and perspiring on Sabbath, v. Shab. 40a.
(8) That work may not be done after saying the Sabbath prayer early on Sabbath eve.
(9) After saying the Sabbath prayer.
(10) It was a dark afternoon, and he said the Sabbath prayer thinking that Sabbath had already commenced.
(11) And since the prayer need not be repeated, work in the case of Sabbath eve ought to be forbidden!
(12) To repeat the Tefillah.
(13) Before evening set in.
(14) Lit., ‘masters of bucklers’, ‘shield-bearers’, i.e., great scholars. The Rabbis often applied warlike terms to halachic discussion.
(15) I.e., how can l deny that I said this?
(16) Lit., ‘interpreter’, the man who expounded the ideas of the teacher to the public. The more usual later name is Amora.
(17) By telling him to appear before him on the Day of Atonement with his staff and wallet. V. R.H. 25a.
(18) V. Bek. 36a.
(19) Lit., ‘serve’.Perhaps they will depose you later on. He replied to her: [There is a proverb:] Let a man use a cup of honour1 for one day even if it be broken the next. She said to him: You have no white hair. He was eighteen years old that day, and a miracle was wrought for him and eighteen rows of hair [on his beard] turned white. That is why R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: Behold I am about seventy years old,2 and he did not say [simply] seventy years old. A Tanna taught: On that day the doorkeeper was removed and permission was given to the disciples to enter. For Rabban Gamaliel had issued a proclamation [saying]. No disciple whose character does not correspond to his exterior3 may enter the Beth ha-Midrash. On that day many stools4 were added. R. Johanan said: There is a difference of opinion on this matter between Abba Joseph b. Dosethai and the Rabbis: one [authority] says that four hundred stools were added, and the other says seven hundred. Rabban Gamaliel became alarmed and said: Perhaps, God forbid, I withheld Torah from Israel!5 He was shown in his dream white casks full of ashes.6 This, however, really meant nothing; he was only shown this to appease him.7
A Tanna taught: Eduyyoth8 was formulated on that day — and wherever the expression ‘on that day’ is used, it refers to that day — and there was no halachah about which any doubt existed in the Beth ha-Midrash which was not fully elucidated. Rabban Gamaliel also did not absent himself from the Beth ha-Midrash a single hour, as we have learnt: On that day Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, came before them in the Beth ha-Midrash. He said to them: Am I permitted to enter the assembly?9 R. Joshua said to him: You are permitted to enter the congregation. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: Is it not already laid down, At Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord?10 R. Joshua replied to him: Do Ammon and Moab still reside in their original homes? Sennacherib king of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as one mighty their inhabitants;11 and whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to belong to the larger section of the group.12 Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: But has it not been said: But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the Lord,13 so that they have already returned? To which R. Joshua replied: And has it not been said, And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel,14 and they have not yet returned? Forthwith they permitted him to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamaliel thereupon said: This being the case,15 I will go and apologize to R. Joshua. When he reached his house he saw that the walls were black. He said to him: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a charcoal-burner.16 He replied: Alas for the generation of which you are the leader, seeing that you know nothing of the troubles of the scholars, their struggles to support and sustain themselves! He said to him: I apologize.17 forgive me. He paid no attention to him. Do it, he said, out of respect for my father. He then became reconciled to him. They said: Who will go and tell the Rabbis? A certain fuller said to them: I will go. R. Joshua sent a message to the Beth hamidrash saying: Let him who is accustomed to wear the robe wear it;18 shall he who is not accustomed to wear the robe19 say to him who is accustomed to wear it, Take off your robe and I will put it on? Said R. Akiba to the Rabbis: Lock the doors so that the servants of Rabban Gamaliel should not come and upset the Rabbis.20 Said R. Joshua: I had better get up and go to them. He came and knocked at the door. He said to them: Let the sprinkler son of a sprinkler21 sprinkle; shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is cave water22 and your ashes are oven ashes?23 Said R. Akiba to him: R. Joshua, you have received your apology, have we done anything except out of regard for your honour? Tomorrow morning you and I will wait on him.24 They said: How shall we do? Shall we depose him [R. Eleazar b. Azariah]? We have a rule that we may raise an object to a higher grade of sanctity but must not degrade it to a lower.25 If we let one Master preach on one Sabbath and one on the next, this will cause jealousy. Let therefore Rabban Gamaliel preach three Sabbaths and R. Eleazar b. Azariah one Sabbath. And it is in reference to this that a Master said: ‘Whose Sabbath was it? It was the Sabbath of R. Eleazar b. Azariah’.26 And that disciple27 was R. Simeon b. Yohai.
THE TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRAYER IS THE WHOLE DAY. R. Johanan said: And he is [nevertheless] called a transgressor.28
Our Rabbis taught: If a man had two Tefillahs to say, one for minhah and one for musaf, he says the one for minhah, and afterwards he says the one for musaf. because the one is daily29 and the other is not daily. R. Judah says: He says the musaf one first and then he says the minhah one; the former is an obligation that will soon lapse30 while the other is an obligation that will not lapse. R. Johanan said: The halachah is that he says the minhah Tefillah first and then the musaf one. When R. Zera was tired from studying, he used to go and sit by the door of the school of R. Nathan b. Tobi. He said to himself: When the Rabbis pass by, I will rise before them and earn a reward.31 R. Nathan b. Tobi came out. He said to him: Who enunciated a halachah in the Beth ha-Midrash? He replied: Thus said R. Johanan: The halachah does not follow R. Judah who said that a man first says the musaf Tefillah and then the minhah one. He said to him: Did R. Johanan say it? — He replied, Yes.32 He repeated it after him forty times. He said to him: Is this the one [and only] thing you have learnt [from him]33 or it is a new thing to you?34 He replied: It is a new thing to me, because I was not certain [whether it was not the dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one says the musaf Tefillah after seven hours, then according to R. Judah the Scripture says of him, I will gather them that are destroyed [nuge]35 because of the appointed season, who are of thee.36 How do you know that the word ‘nuge’ here implies destruction? It is as rendered by R. Joseph [in his Targum]:37 Destruction comes upon the enemies of Israel38 because they put off till late the times of the appointed seasons39 in Jerusalem.
R. Eleazar said: If one says the morning Tefillah after four hours, then according to R. Judah the Scripture says of him, ‘I will gather them that sorrow because of the appointed season, who are of thee’. How do we know that this word nuge implies sorrow? Because it is written, My soul melteth away for heaviness [tugah].40 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We learn it from here: Her virgins are afflicted [nugoth] and she herself is in bitterness.41
____________________
(1) I.e., one used on state occasions. Aliter: ‘a cup of filigree work’.
(2) V. supra p. 72 n. 7.
(3) Lit., ‘whose inside is not as his outside’; a common Talmudic expression.
(4) Or ‘benches’.
(5) By keeping out so many disciples.
(6) Signifying that those he kept out were in fact not genuine.
(7) I.e., they were in fact genuine.
(8) Lit., ‘testimonies’ not necessarily the Tractate Eduyyoth which we now have.
(9) I.e., marry a Jewess.
(10) Deut. XXIII, 4.
(11) lsa. X, 13.
(12) E.g., if there are nine shops in a street selling kasher meat and one selling trefa, and we find a piece of meat in the street, we presume that it came from one of the kasher shops, v. Keth. 15a. So here, we presume that this man came from one of the other nations.
(13) Jer. XLIX, 6.
(14) Amos IX, 24.
(15) Since he is held in such high respect.
(16) Aliter ‘smith’.
(17) Lit., ‘I am humbled to thee’.
(18) I.e.,let Rabban Gamaliel be restored to the presidency.
(19) I.e., R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
(20) The Rabbis did not want Rabban Gamaliel to be restored, being afraid of his autocratic disposition.
(21) I.e., a priest, son of a priest, sprinkle the water of purification. The reference is again to Rabban Gamaliel who had an hereditary claim to the presidency.
(22) And not living water as required, v. Num. XIX, 27.
(23) And not from the Red Heifer.
(24) I.e., on R. Eleazar b. Azariah. Lit., ‘we will rise early to his door’.
(25) V. e.g. Yoma 22b.
(26) Hag. 3a.
(27) Who asked the question about the evening Tefillah.
(28) If he delays too much.
(29) Lit., ‘continual’, ‘regular’.
(30) Its time being limited, in the view of R. Judah, until the seventh hour.
(31) In the next world.
(32) Var. lec. (v. D.S.): ‘Who enunciated a halachah etc.’? He replied, R. Johanan. He said to him, What was it. He replied, A man may say first etc.’.
(33) Sc. R. Johanan.
(34) That you set so much store by it.
(35) E.V. ‘Them that sorrow for’.
(36) Zeph. III, 28.
(37) To R. Joseph is ascribed the Targum on the prophets, v. Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 326.
(38) Euphemism.
(39) I.e., the festival prayers.
(40) Ps. CXIX, 28.
(41) Lam. I, 4.R. ‘Awia was once ill and did not go to hear the lecture of R. Joseph.1 On the next day when he came Abaye tried to appease R. Joseph. He said to him [R. ‘Awia]: Why did your honour not come to the lecture yesterday? He replied: I felt weak and was not able. He said to him: Why did you not take some food and come? He replied: Does not your honour hold with the dictum of R. Huna? For R. Huna said: It is forbidden to a man to taste anything until he has said the musaf Tefillah. He said to him: Your honour ought to have said the musaf Tefillah privately and taken something and come. He replied: Does not your honour hold with what R. Johanan has laid down, that it is forbidden for a man to say his Tefillah before the congregation says it? He said to him: Has it not been said in regard to this: This refers to when he is with the congregation? And the law is neither as stated by R. Huna nor by R. Joshua b. Levi. ‘It is not as stated by R. Huna’, namely in what we have just said.2 ‘It is not as stated by R. Joshua b. Levi’, namely, in what R. Joshua b. Levi said: When the time for the minhah Tefillah arrives it is forbidden to a man to taste anything until he has said the minhah Tefillah.
MISHNAH. R. NEHUNIA B. HA-KANEH USED TO SAY A PRAYER AS HE ENTERED THE BETH HA-MIDRASH AND AS HE LEFT IT — A SHORT PRAYER. THEY SAID TO HIM: WHAT SORT OF PRAYER IS THIS? HE REPLIED: WHEN I ENTER I PRAY THAT NO OFFENCE SHOULD OCCUR THROUGH ME,3 AND WHEN I LEAVE I EXPRESS THANKS FOR MY LOT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man4 say? ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me5 and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them’. On his leaving what does he say? ‘I give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, that Thou hast set my portion with those who sit in the Beth ha-Midrash and Thou hast not set my portion with those who sit in [street] corners,6 for I rise early and they rise early, but I rise early for words of Torah and they rise early for frivolous talk; I labour and they labour, but I labour and receive a reward and they labour and do not receive a reward; I run and they run, but I run to the life of the future world and they run to the pit of destruction.
Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer fell ill, his disciples went in to visit him. They said to him: Master, teach us the paths of life so that we may through them win the life of the future world. He said to them: Be solicitous for the honour of your colleagues, and keep your children from meditation,7 and set them between the knees of scholars, and when you pray know before whom you are standing and in this way you will win the future world.
When Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai fell ill, his disciples went in to visit him. When he saw them he began to weep. His disciples said to him: Lamp of Israel, pillar of the right hand,8 mighty hammer! Wherefore weepest thou? He replied: If I were being taken today before a human king who is here today and tomorrow in the grave, whose anger if he is angry with me does not last for ever, who if he imprisons me does not imprison me for ever and who if he puts me to death does not put me to everlasting death, and whom I can persuade with words and bribe with money, even so I would weep. Now that I am being taken before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who lives and endures for ever and ever, whose anger, if He is angry with me, is an everlasting anger, who if He imprisons me imprisons me for ever, who if He puts me to death puts me to death for ever, and whom I cannot persuade with words or bribe with money — nay more, when there are two ways before me, one leading to Paradise and the other to Gehinnom, and I do not know by which I shall be taken, shall I not weep? They said to him: Master, bless us. He said to them,: May it be [God's] will that the fear of heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His disciples said to him: Is that all?9 He said to them: If only [you can attain this]! You can see [how important this is], for when a man wants to commit a transgression, he says, I hope no man will see me.10 At the moment of his departure he said to them: Remove the vessels so that they shall not become unclean, and prepare a throne for Hezekiah the king of Judah who is coming.11
MISHNAH. RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: EVERY DAY A MAN SHOULD SAY THE EIGHTEEN BENEDICTIONS. R. JOSHUA SAYS: AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN.12 R. AKIBA SAYS: IF HE KNOWS IT FLUENTLY HE SAYS THE ORIGINAL EIGHTEEN, AND IF NOT AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN. R. ELIEZER SAYS: IF A MAN MAKES HIS PRAYERS A FIXED TASK, IT IS NOT A [GENUINE] SUPPLICATION. R. JOSHUA SAYS: IF ONE IS TRAVELLING IN A DANGEROUS PLACE, HE SAYS A SHORT PRAYER, SAYING, SAVE, O LORD, THY PEOPLE THE REMNANT OF ISRAEL; IN EVERY TIME OF CRISIS13 MAY THEIR REQUIREMENTS NOT BE LOST SIGHT OF BY THEE. BLESSED ART THOU, O LORD, WHO HEARKENEST TO PRAYER. IF HE IS RIDING ON AN ASS HE DISMOUNTS AND PRAYS. IF HE IS UNABLE TO DISMOUNT HE SHOULD TURN HIS FACE [TOWARDS JERUSALEM]; AND IF HE CANNOT TURN HIS FACE HE SHOULD CONCENTRATE HIS THOUGHTS ON THE HOLY OF HOLIES. IF HE IS TRAVELLING IN A SHIP OR ON A RAFT,14 HE SHOULD CONCENTRATE HIS THOUGHTS ON THE HOLY OF HOLIES.
GEMARA. To what do these eighteen benedictions correspond? R. Hillel the son of Samuel b. Nahmani said: To the eighteen times that David mentioned the Divine Name in the Psalm, Ascribe unto the Lord, O ye sons of might.15 R. Joseph said: To the eighteen times the Divine Name is mentioned in the Shema’. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: To the eighteen vertebrae in the spinal column.
R. Tanhum also said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: In saying the Tefillah one should bow down [at the appropriate places] until all the vertebrae in the spinal column are loosened. ‘Ulla says: Until an issar16 of flesh is visible opposite his heart.17 R. Hanina said: If he simply bows his head, he need do no more. Said Raba: This is only if it hurts him [to stoop] and he shows that he would like to bow down.
These eighteen are really nineteen? — R. Levi said: The benediction relating to the Minim18 was instituted in Jabneh.19 To what was it meant to correspond? — R. Levi said: On the view of R. Hillel the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani,20 to The God of Glory thundereth;21 on the view of R. Joseph, to the word ‘One’22 in the Shema’; on the view of R. Tanhum quoting R. Joshua b. Levi, to the little vertebrae in the spinal column.
Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli23 arranged the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages:24 Can any one among you frame a benediction relating to the Minim?25 Samuel the Lesser arose and composed it. The next year26 he forgot it
____________________
(1) R. Joseph was the head of the school at Pumbeditha and he used to lecture every Sabbath morning before the musaf prayer.
(2) That he must not eat anything before saying musaf.
(3) E.g., by giving a wrong decision.
(4) Lit., ‘he say’; referring perhaps to R. Nehunia.
(5) Rashi translates: so that my colleagues may rejoice over me, i.e., over my discomfiture, and so bring sin upon themselves; and similarly in the next clause.
(6) Rashi explains this to mean shopkeepers or ignorant people. For an alternative rendering v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 6, n. 4.
(7) Rashi explains this to mean too much reading of Scripture, or alternatively, childish talk. Others explain it as philosophic speculation.
(8) The reference is to the two pillars in the Temple. V. I Kings VII, 21.
(9) Should not the fear of God be more than that?
(10) And therefore if the fear of God is no more than this, it will keep him from many sins.
(11) Sc. to accompany me into the next world. Perhaps because he, like Hezekiah, had acted mightily for the spread of Torah; v. Sanh. 94b.
(12) Lit., ‘like the eighteen’. V. infra in the Gemara.
(13) Lit., ‘section of the crossing’, i.e., transition from one condition to another.
(14) Aliter: in prison.
(15) Ps. XXIX.
(16) A coin, v. Glos.
(17) I.e., till the flesh bulges.
(18) V. Glos. The reading ‘Sadducees’ in our edd. is a censor's correction.
(19) After the rest.
(20) This is a marginal correction of the reading in the text, R. Levi son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: R. Hillel etc.
(21) Ps. XXIX, 3. The Hebrew for God here is El.
(22) Which is also considered a Divine Name.
(23) Possibly this word means ‘cotton seller’. On this passage. cf. Meg. 17.
(24) On a subsequent occasion.
(25) V. n. 3.
(26) Apparently this benediction was at that time not recited daily as now, but on special annual occasions.and he tried for two or three hours to recall it, and they did not remove him.1 Why did they not remove him seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: If a reader made a mistake in any of the other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if in the benediction of the Minim, he is removed, because we suspect him of being a Min? — Samuel the Lesser is different, because he composed it. But is there not a fear that he may have recanted? — Abaye said: We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad. But does he not? It is not written, But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity?2 — Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally righteous does not do so. But is that so? Have we not learnt: Believe not in thyself until the day of thy death?3 For lo, Johanan the High Priest officiated as High Priest for eighty years and in the end he became a Min? Abaye said: Johanan4 is the same as Jannai.5 Raba said: Johanan and Jannai are different; Jannai was originally wicked and Johanan was originally righteous. On Abaye's view there is no difficulty, but on Raba's view there is a difficulty? — Raba can reply: For one who was originally righteous it is also possible to become a renegade. If that is the case, why did they not remove him? — Samuel the Lesser is different, because he had already commenced to say it [the benediction]. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab — or as some say. R. Joshua b. Levi: This applies only if he has not commenced to say it, but if he has commenced, he is allowed to finish.
To what do the seven blessings said on Sabbath6 correspond? — R. Halefta b. Saul said: To the seven voices mentioned by David [commencing with] ‘on the waters’.7 To what do the nine said on New Year [Musaf Tefillah] correspond?8 Isaac from Kartignin9 said: To the nine times that Hannah mentioned the Divine Name in her prayer.10 For a Master has said: On New Year Sarah, Rachel and Hannah were visited.11 To what do the twenty-four said on a last day correspond?12 R. Helbo said: To the twenty-four times that Solomon used the expression ‘prayer’ etc. on the occasion when he brought the ark into the Holy of Holies.13 If that is so, then let us say them every day? — When did Solomon say them? On a day of supplication;14 We also say them on a day of supplication. R. JOSHUA SAYS: AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN. What is meant by ‘AN ABBREVIATED EIGHTEEN’? Rab said: An abbreviated form of each blessing; Samuel said: Give us discernment, O Lord, to know Thy ways, and circumcise our heart to fear Thee, and forgive us so that we may be redeemed, and keep us far from our sufferings, and fatten us in the pastures of Thy land, and gather our dispersions from the four corners of the earth, and let them who err from Thy prescriptions be punished,15 and lift up Thy hand against the wicked, and let the righteous rejoice in the building of Thy city and the establishment of the temple and in the exalting of the horn of David Thy servant and the preparation of a light for the son of Jesse Thy Messiah; before we call mayest Thou answer; blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest to prayer.16 Abaye cursed anyone who prayed ‘Give us discernment’.17 R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: A man may say ‘Give us discernment’ any time of the year except on the outgoing of Sabbath and of festivals, because he has to say habdalah in ‘that graciously giveth knowledge’. Rabbah b. Samuel demurred to this. Let him, [he said] make a fourth blessing18 of it by itself. Have we not learnt: R. Akiba says: He says it as a fourth blessing by itself; R. Eleazar says: He says it in the thanksgiving?19 — Do we follow R. Akiba all the year that we should follow him now? Why do we not follow R. Akiba the rest of the year? Because eighteen blessings were instituted, not nineteen. Here too, seven were instituted,20 not eight. Mar Zutra demurred to this. Let him [he said] include it21 in ‘Give us discernment’ [by saying]. O lord, our God, who distinguisheth between holy and profane. — This is indeed a difficulty.
R. Bibi b. Abaye said: A man may say ‘Give us discernment’ any time in the year except in the rainy season, because he requires to make a request in the benediction of the years.22 Mar Zutra demurred to this. Let him include it [by saying], And fatten us in the pastures of Thy land and give dew and rain? — He might become confused. If so, by saying habdalah23 in ‘that grantest discernment’ he might equally become confused? They replied: In that case, since it comes near the beginning of the Tefillah he will not become confused, here, as it comes in the middle of the Tefillah he will become confused. R. Ashi demurred to this. Let him say it in ‘that hearkenest to prayer’?24 For R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Assi: If a man made a mistake and did not mention the miracle of rain25 in the benediction of he resurrection of the dead, we turn him back;26 [if he forgot] the request for rain in the benediction of the years,27 we do not turn him back, because he can say it in ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’, and [if he forgot] habdalah in ‘that grantest knowledge’ we do not turn him back, because he can say it later over wine?28 — A mistake is different.29
The text above [said]: R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Assi: If one made a mistake and did not mention the miracle of rain in the benediction of the resurrection, he is turned back; [if he forgot] the request in the benediction of the years he is not turned back, because he can say it in ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’; [if he forgot] habdalah in ‘that grantest knowledge’ he is not turned back, because he can say it later over wine. An objection was raised: If one made a mistake and did not mention the miracle of rain in the benediction of the resurrection, he is turned back; [if he forgot] the request in the benediction of the years, he is turned back; [if he forgot] habdalah in ‘that grantest knowledge’ he is not turned back because he can say it later over wine! — There is no contradiction; the one case where he is turned back refers to where he is saying it by himself, the other, with the congregation. What is the reason why he is not turned back when he says it with the congregation? Because he hears it from the Reader,30 is it not? If so then instead of ‘because he can say it in "who hearkenest unto prayer"’, we should have ‘because he hears it from the Reader’? — In fact in both cases he is saying it by himself, and still there is no contradiction; the one case refers to where he remembers before he comes to ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’
____________________
(1) From his post as reader.
(2) Ezek. XVIII, 24.
(3) Ab. II, 4.
(4) The Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus, is meant.
(5) Alexander Jannaeus who was always hostile to the Pharisees, and who massacred Pharisaic Sages. Cf. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 332. n. 22.
(6) In the Tefillah, instead of the eighteen on week-days. V. P.B. 136-142.
(7) Ps. XXIX, 3.
(8) V. P.B p. 239-242.
(9) Carthage or Carthagena in Spain.
(10) I Sam. II, 1-10.
(11) V. R.H. 11a.
(12) Ta'an. II, 3, where six additional blessings to be said on fast days are mentioned.
(13) I Kings VIII, 23-53.
(14) Because the gates would not open. V. M.K. 9a.
(15) Rashi, following Halakoth Gedoloth emends, Let those who err in judgment, judge according to Thy word.
(16) Thus Samuel included the contents of the twelve middle benedictions in one. (V. P.B. p. 55.) The first and last three must in every case be said in full.
(17) Instead of the eighteen benedictions in full.
(18) After the first three.
(19) Infra 33a.
(20) I.e., the first and last three and ‘Give us discernment’.
(21) The reference to habdalah.
(22) The twelfth.
(23) In the Tefillah on the termination of the Sabbath.
(24) Which is at the conclusion of the prayer.
(25) Lit., ‘the (divine) might (manifested) in the rain’.
(26) Because this, not being a prayer, cannot be said in ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’.
(27) V. P.B. p. 47.
(28) V. ibid. p. 216.
(29) From something which can confuse the person praying.
(30) When he repeats the ‘Amidah. V. Glos., the other case where he only remembers after ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Assi quoting R. Joshua b. Levi: If one made a mistake and did not mention the New Moon in the ‘Abodah1 benediction, he goes back to the ‘Abodah. If he remembered in the ‘thanksgiving’,2 he goes back to the ‘Abodah; if he remembers in ‘grant peace’,3 he goes back to the ‘Abodah. If he has finished, he goes back to the beginning. R. Papa son of R. Aha b. Ada said: In saying that if he has finished he goes back to the beginning, we mean only, if he has moved his feet; but if he has not yet moved his feet4 he goes back to the ‘Abodah. He said to him: From where have you that? — He replied: I have heard it from Abba,5 and Abba Meri had it from Rab. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: When we say that if he has moved his feet he goes back to the beginning, we mean this to apply only to one who is not accustomed to say a supplication after his Tefillah,6 but if he is accustomed to say a supplication after his Tefillah, he goes back to the ‘Abodah. Some report: R. Nahman b. Isaac said: When we say that if he has not moved his feet he goes back to the ‘Abodah, we mean this to apply only to one who is accustomed to say a supplication after his Tefillah, but if he is not accustomed to say a supplication after his Tefillah, he goes back to the beginning.
R. ELIEZER SAYS: HE WHO MAKES HIS PRAYER A FIXED TASK etc. What is meant by a FIXED TASK? — R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Oshaiah: Anyone whose prayer is like a heavy burden on him. The Rabbis say: Whoever does not say it in the manner of supplication.7 Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: Whoever is not able to insert something fresh in it.8 R. Zera said: I can insert something fresh, but I am afraid to do so for fear I should become confused.9 Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin both said: Whoever does not pray at the first and last appearance of the sun.10 For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: It is a religious duty to pray with the first and last appearance of the sun. R. Zera further said: What text confirms this? — They shall fear Thee with the sun, and before the moon throughout all generations.11 In the West they curse anyone who prays [minhah] with the last appearance of the sun. Why so? — Perhaps he will miss the time.12
R. JOSHUA SAYS: HE WHO IS WALKING IN A DANGEROUS PLACE SAYS A SHORT PRAYER. . . IN EVERY TIME OF CRISIS. What is ‘TIME OF CRISIS’ [‘ibbur]? R. Hisda said in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: Even at the time when Thou art filled with wrath [‘ebrah] against them like a pregnant woman, may all their need not be overlooked by Thee.13 Some there are who say that R. Hisda said in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: Even at the time when they transgress [‘oberim] the words of the Torah may all their requirements not be overlooked by Thee.
Our Rabbis taught: One who passes through a place infested with beasts or bands of robbers says a short Tefillah. What is a short Tefillah? — R. Eliezer says: Do Thy will in heaven above,14 and grant relief15 to them that fear Thee below and do that which is good in Thine eyes.16 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearest prayer. R. Joshua says: Hear the supplication of Thy people Israel and speedily fulfil their request. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearest prayer. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok says: Hear the cry of thy people Israel and speedily fulfil their request. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer. Others say: The needs of Thy people Israel are many and their wit is small.17 May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to give to each one his sustenance and to each body what it lacks. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer. R. Huna said: The halachah follows the ‘Others’.
Said Elijah to Rab Judah the brother of R. Sala the Pious: Fall not into a passion and thou wilt not sin, drink not to excess and thou wilt not sin; and when thou goest forth on a journey, seek counsel of thy Maker and go forth. What is meant by ‘seek counsel of thy Maker and go forth’? — R. Jacob said in the name of R. Hisda: This refers to the prayer before setting forth on a journey. R. Jacob also said in the name of R. Hisda: Whoever sets forth on a journey should say the prayer for a journey. What is it? — ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, to lead me forth in peace, and direct my steps in peace and uphold me in peace, and deliver me from the hand of every enemy and ambush by the way, and send a blessing on the works of my hands, and cause me to find grace, kindness, and mercy in Thy eyes and in the eyes of all who see me. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer’.18 Abaye said: A man should always
____________________
(1) Lit., ‘Service’: the name of the sixteenth benediction.
(2) The last benediction but one.
(3) The last benediction.
(4) On concluding the Tefillah, one steps back three paces.
(5) Or, my father, my teacher.
(6) E.g., My God, keep my tongue from guile etc. V. P.B. p. 54. Cf. also supra 16b, 17a.
(7) I.e., as if he were really asking for a favour.
(8) So as to vary it in case of need.
(9) And not know where I broke off
(10) I.e., the morning Tefillah in the former case and the afternoon one in the latter. Lit., (a) ‘the reddening of the sun’, (b) ‘the stillness of the sun’ i.e., the time in the morning and evening when the sun appears to stand still, v. Jast.
(11) Ps, LXXII, 5. E.V.’They shall fear Thee while the sun endureth, and so long as the moon’.
(12) Through delaying so long.
(13) There is a play here on the words ‘ibbur (passage transition), ‘ebrah (wrath) and ‘ubereth (pregnant) Which are all from the same root, though with different meanings.
(14) Among the angels who never merit punishment.
(15) Lit., ‘ease of spirit’, i.e., a clear mind without fear of danger.
(16) Cf. Judg. X,. 15.
(17) I.e., they do not know how to ask for their needs.
(18) V. P. B. p. 310.associate himself with the congregation. How should he say? ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to lead us forth in peace etc’. When should he say this prayer? — R. Jacob said in the name of R. Hisda: At the moment he starts on his journey. How long [is it still permissible to say it]?1 — R. Jacob said in the name of R. Hisda: Until [he has gone]2 a parasang. How is he to say it? R. Hisda said: Standing still; R. Shesheth said: [He may] also [say it] while proceeding. Once R. Hisda and R. Shesheth were going along together, and R. Hisda stood still and prayed. R. Shesheth asked his attendant, What is R. Hisda doing?3 — He replied: He is standing and praying. He thereupon said to him: Place me in position also that I may pray; if thou canst be good, do not be called bad.4
What is the difference between ‘Grant us discernment’ and the SHORT PRAYER? — ‘Grant us discernment’ requires to be accompanied by the first and last three blessings [of the ‘Amidah], and when he returns home he need not say the Tefillah again. The ‘short prayer does not require to be accompanied either by the first or the last three blessings, and when one returns home he must say the Tefillah. The law is that ‘Grant us discernment’ must be said standing, a ‘short prayer’ may be said either standing or journeying.
IF ONE WAS RIDING ON AN ASS etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one was riding on an ass and the time arrived for saying Tefillah, if he has someone to hold his ass, he dismounts and prays, if not, he sits where he is and prays. Rabbi says: In either case he may sit where he is and pray, because [otherwise] he will be worrying.5 Rab — or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi — said: The halachah follows Rabbi.
Our Rabbis taught: A blind man or one who cannot tell the cardinal points should direct his heart towards his Father in Heaven, as it says, And they pray unto the Lord.6 If one is standing outside Palestine, he should turn mentally towards Eretz Israel, as it says, And pray unto Thee towards their land.7 If he stands in Eretz Israel he should turn mentally towards Jerusalem, as it says, And they pray unto the Lord toward the city which Thou hast chosen.8 If he is standing in Jerusalem he should turn mentally towards the Sanctuary, as it says, If they pray toward this house.9 If he is standing in the Sanctuary, he should turn mentally towards the Holy of Holies, as it says, If they pray toward this place.10 If he was standing in the Holy of Holies he should turn mentally towards the mercy-seat.11 If he was standing behind the mercy-seat12 he should imagine himself to be in front of the mercy-seat. Consequently, if he is in the east he should turn his face to the west; if in the west he should turn his face to the east; if in the south he should turn his face to the north; if in the north he should turn his face to the south. In this way all Israel will be turning their hearts towards one place. R. Abin — or as some say R. Abina — said: What text confirms this? — Thy neck is like the tower of David builded with turrets [talpioth],13 the elevation [tel]14 towards which all mouths (piyyoth) turn.15
When Samuel's father and Levi were about to set out on a journey, they said the Tefillah before [dawn],16 and when the time came to recite the Shema’, they said it. Whose authority did they follow? — That of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: If a man got up early to go on a journey, they bring him [before dawn] a shofar and he blows,17 a lulab18 and he shakes it,19 a megillah18 and he reads it,20 and when the time arrives for reciting the Shema’, he recites it. If he rose early in order to take his place in a coach or in a ship,21 he says the Tefillah,22 and when the time arrives for reciting he Shema’, he recites it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: In either case he recites the Shema’ and then says the Tefillah, in order that he may say the ge'ullah next to the Tefillah. What is the ground of the difference between the two authorities? — One held that it is more important to say the Tefillah standing,23 the other that it is more important to say ge'ullah next to Tefillah. Meremar and Mar Zutra used to collect ten persons on the Sabbath before a festival24 and say the Tefillah, and then they went out and delivered their lectures.25 R. Ashi used to say the Tefillah while still with the congregation sitting.26 and when he returned home he used to say it again standing. The Rabbis said to him: Why does not the Master do as Meremar and Mar Zutra did? — He replied: That27 is a troublesome business. Then let the Master do like the father of Samuel and Levi? — He replied: I have not seen any of the Rabbis who were my seniors doing thus.28
MISHNAH. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAYS: THE MUSAF PRAYERS ARE TO BE SAID ONLY WITH THE LOCAL CONGREGATION;29 THE RABBIS, HOWEVER, SAY: WHETHER WITH OR WITH OUT THE CONGREGATION. R. JUDAH SAID IN HIS NAME:30 WHEREVER THERE IS A CONGREGATION, AN INDIVIDUAL IS EXEMPT FROM SAYING THE MUSAF PRAYER.31
GEMARA. R. Judah says the same thing as the first Tanna? — They differ on the case of an individual living in a place where there is no congregation; the first Tanna holds that he is exempt, while R. Judah holds that he is not exempt. R. Huna b. Hinena said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Rab: The halachah follows R. Judah, citing R. Eleazar b. Azariah. Said R. Hiyya b. Abin to him: You are quite right; for Samuel said: All my life I have never said the musaf prayer alone
____________________
(1) Another rendering is: How long must the journey be before this prayer is required to be said.
(2) Or, (v. previous note) up to the distance of a parasang.
(3) R. Shesheth was blind.
(4) I.e., although I may pray walking, to pray standing is still better.
(5) At the delay of his journey.
(6) I Kings VIII, 44.
(7) Ibid. 48.
(8) Ibid. 44.
(9) II Chron. VI, 26.
(10) I Kings VIII, 35’
(11) V. Ex. XXV, 17.
(12) In the western part of the Forecourt of the Temple.
(13) Cant. IV, 4.
(14) Taken as an expression for the Temple.
(15) Var. lec. omit ‘mouths’ and read: towards which all turn (ponim).
(16) So Rashi. Tosaf., however, says, before sunrise.
(17) On New Year.
(18) V. Glos.
(19) On Tabernacles.
(20) On Purim.
(21) Where he cannot stand.
(22) Before leaving.
(23) Which is not possible when journeying, hence the Tefillah is said at home before setting out.
(24) When they preached in public, before daybreak.
(25) Apparently the public who had gathered in the schoolhouse from early dawn said the Shema’ before he came, and after the lecture they would not wait to say the Tefillah together, each saying it by himself
(26) In the course of his lecture, when the turgeman (v. Glos.) was explaining his remarks to the public. He did not stand, as the congregation would have felt it their duty to rise with him.
(27) To collect ten persons.
(28) Saying Tefillah before dawn before the Shema’.
(29) I.e., in a place where at least ten Jews are living. On the term חבר עיר, a town organization, v. Meg. Sonc. ed., p. 164, n. 1.
(30) The name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
(31) If he says prayers alone.in Nehardea except on that day when the king's forces came to the town and they disturbed the Rabbis and they did not say the Tefillah, and I prayed by myself, being an individual where there was no congregation. R. Hanina the Bible teacher1 sat before R. Jannai and said: The halachah is as stated by R. Judah in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. He said to him: Go and give your bible-reading outside; the halachah is not as stated by R. Judah citing R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Johanan said: I have seen R. Jannai pray [privately]. and then pray again.2 R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: Perhaps the first time he was not attending to what he said, and the second time he did attend? — He said to him: See what a great man it is who testifies concerning him.3
Although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, R. Ammi and R. Assi prayed only between the pillars, the place where they studied.4
It has been stated: R. Isaac b. Abdimi said in the name of our Master:5 The halachah is as stated by R. Judah in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Hiyya b. Abba prayed once and then prayed again. Said R. Zera to him: Why does the Master act thus? Shall I say it is because the Master was not attending? Has not R. Eleazar said: A man should always take stock of himself: if he can concentrate his attention he should say the Tefillah, but if not he should not say it? Or is it that the Master did not remember that it is New Moon?6 But has it not been taught: If a man forgot and did not mention the New Moon in the evening Tefillah, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it in the morning prayer; if he forgot in the morning prayer, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it in the musaf if he forgot in musaf, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it in minhah? — He said to him: Has not a gloss been added to this: R. Johanan says: This applies only to prayer said in a congregation?7
What interval should be left between one Tefillah and another?8 — R. Huna and R. Hisda gave different answers: one said, long enough for him to fall into a suppliant frame of mind; the other said, long enough to fall into an interceding frame of mind.9 The one who says a suppliant frame of mind quotes the text, And I supplicated [wa-ethhanan] the Lord;10 the one who says an interceding frame of mind quotes the text, And Moses interceded [wa-yehal].11
R. ‘Anan said in the name of Rab: If one forgot and made no mention of New Moon in the evening prayer, he is not made to repeat, because the Beth din sanctify the New Moon only by day. Amemar said: This rule of Rab seems right in a full month,12 but in a defective month he is made to repeat. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Let us see: Rab gave a reason, so what does it matter whether it is full or defective? In fact there is no difference.
MISHNAH. ONE SHOULD NOT STAND UP TO SAY TEFILLAH SAVE IN A REVERENT FRAME OF MIND.13 THE PIOUS MEN OF OLD14 USED TO WAIT AN HOUR BEFORE PRAYING IN ORDER THAT THEY MIGHT CONCENTRATE THEIR THOUGHTS UPON THEIR FATHER IN HEAVEN. EVEN IF A KING GREETS HIM [WHILE PRAYING] HE SHOULD NOT ANSWER HIM: EVEN IF A SNAKE IS WOUND ROUND HIS HEEL HE SHOULD NOT BREAK OFF.
GEMARA. What is the [Scriptural] source of this rule? — R. Eleazar said: Scripture says, And she was in bitterness of soul.15 But how can you learn from this? Perhaps Hannah was different because she was exceptionally bitter at heart! Rather, said R. Jose son of R. Hanina: We learn it from here: But as for me, in the abundance of Thy lovingkindness will I come into Thy house, I will bow down toward Thy holy temple in the fear of Thee.16 But how can we learn from this? perhaps David was different, because he was exceptionally self-tormenting in prayer! Rather, said R. Joshua b. Levi, it is from here: Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.17 Read not hadrath [beauty] but herdath [trembling]. But how can you learn from here? perhaps I can after all say that the word ‘hadrath’ is to be taken literally, after the manner of Rab Judah, who used to dress himself up before he prayed! Rather, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: We learn it from here: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling.18 What is meant by ‘rejoice with trembling’? — R. Adda b. Mattena said in the name of Rab: In the place where there is rejoicing there should also be trembling. Abaye was sitting before Rabbah, who observed that he seemed very merry. He said: It is written, And rejoice with trembling? — He replied: I am putting on tefillin.19 R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera who saw that he seemed very merry. He said to him: It is written, In all sorrow there is profit?20 — He replied: I am wearing tefillin. Mar the son of Rabina made a marriage feast for his son. He saw that the Rabbis were growing very merry
____________________
(1) Heb. kara, a professional reciter of the Hebrew Scriptures.
(2) I.e., apparently, first the morning prayer and then the musaf.
(3) Viz., R. Johanan, who was not likely to have made a mistake.
(4) I.e., they said even the musaf there, privately.
(5) Rab (Rashi); Hyman (Toledoth, p. 785): Rabbi.
(6) And omitted the appropriate reference to it in the first prayer.
(7) Because then he hears the Reader repeat it, and as R. Hiyya b. Abba was praying privately he rightly repeated the Tefillah.
(8) On any occasion when two are to be said.
(9) The difference between them is little more than verbal.
(10) Deut. III, 23.
(11) Ex. XXXII, 11.
(12) When the preceding month is thirty days, two new moon days are observed, viz., the concluding day of the old month and the next day which is the first of the next; in this case if he omitted the reference on one evening, he can rectify the error on the next.
(13) Lit., ‘with heaviness of head’. Cf. Latin gravitas.
(14) Perhaps identical with the wathikin. V. supra p. 49 n. 4.
(15) I Sam. I, 10.
(16) Ps. V, 8.
(17) Ibid. XXIX, 2.
(18) Ibid. II, 11.
(19) And this is a guarantee that I am not going too far.
(20) Prov. XIV, 23. E.V. ‘In all labour’., so he brought a precious cup1 worth four hundred zuz and broke it before them, and they became serious. R. Ashi made a marriage feast for his son. He saw that the Rabbis were growing very merry, so he brought a cup of white crystal and broke it before them and they became serious. The Rabbis said to R. Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding of Mar the son of Rabina: please sing us something. He said to them: Alas for us that we are to die! They said to him: What shall we respond after you? He said to them: Where is the Torah and where is the mizwah that will shield us!2
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: It is forbidden to a man to fill his mouth with laughter in this world, because it says, Then will our mouth be filled with laughter and our tongue with singing.3 When will that be? At the time when ‘they shall say among the nations, The Lord hath done great things with these’.4 It was related of Resh Lakish that he never again filled his mouth with laughter in this world after he heard this saying from R. Johanan his teacher.
Our Rabbis taught: A man should not stand up to say Tefillah either immediately after trying a case or immediately after a [discussion on a point of] halachah;5 but he may do so after a halachic decision which admits of no discussion.6 What is an example of a halachic decision which admits of no discussion? — Abaye said: Such a one as the following of R. Zera; for R. Zera said:7 The daughters of Israel have undertaken to be so strict with themselves that if they see a drop of blood no bigger than a mustard seed they wait seven [clean] days after it.8 Raba said: A man may resort to a device with his produce and bring it into the house while still in its chaff9 so that his animal may eat of it without its being liable to tithe.10 Or, if you like, I can say, such as the following of R. Huna. For R. Huna said in the name of R. Zeiri:11 If a man lets blood in a consecrated animal, no benefit may he derived from it [the blood] and such benefit constitutes a trespass. The Rabbis followed the rule laid down in the Mishnah,12 R. Ashi that of the Baraitha.13
Our Rabbis taught: One should not stand up to say Tefillah while immersed in sorrow, or idleness, or laughter, or chatter, or frivolity, or idle talk, but only while still rejoicing in the performance of some religious act.14 Similarly a man before taking leave of his fellow should not finish off with ordinary conversation, or joking, or frivolity, or idle talk, but with some matter of halachah. For so we find with the early prophets that they concluded their harangues with words of praise and comfort; and so Mari the grandson of R. Huna the son of R. Jeremiah b. Abba learnt: Before taking leave of his fellow a man should always finish with a matter of halachah, so that he should remember him thereby. So we find that R. Kahana escorted R. Shimi b. Ashi from Pun, to Be-Zinyatha15 of Babylon, and when he arrived there he said to him, Sir, do people really say that these palm trees of Babylon are from the time of Adam? — He replied: You have reminded me of the saying of R. Jose son of R. Hanina. For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: What is meant by the verse, Through a land that no man passed through and where no man dwelt?16 If no one passed, how could anyone dwell? It is to teach you that any land which Adam decreed should be inhabited is inhabited, and any land which Adam decreed should not be inhabited is not inhabited.17 R. Mordecai escorted R. Shimi b. Abba from Hagronia to Be Kafi, or, as some report, to Be Dura.18
Our Rabbis taught: When a man prays, he should direct his heart to heaven. Abba Saul says: A reminder of this is the text, Thou wilt direct their heart, Thou wilt cause Thine ear to attend.19 It has been taught: Such was the custom of R. Akiba; when he prayed with the congregation, he used to cut it short and finish20 in order not to inconvenience the congregation,21 but when he prayed by himself, a man would leave him in one corner and find him later in another, on account of his many genuflexions and prostrations.
R. Hiyya b. Abba said: A man should always pray in a house with windows, as it says, Now his windows were open.22
I might say that a man should pray the whole day? It has already been expressly stated by the hand of Daniel, And three times. etc.23 But perhaps [this practice] began only when he went into captivity? It is already said, As he did aforetime.24 I might say that a man may pray turning in any direction he wishes? Therefore the text states, Toward Jerusalem.25 I might say that he may combine all three Tefillahs in one? It has already been clearly stated by David, as is written, Evening and morning and at noonday.26 I might say that he should let his voice be heard in praying? It has already been clearly stated by Hannah, as is said, But her voice could not be heard.27 I might say that a man should first ask for his own requirements28 and then say the Tefillah?29 It has been clearly stated by Solomon, as is said, To hearken unto the cry and to the prayer:30 ‘cry’ here means Tefillah. ‘prayer’ means [private] request. A [private] request is not made after ‘True and firm’,31 but after the Tefillah, even the order of confession of the Day of Atonement32 may be said. It has also been stated: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: Although it was laid down that a man asks for his requirements in ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’, if he wants to say something after his prayer, even something like the order of confession on the Day of Atonement, he may do so.
R. Hamnuna said: How many most important laws can be learnt from these verses relating to Hannah!33 Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart: from this we learn that one who prays must direct his heart. Only her lips moved: from this we learn that he who prays must frame the words distinctly with his lips. But her voice could not be heard: from this, it is forbidden to raise one's voice in the Tefillah. Therefore Eli thought she had been drunken: from this, that a drunken person is forbidden to say the Tefillah. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken, etc.34 R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who sees in his neighbour
____________________
(1) Aliter: crystal cup.
(2) From the punishment that is to come.
(3) Ps. CXXVI, 2.
(4) Ibid. 3.
(5) Because through thinking of it he may be unable to concentrate on his prayer.
(6) Lit., ‘a decided halachah’.
(7) Nid. 66a.
(8) Though Scripture requires this only if they saw three issues.
(9) I.e., before it is winnowed.
(10) Whereas if it had been winnowed before being brought into the house, it would have been liable to tithe, v. Pes., Sonc. ed. p. 39, n. 5.
(11) Me'il. 12b.
(12) That one should rise to pray only in a reverent frame of mind.
(13) That one should pray only after dealing with an undisputed halachah.
(14) I.e he should first say something like Ps. CXLIV.
(15) Lit., ‘among the palms’. The district of the old city of Babylon which was rich in palms.
(16) Jer. II, 6.
(17) And Adam decreed that this should be inhabited, and so there have always been palm trees here. On the identification of all the places mentioned in this message v. Sotah, Sonc. ed., p. 243 notes.
(18) The text here seems to be defective, as we are not told what either of the Rabbis said.
(19) I.e., if the heart is directed to heaven, then God will attend. Ps. X, 17.
(20) Lit., ‘ascend’, ‘depart’.
(21) By detaining them; the congregation would not resume the service until R. Akiba had finished his Tefillah.
(22) Dan. VI, 11.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Ibid.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ps. LV, 18.
(27) I Sam. I, 13.
(28) In the middle benedictions of the ‘Amidah.
(29) The first three benedictions.
(30) I Kings VIII, 28.
(31) And before the first three benedictions.
(32) V. P.B. p. 258.
(33) I Sam. I, 10ff.
(34) Ibid. 14.something unseemly must reprove him. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord.1 ‘Ulla, or as some say R. Jose b. Hanina, said: She said to him: Thou art no lord in this matter, nor does the holy spirit rest on thee, that thou suspectest me of this thing. Some say, She said to him: Thou art no lord, [meaning] the Shechinah and the holy spirit is not with you in that you take the harsher and not the more lenient view of my conduct.2 Dost thou not know that I am a woman of sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink. R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who is suspected wrongfully must clear himself. Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial;3 a man who says the Tefillah when drunk is like one who serves idols. It is written here, Count not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial, and it is written elsewhere, Certain sons of Belial have gone forth from the midst of thee.4 Just as there the term is used in connection with idolatry, so here. Then Eli answered and said, Go in Peace.5 R. Eleazar said: From this we learn that one who suspects his neighbour of a fault which he has not committed must beg his pardon;6 nay more, he must bless him, as it says, And the God of Israel grant thy petition.5
And she vowed a vow and said, O Lord of Zebaoth [Hosts].7 R. Eleazar said: From the day that God created His world there was no man called the Holy One, blessed be He, Zeboath [hosts] until Hannah came and called Him Zebaoth. Said Hannah before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, of all the hosts and hosts that Thou hast created in Thy world, is it so hard in Thy eyes to give me one son? A parable: To what is this matter like? To a king who made a feast for his servants, and a poor man came and stood by the door and said to them, Give me a bite,8 and no one took any notice of him, so he forced his way into the presence of the king and said to him, Your Majesty, out of all the feast which thou hast made, is it so hard in thine eyes to give me one bite?
If Thou wilt indeed look.9 R. Eleazar said: Hannah said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, if Thou wilt look, it is well, and if Thou wilt not look, I will go and shut myself up with someone else in the knowledge of my husband Elkanah,10 and as I shall have been alone11 they will make me drink the water of the suspected wife, and Thou canst not falsify Thy law, which says, She shall be cleared and shall conceive seed.12 Now this would be effective on the view of him who says that if the woman was barren she is visited. But on the view of him who says that if she bore with pain she bears with ease, if she bore females she now bears males, if she bore swarthy children she now bears fair ones, if she bore short ones she now bears tall ones, what can be said? As it has been taught: ‘She shall be cleared ad shall conceive seed’: this teaches that if she was barren she is visited. So R. Ishmael. Said K. Akiba to him, If that is so, all barren women will go and shut themselves in with someone and she who has not misconducted herself will be visited! No, it teaches that if she formerly bore with pain she now bears with ease, if she bore short children she now bears tall ones, if she bore swarthy ones she now bears fair ones, if she was destined to bear one she will now bear two. What then is the force of ‘If Thou wilt indeed look’? — The Torah used an ordinary form of expression.
If Thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of Thy handmaid . . . . and not forget Thy handmaid, but wilt give unto Thy handmaid etc. R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: Why these three ‘handmaids’? Hannah said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, Thou hast created in woman three criteria [bidke] of death13 (some say, three armour-joints [dibke] of death),14 namely, niddah, hallah and the kindling of the light [on Sabbath].15 Have I transgressed in any of them?
But wilt give unto Thy handmaid a man-child. What is meant by ‘a man-child’? Rab said: A man among men;16 Samuel said: Seed that will anoint two men, namely, Saul and David; R. Johanan said: Seed that will be equal to two men, namely, Moses and Aaron, as it says, Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among them that call upon His name;17 the Rabbis say: Seed that will be merged among men.18 When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he explained this to mean: Neither too tall nor too short, neither too thin nor too corpulent,19 neither too pale nor too red, neither overclever20 nor stupid.
I am the woman that stood by thee here.21 R. Joshua b. Levi said: From this we learn that it is forbidden to sit within four cubits of one saying Tefillah.22 For this child I prayed.23 R. Eleazar said: Samuel was guilty of giving a decision in the presence of his teacher; for it says, And when the bullock was slain, the child was brought to Eli.24 Because the bullock was slain, did they bring the child to Eli? What it means is this. Eli said to them: Call a priest and let him come and kill [the animal]. When Samuel saw them looking for a priest to kill it, he said to them, Why do you go looking for a priest to kill it? The shechitah may be performed by a layman! They brought him to Eli, who asked him, How do you know this? He replied: Is it written, ‘The priest shall kill’? It is written, The priests shall present [the blood]:25 the office of the priest begins with the receiving of the blood, which shows that shechitah may be performed by a layman.26 He said to him: You have spoken very well, but all the same you are guilty of giving a decision in the presence of your teacher, and whoever gives a decision in the presence of his teacher is liable to the death penalty. Thereupon Hannah came and cried before him: ‘I am the woman that stood by thee here etc.’. He said to her: Let me punish him and I will pray to God and He will give thee a better one than this. She then said to him: ‘For this child I prayed’.
Now Hannah, she spoke in27 her heart.28 R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: She spoke concerning her heart. She said before Him: Sovereign of the Universe, among all the things that Thou hast created in a woman, Thou hast not created one without a purpose, eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, a mouth to speak, hands to do work, legs to walk with, breasts to give suck. These breasts that Thou hast put on my heart, are they not to give suck? Give me a son, so that I may suckle with them.
R. Eleazar also said in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: If one keeps a fast on Sabbath,29 a decree of seventy years standing against him is annulled;30 yet all the same he is punished for neglecting to make the Sabbath a delight. What is his remedy? R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Let him keep another fast to atone for this one. R. Eleazar also said: Hannah spoke insolently31 toward heaven, as it says, And Hannah prayed unto32 the Lord.33 This teaches that she spoke insolently toward heaven. R. Eleazar also said: Elijah spoke insolently toward heaven, as it says, For Thou didst turn their heart backwards.34 R. Samuel b. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Elijah right?
____________________
(1) Ibid. 15.
(2) Lit., ‘You have judged me in the scale of guilt and not of merit’.
(3) So lit. E.V. ‘wicked woman’. V. Kid. 16.
(4) Deut. XIII, 14. E.V. ‘certain base fellows’.
(5) I Sam. I, 17.
(6) Lit., ‘appease him’.
(7) Ibid. 11.
(8) Lit., ‘morsel’ (sc. of bread).
(9) Ibid.
(10) So that he will become jealous and test me.
(11) Lit., ‘as I will have been hidden’.
(12) Num. V, 28.
(13) Three things by which she is tested to see whether she deserves death.
(14) I.e., three vulnerable points. Hannah plays on the resemblance of the word amateka (thy handmaid) to mithah (death).
(15) V. Shab. 32a: For three transgressions woman die in childbirth; because they are not careful with niddah, with hallah and with the kindling of the light.
(16) I.e., conspicuous among men.
(17) Ps. XCIX, 6.
(18) I.e., average, not conspicuous.
(19) So Rashi.
(20) So as not to be talked about and so become exposed to the evil eye.
(21) I Sam. I, 26.
(22) Because the words imply that Eli also was standing.
(23) I Sam. I, 27.
(24) Ibid. 25.
(25) Lev. I, 5
(26) V. Zeb. 32a.
(27) Lit., ‘upon’.
(28) I Sam. I, 13.
(29) E.g., to avert the omen of a dream.
(30) I.e., even though it is high time that it was carried out (Rashi).
(31) Lit., ‘she hurled words’.
(32) The Hebrew word is ‘al, lit., ‘upon’, ‘against’.
(33) I Sam. I, 10.
(34) I Kings XVIII, 37. As much as to say, it was God's fault that they worshipped idols.Because it says, And whom I have wronged.1
R. Hama said in the name of R. Hanina: But for these three texts,2 the feet of Israel's enemies3 would have slipped. One is Whom I have wronged; a second, Behold as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in My hand, O house of Israel;4 the third, And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.5 R. papa said: We learn it from here: And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes.6
R. Eleazar also said: Moses spoke insolently towards heaven, as it says, And Moses prayed unto the Lord.7 Read not el [unto] the Lord, but ‘al [upon] the Lord, for so in the school of R. Eliezer alefs were pronounced like ‘ayins and ‘ayins like alefs. The school of R. Jannai learnt it from here: And Di-Zahab.8 What is ‘ And Di-Zahab’? They said in the school of R. Jannai: Thus spoke Moses before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, the silver and gold [zahab] which Thou didst shower on Israel until they said, Enough [dai], that it was which led to their making the Calf. They said in the school of R. Jannai: A lion does not roar over a basket of straw but over a basket of flesh. R. Oshaia said: It is like the case of a man who had a lean but large-limbed cow. He gave it lupines to eat and it commenced to kick him. He said to it: What led you to kick me except the lupines that I fed you with? R. Hiyya b. Abba said: It is like the case of a man who had a son; he bathed him and anointed him and gave him plenty to eat and drink and hung a purse round his neck and set him down at the door of a bawdy house. How could the boy help sinning? R. Aha the son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Shesheth: This bears out the popular saying: A full stomach is a bad sort, as It says, When they were fed they became full, they were filled and their heart was exalted; therefore they have forgotten Me.9 R. Nahman learnt it from here: Then thy heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord.10 The Rabbis from here: And they shall have eaten their fill and waxen fat, and turned unto other gods.11 Or, if you prefer, I can say from here. But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.12 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan. Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, in the end gave Moses right? Because it says, And multiplied unto her silver and gold, which they used for Baal.13
And the Lord spoke unto Moses, Go, get thee down.14 What is meant by ‘Go, get thee down’? R. Eleazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, descend from thy greatness. Have I at all given to thee greatness save for the sake of Israel? And now Israel have sinned; then why do I want thee? Straightway Moses became powerless and he had no strength to speak. When, however, [God] said, Let Me alone that I may destroy them,15 Moses said to himself: This depends upon me, and straightway he stood up and prayed vigorously and begged for mercy. It was like the case of a king who became angry with his son and began beating him severely. His friend was sitting before him but was afraid to say a word until the king said, Were it not for my friend here who is sitting before me I would kill you. He said to himself, This depends on me, and immediately he stood up and rescued him.
Now therefore let Me alone that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.16 R. Abbahu said: Were it not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say such a thing: this teaches that Moses took hold of the Holy One, blessed be He, like a man who seizes his fellow by his garment and said before Him: Sovereign of the Universe, I will not let Thee go until Thou forgivest and pardonest them.
And I will make of thee a great nation etc. R. Eleazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, seeing that a stool with three legs17 cannot stand before Thee in the hour of Thy wrath, how much less a stool with one leg! And moreover, I am ashamed before my ancestors, who will now say: See what a leader he has set over them! He sought greatness for himself, but he did not seek mercy for them!
And Moses besought [wa-yehal] the Lord his God.18 R. Eleazar said: This teaches that Moses stood in prayer before the Holy One, blessed be He, Until he [so to speak] wearied Him [hehelahu]. Raba said: Until he remitted His vow for Him. It is written here wa-yehal, and it is written there [in connection with vows], he shall not break [yahel] his word;19 and a Master has said: He [himself] cannot break, but others may break for him.20 Samuel says: It teaches that he risked his life for them,21 as it says, And if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.22 Raba said in the name of R. Isaac: It teaches that he caused the Attribute of Mercy to rest [hehelah] on them. The Rabbis say: It teaches that Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, it is a profanation [hullin] for Thee to do this thing.
And Moses besought the Lord. It has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great says: This teaches that Moses stood praying before the Holy One, blessed be He, until an ahilu seized him. What is ahilu? R. Eleazar says: A fire in the bones. What is a fire in the bones? Abaye said: A kind of fever.
Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself.23 What is the force of ‘by Thyself’? R. Eleazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, hadst Thou sworn to them by the heaven and the earth, I would have said, Just as the heaven and earth can pass away, so can Thy oath pass away. Now, however, Thou hast sworn to them by Thy great name: just as Thy great name endures for ever and ever, so Thy oath is established for ever and ever.
And saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven and all this land that I have spoken of etc.24 ‘That I have spoken of’? It should be, ‘That Thou hast spoken of’!25 — R. Eleazar said: Up to this point the text records the words of the disciple,26 from this point the words of the master.27 R. Samuel b. Nahmani, however, said: Both are the words of the disciple, only Moses spoke thus before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, the things which Thou didst tell me to go and tell Israel in Thy name I did go and tell them in Thy name; now what am I to say to them?
Because the Lord was not able [yekoleth].28 It should be yakol!29 R. Eleazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, now the nations of the world will say, He has grown feeble like a female and He is not able to deliver. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: Have they not already seen the wonders and miracles I performed for them by the Red Sea? He replied: Sovereign of the Universe, they can still say, He could stand up against one king, He cannot stand up against thirty. R. Johanan said: How do we know that in the end the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Moses right? Because it says, And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word.30 It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: According to thy word: the nations of the world will one day say, Happy is the disciple to whom the master gives right!
But in very deed, as I live.31 Raba said in the name of R. Isaac: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, you have revived Me32 with your words.
R. Simlai expounded: A man should always first recount the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, and then pray. Whence do we know this? From Moses; for it is written, And I besought the Lord at that time,33 and it goes on, O Lord God, Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy strong hand; for what god is there in heaven and earth who can do according to Thy works and according to Thy mighty acts, and afterwards is written, Let me go over, I pray Thee, and see the good land etc.
(Mnemonic: Deeds, charity, offering, priest, fast, lock, iron].34
____________________
(1) Micah IV, 6. This is taken to mean that God admits having wronged sinners by creating in them the evil impulse. E.V. ‘afflicted’.
(2) Which show that God is responsible for the evil impulse.
(3) Euphemism.
(4) Jer. XVIII, 6.
(5) Ezek. XXXVI, 26.
(6) Ibid. 27.
(7) Num. XI, 2.
(8) Deut. I, I.
(9) Hos. XIII, 6.
(10) Deut. VIII, 24.
(11) Ibid. XXXI, 20.
(12) Ibid. XXXII, 15.
(13) Hos. II, 10.
(14) Ex. XXXII, 7.
(15) Deut. IX, 14.
(16) Ex XXXII, 10.
(17) The three Patriarchs.
(18) Ex. XXXII, 11.
(19) Num. XXX, 3.
(20) I.e., find a ground of absolution.
(21) Connecting wayehal with halal, slain.
(22) Ex. XXXII, 32.
(23) Ibid. 13.
(24) Ex. XXXII, 13.
(25) If Moses were reporting God's promises to the Patriarchs, the words, ‘that I have spoken of’ are out of place.
(26) Moses.
(27) God.
(28) Num. XIV, 16.
(29) The ordinary form, which is masculine, while yekoleth, the word used, is feminine.
(30) Ibid. 20.
(31) Ibid. 21.
(32) I.e., preserved My estimation among the nations (Rashi).
(33) Deut. III, 23ff.
(34) This is a mnemonic for the seven dicta of R. Eleazar which follow.R. Eleazar said: prayer is more efficacious even than good deeds, for there was no-one greater in good deeds than Moses our Master, and yet he was answered only after prayer, as it says, Speak no more unto Me,1 and immediately afterwards, Get thee up into the top of Pisgah.2
R. Eleazar also said: Fasting is more efficacious than charity. What is the reason? One is performed with a man's money, the other with his body.
R. Eleazar also said: prayer is more efficacious than offerings, as it says, To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me,3 and this is followed by, And when ye spread forth your hands.4 R. Johanan said: A priest who has committed manslaughter should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly benediction], since it says [in this context], ‘Your hands are full of blood’.
R. Eleazar also said: From the day on which the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer have been closed, as it says, Yea, when I cry and call for help He shutteth out my prayer.5 But though the gates of prayer are closed, the gates of weeping are not closed, as it says, Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; keep not silence at my tears.6 Raba did not order a fast on a cloudy day because it says, Thou hast covered Thyself with a cloud so that no prayer can pass through.7
R. Eleazar also said: Since the day that the Temple was destroyed, a wall of iron has intervened between Israel and their Father in Heaven, as it says, And take thou unto thee an iron griddle, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city.8
R. Hanin said in the name of R. Hanina: If one prays long his prayer does not pass unheeded. Whence do we know this? From Moses our Master; for it says, And I prayed unto the Lord,9 and it is written afterwards, And the Lord hearkened unto me that time also.10 But is that so? Has not R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If one prays long and looks for the fulfilment of his prayer, in the end he will have vexation of heart, as it says, Hope deferred maketh the heart sick?11 What is his remedy? Let him study the Torah, as it says, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life;12 and the tree of life is nought but the Torah, as it says, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her!13 — There is no contradiction: one statement speaks of a man who prays long and looks for the fulfilment of his prayer, the other of one who prays long without looking for the fulfilment of his prayer.14 R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: If a man sees that he prays and is not answered, he should pray again, as it says, Wait for the Lord, be strong and let thy heart take courage; yea, wait thou for the Lord.15
Our Rabbis taught: Four things require to be done with energy,16 namely, [study of] the Torah, good deeds, praying, and one's worldly occupation. Whence do we know this of Torah and good deeds? Because it says, Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all the law:17 ‘be strong’ in Torah, and ‘be courageous in good deeds. Whence of prayer? Because it says, ‘Wait for the Lord, be strong and let thy heart take courage, yea, wait thou for the Lord’. Whence of worldly occupation? Because it says, Be of good courage and let us prove strong for our people.18
But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me.19 Is not ‘forsaken’ the same as ‘forgotten’? Resh Lakish said: The community of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, when a man takes a second wife after his first, he still remembers the deeds of the first. Thou hast both forsaken me and forgotten me! The Holy One, blessed be He, answered her: My daughter, twelve constellations have I created in the firmament, and for each constellation I have created thirty hosts, and for each host I have created thirty legions, and for each legion I have created thirty cohorts, and for each cohort I have created thirty maniples, and for each maniple I have created thirty camps, and to each camp20 I have attached three hundred and sixty-five thousands of myriads of stars, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and all of them I have created only for thy sake, and thou sayest, Thou hast forgotten me and forsaken me! Can a woman forsake her sucking child [‘ullah]?21 Said the Holy One, blessed be He: Can I possibly forget the burn-offerings [‘olah] of rams and the firstborn of animals22 that thou didst offer to Me in the wilderness? She thereupon said: Sovereign of the Universe, since there is no forgetfulness before the Throne of Thy glory, perhaps Thou wilt not forget the sin of the Calf? He replied: ‘Yea, "these "23 will be forgotten’. She said before Him: Sovereign of the Universe, seeing that there is forgetfulness before the Throne of Thy glory, perhaps Thou wilt forget my conduct at Sinai? He replied to her: ‘Yet "the I"24 will not forget thee’. This agrees with what R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: What is referred to by the text, ‘yea, "these" will be forgotten’? This refers to the sin of the Calf. ‘And yet "the I" will not forget thee’: this refers to their conduct at Sinai.
THE PIOUS MEN OF OLD USED TO WAIT AN HOUR. On what is this based? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: On the text, Happy are they that dwell in Thy house.25 R. Joshua b. Levi also said: One who says the Tefillah should also wait an hour after his prayer, as it says, Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto Thy name, the upright shall sit in Thy presence.26 It has been taught similarly: One who says the Tefillah should wait an hour before his prayer and an hour after his prayer. Whence do we know [that he should wait] before his prayer? Because it says: ‘Happy are they that dwell in Thy house’. Whence after his prayer? Because it says, ‘Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto Thy name, the upright shall dwell in Thy presence’. Our Rabbis taught: The pious men of old used to wait for an hour and pray for an hour and then wait again for an hour. But seeing that they spend nine hours a day over prayer, how is their knowledge of Torah preserved and how is their work done? [The answer is] that because they are pious, their Torah is preserved27 and their work is blessed.28
EVEN IF A KING GREETS HIM HE SHOULD NOT ANSWER HIM. R. Joseph said: This was meant to apply only to Jewish kings, but for a king of another people he may interrupt. An objection was raised: If one was saying Tefillah and he saw a robber29 coming towards him or a carriage coming towards him, he should not break off but curtail it and clear off! — There Is no contradiction: where it is possible for him to curtail [he should curtail, otherwise he should break off].30
Our Rabbis taught: It is related that once when a certain pious man was praying by the roadside, an officer came by and greeted him and he did not return his greeting. So he waited for him till he had finished his prayer. When he had finished his prayer he said to him: Fool!31 is it not written in your Law, Only take heed to thyself and keep thy soul diligently,32 and it is also written, Take ye therefore good heed unto your souls?33 When I greeted you why did you not return my greeting? If I had cut off your head with my sword, who would have demanded satisfaction for your blood from me? He replied to him: Be patient and I will explain to you. If, [he went on], you had been standing before an earthly king and your friend had come and given you greeting, would you
____________________
(1) Ibid. 26. The meaning is apparently that his good deeds did not avail to procure him permission to enter the land, but his prayer procured for him the vision of Pisgah.
(2) Ibid. 27.
(3) Isa. I, 11.
(4) Ibid. 15. Since spreading of hands is mentioned after sacrifice, it must be regarded as more efficacious.
(5) Lam. III, 8.
(6) Ps. XXXIX, 13. This shows that the tears are at any rate observed.
(7) Lam. III, 44.
(8) Ezek. IV, 3. This wall was symbolical of the wall separating Israel from God.
(9) Deut. IX, 26. This seems to be quoted in error for, And I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights, in v. 18; v. MS.M.
(10) Ibid. 19.
(11) Prov. XIII, 12.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid. III, 18.
(14) V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 717, n. 8.
(15) Ps. XXVII, 14.
(16) Lit., ‘require vigour’.
(17) Joshua I, 7.
(18) II Sam. X, 12.
(19) Isa. XLIX, 14.
(20) These terms are obviously taken from Roman military language. There is, however, some difficulty about identifying rahaton (cohorts) and karton (maniples) in the text.
(21) Ibid. 25.
(22) Lit., ‘opening of the womb’.
(23) Referring to the golden calf incident when Israel exclaimed ‘These are thy gods’, Ex. XXXII, 4’
(24) Referring to the revelation at Sinai when God declared, ‘I am the Lord Thy God’. This incident will not be forgotten. R.V. ‘Yet will I not forget thee’.
(25) Ps. LXXXIV, 5.
(26) Ibid. CXL, 14.
(27) I.e., they do not forget it.
(28) I.e., a little goes a long way.
(29) The Heb. annes usually means ‘a man of violence’. Some suppose that it is here equivalent to hamor, ass, which is actually found in J.T.
(30) Alfasi reads: In the one case it is possible for him to curtail, in the other it is not possible; where he can curtail he should, otherwise he may break off.
(31) Raka; v. supra p. 133, n. 3.
(32) Deut. IV, 9.
(33) Ibid. 15. ‘Soul’ in these texts is taken to mean ‘life’.have returned it? No, he replied. And if you had returned his greeting, what would they have done to you? They would have cut off my head with the sword, he replied. He then said to him: Have we not here then an a fortiori argument: If [you would have behaved] in this way when standing before an earthly king who is here today and tomorrow in the grave, how much more so I when standing before the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who endures for all eternity? Forthwith the officer accepted his explanation, and the pious man returned to his home in peace.
EVEN IF A SNAKE IS WOUND ROUND HIS FOOT HE SHOULD NOT BREAK OFF. R. Shesheth said: This applies only in the case of a serpent, but if it is a scorpion, he breaks off.1 An objection was raised: If a man fell into a den of lions [and was not seen again] one cannot testify concerning him that he is dead; but if he fell into a trench full of serpents or scorpions, one can testify concerning him that he is dead!? — The case there is different, because on account of his crushing them [in falling] they turn and bite him. R. Isaac said: If he sees oxen [coming towards him] he may break off; for R. Oshaia taught: One should remove from a tam2 ox fifty cubits, and from a mu'ad3 ox out of sight. It was taught in the name of R. Meir: If an ox's head is in a [fodder] basket,4 go up to a roof and kick the ladder away.5 Samuel said: This applies only to a black ox and in the month of Nisan, because then Satan is dancing between his horns.6
Our Rabbis taught: In a certain place there was once a lizard7 which used to injure people. They came and told R. Hanina b. Dosa. He said to them: Show me its hole. They showed him its hole, and he put his heel over the hole, and the lizard came out and bit him, and it died. He put it on his shoulder and brought it to the Beth ha-Midrash and said to them: See, my sons, it is not the lizard that kills, it is sin that kills! On that occasion they said: Woe to the man whom a lizard meets, but woe to the lizard which R. Hanina b. Dosa meets!8
MISHNAH. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL9 IS MENTIONED IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE RESURRECTION, AND THE PETITION10 FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS, AND HABDALAH11 IN ‘THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’.12 R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING13 BY ITSELF; R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS SAID IN THE THANKSGIVING BENEDICTION.14
GEMARA. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL etc. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because it is put on a level with the resurrection of the dead, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of the resurrection.
THE PETITION FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because [the petition] refers to sustenance, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of sustenance.
HABDALAH IN THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because it is a kind of wisdom,15 it was inserted in the benediction of wisdom. The Rabbis, however, say: Because the reference is to a weekday, therefore it was inserted in the weekday blessing. R. Ammi said: Great is knowledge, since it was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings. R. Ammi also said: Great is knowledge since it was placed between two names,16 as it says, For a God of knowledge is the Lord.17 And if one has not knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy on him, as it says, For it is a people of no understanding, therefore He that made them will have no compassion upon them.18 R. Eleazar said: Great is the Sanctuary, since it has been placed between two names, as it says, Thou hast made, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord.19 R. Eleazar also said: Whenever there is in a man knowledge, it is as if the Sanctuary had been built in his days; for knowledge is set between two names, and the Sanctuary is set between two names. R. Aha Karhina'ah demurred to this. According to this, he said, great is vengeance since it has been set between two names, as it says, God of vengeance, O Lord;20 He replied: That is so; that is to say, it is great in its proper sphere; and this accords with what ‘Ulla said: Why two vengeances here?21 One for good and one for ill. For good, as it is written, He shined forth from Mount Paran;22 for ill, as it is written, God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth.20
R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING, etc. R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Johanan: Let us see: It was the Men of the Great Synagogue23 who instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs.24 Let us see where they inserted them! — He replied: At first they inserted it [the habdalah] in the Tefillah: when they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]; when they became poor again they again inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must say it [again] over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The Men of the Great Synagogue instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs. At first they inserted the habdalah in the Tefillah. When they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]. When they became poor again, they inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who says habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: One who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. Said Raba: We can bring an objection against this ruling [from the following]: If a man forgot and did not mention the miracle of the rain in the resurrection blessing, or petition for rain in the blessing of the years, he is made to repeat the Tefillah. If, however, he forgot habdalah in ‘that graciously grantest knowledge’, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it over the cup [of wine]!25 Do not read, because he can say it over the cup [of wine], but read, because he says it over the cup [of wine].
It has also been stated: R. Benjamin b. Jephet said: R. Jose asked R. Johanan in Sidon — some report, R. Simeon b. Jacob from Tyre asked R. Johanan: But I have heard that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah says it over the cup [of wine]; or is it not so? He replied to him: He must say it over the cup [of wine].
The question was raised: If one has said habdalah over the cup [of wine], need he say it [again] in the Tefillah? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: We learn the answer a fortiori from the case of Tefillah. The essential place of the habdalah is in the Tefillah, and yet it was laid down that one who has said it in the Tefillah must say it also over the cup [of wine]. Does it not then stand to reason that if he has said it over the cup [of wine], which is not its essential place, he must say it [again] in the Tefillah? R. Aha Arika26 recited in the presence of R. Hinena: He who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head! This statement contains a contradiction. It says that he who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], which would show that to say it in Tefillah alone is sufficient, and again it teaches, ‘and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head’, but since he has said it in one he is quit, the second is a blessing which is not necessary, and Raba, or as some say Resh Lakish, or again as some say, both Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, have said: Whoever says a blessing which is not necessary transgresses the command of ‘thou shalt not take [God's name in vain]’!27 Rather read thus: If he has said habdalah in one and not in the other, blessings shall rest upon his head.
R. Hisda inquired of R. Shesheth: If he forgot in both,28 what is he to do? — He replied: If one forgot in both, he says the whole again.29
____________________
(1) A scorpion is more certain to sting.
(2) One which has ‘lot gored before.
(3) One which has gored three times. For these terms, v. Glos.
(4) I.e., even if it is busy eating.
(5) This is a humorous exaggeration.
(6) I.e., it is high spirited and full of mischief in the spring.
(7) Heb. yarod, apparently a cross-breed of a snake and a lizard.
(8) According to J.T. a spring of water had miraculously opened at the feet of R. Hanina, and that sealed the fate of the lizard, for (it is asserted) when a lizard bites a man, if the man reaches water first, the lizard dies, but if the lizard reaches water first the man dies.
(9) The formula ‘that causest the wind to blow’ etc., P.B. P. 44.
(10) The words ‘and grant dew and rain for a blessing’, ibid. p. 47.
(11) V. Glos.
(12) Ibid. p. 46.
(13) After the first three.
(14) Ibid. p. 51.
(15) Viz., discerning between holy and profane and between clean and unclean etc.
(16) I.e., two mentions of the Deity. Lit., ‘letters’; var. lec. ‘words’.
(17) I Sam. II, 3.
(18) Isa. XXVII, 11.
(19) Ex. XV, 17. (lit. trans.).
(20) Ps. XCIV, 1.
(21) The word ‘vengeance’ is written twice in the verse cited from Psalms.
(22) Deut. XXXIII, 2. It is difficult to see what this has to do with vengeance. It seems that in fact the text does not explain the statement of ‘Ulla, and instead shows how there are two kinds of ‘shining forth’. V. Sanh. 92a.
(23) V. Aboth I, 1.
(24) The various divisions mentioned in the habdalah benediction.
(25) V. infra 26b. Which seems to show that it is optional.
(26) The Tall.
(27) Ex. XX, 7.
(28) In the case of habdalah over the cup, he failed to say the last benediction which contains the enumeration of the various divisions. V. D.S. a.l.
(29) He recites anew the Tefillah and the benediction over the cup of wine.Rabina said to Raba: What is the law?1 He replied to him: The same as in the case of sanctification. Just as the sanctification, although it has been said in the Tefillah, is also said over the cup [of wine], so habdalah, although it has been said in the Tefillah, is also to be said over the cup [of wine].
R. ELIEZER SAYS: IN THE THANKSGIVING BENEDICTION. R. Zera was once riding on an ass, with R. Hiyya b. Abin following on foot.2 He said to him: Did you really say in the name of R. Johanan that the halachah is as stated by R. Eliezer on a festival that falls after Sabbath?3 He replied: Yes, that is the halachah. Am I to assume [he replied] that they [the Rabbis] differ from him?4 — And do they not differ? Surely the Rabbis differ! — I would say that the Rabbis differ in regard to the other days of the year, but do they differ in regard to a festival which falls after a Sabbath? — But surely R. Akiba differs?5 — Do we follow R. Akiba the rest of the year that we should now6 commence to follow him? Why do we not follow R. Akiba all the rest of the year? Because eighteen blessings were instituted, not nineteen. Here too [on the festival] seven were instituted, not eight!7 [R. Zera then] said to him: It was not stated that such is the halachah,8 but that we incline to this view.9 It has been stated: R. Isaac b. Abdimi said in the name of our teacher [Rab]: Such is the halachah, but some say, we [merely] incline to this view. R. Johanan said: [The Rabbis] agree [with R. Eliezer].10 R. Hiyya b. Abba said: This appears correct.11 R. Zera said: Choose the statement of R. Hiyya b Abba, for he is very accurate in repeating the statements of his teacher, like Rahaba of Pumbeditha. For Rahaba said in the name of Rabbi Judah: The Temple Mount was a double stoa — a stoa within a stoa.12 R. Joseph said: I know neither one nor the other,13 but I only know that Rab and Samuel instituted for us a precious pearl in Babylon:14 ‘And Thou didst make known unto us, O Lord our God, Thy righteous judgments and didst teach us to do the statutes that Thou hast willed, and hast made us inherit seasons of gladness and festivals of freewill-offering, and didst transmit to us the holiness of Sabbath and the glory of the appointed season and the celebration of the festival. Thou hast divided between the holiness of Sabbath and the holiness of the festival, and hast sanctified the seventh day above the six working days: Thou hast separated and sanctified Thy people Israel with Thy holiness. And Thou hast given us’ etc.15
MISHNAH. IF ONE [IN PRAYING] SAYS ‘MAY THY MERCIES EXTEND TO A BIRD'S NEST’,16 ‘BE THY NAME MENTIONED FOR WELL-DOING’, OR ‘WE GIVE THANKS, WE GIVE THANKS’, HE IS SILENCED.17
GEMARA. We understand why he is silenced if he says ‘WE GIVE THANKS, WE GIVE THANKS’,because he seems to be acknowledging two powers;18 also if he says, ‘BE THY NAME MENTIONED FOR WELL-DOING’, because this implies, for the good only and not for the bad, and we have learnt, A man must bless God for the evil as he blesses Him for the good.19 But what is the reason for silencing him if he says ‘THY MERCIES EXTEND TO THE BIRD'S NEST? — Two Amoraim in the West, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, give different answers; one says it is because he creates jealousy among God's creatures,20 the other, because he presents the measures taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, as springing from compassion, whereas they are but decrees.21 A certain [reader] went down [before the Ark] in the presence of Rabbah and said, ‘Thou hast shown mercy to the bird's nest, show Thou pity and mercy to us’. Said Rabbah: How well this student knows how to placate his Master! Said Abaye to him: But we have learnt, HE IS SILENCED? — Rabbah too acted thus only to test22 Abaye.
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honoured. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say,23 had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law24 and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him?
R. Hanina further said: Everything is in the hand of heaven except the fear of heaven,25 as it says, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear.26 Is the fear of heaven such a little thing? Has not R. Hanina said in the name R. Simeon b. Yohai: The Holy One, blessed be He, has in His treasury nought except a store of the fear of heaven, as it says, The fear of the Lord is His treasure?27 — Yes; for Moses it was a small thing; as R. Hanina said: To illustrate by a parable, if a man is asked for a big article and he has it, it seems like a small article to him; if he is asked for a small article and he does not possess it, it seems like a big article to him.
WE GIVE THANKS, WE GIVE THANKS, HE IS SILENCED. R. Zera said: To say ‘Hear, hear’, [in the Shema’] is like saying ‘We give thanks, we give thanks’. An objection was raised: He who recites the Shema’ and repeats it is reprehensible. He is reprehensible, but we do not silence him? — There is no contradiction; in the one case he repeats each word as he says it,28 in the other each sentence.29 Said R. papa to Abaye: But perhaps [he does this because] at first he was not attending to what he said and the second time he does attend? — He replied:
____________________
(1) About saying habdalah over wine, after having mentioned it in the Tefillah.
(2) Lit., ‘betaking himself and going’.
(3) I.e., on Saturday night, when the fourth benediction ‘that graciously grantest knowledge’ is not said.
(4) Because otherwise there would be no need to say that the halachah follows him.
(5) R. Akiba provides for habdalah a benediction by itself. Consequently is was necessary to declare the halachah follows R. Eliezer on at festival which follows Sabbath, to exclude the view of R. Akiba.
(6) On a festival following Sabbath.
(7) Why then is it necessary to say that the halachah is as R. Eliezer, not as stated by R. Akiba?
(8) And is to be taught as such in public.
(9) And we advise individuals to act thus if they inquire.
(10) When a festival falls on Saturday night.
(11) We do not recommend this, but if one does so, we do not interfere.
(12) Though the word used in the Mishnah of Pes. (13a) is not stoa (colonnade) but the more familiar iztaba which has the same meaning. V. Pes. (Sonc. ed.) P. 59. nn. 10-11 and Bez. (Sonc. ed.) p. 54 n. 9.
(13) That we incline towards the view of R. Eliezer or that we regard it as probable.
(14) To be inserted in the fourth benediction of the festival ‘Amidah.
(15) This form of habdalah prayer is used with slight variants on a festival that follows Sabbath, v. P.B. p. 227.
(16) V. Deut. XXII, 6.
(17) For the reasons, v. the Gemara. This Mishnah is found in Meg. 26a with a somewhat different reading.
(18) The dualism of the Persian — the God of darkness and the God of light.
(19) Infra 54a.
(20) By implying that this one is favoured above others.
(21) V. Meg. (Sonc. ed.) p. 149 notes.
(22) Lit., ‘sharpen’. He wanted to see if he knew the law.
(23) Great, mighty, and terrible, in the first benediction.
(24) Deut. X, 17.
(25) I.e., all a man's qualities are fixed by nature, but his moral character depends on his own choice.
(26) Deut. X, 12.
(27) Isa. XXXIII, 6.
(28) This is merely reprehensible.
(29) In this case he is silenced since this is as if he were addressing two Powers.Can one behave familiarly with Heaven? If he did not recite with attention at first, we hit him with a smith's hammer until he does attend.
MISHNAH. [IF ONE SAYS, LET THE GOOD BLESS THEE, THIS IS A PATH OF HERESY].1 IF ONE WAS PASSING BEFORE THE ARK AND MADE A MISTAKE, ANOTHER SHOULD PASS IN HIS PLACE, AND AT SUCH A MOMENT ONE MAY NOT REFUSE. WHERE SHOULD HE COMMENCE? AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BENEDICTION IN WHICH THE OTHER WENT WRONG. THE READER2 SHOULD NOT RESPOND AMEN AFTER [THE BENEDICTIONS OF] THE PRIESTS3 BECAUSE THIS MIGHT CONFUSE HIM. IF THERE IS NO PRIEST THERE EXCEPT HIMSELF, HE SHOULD NOT RAISE HIS HANDS [IN PRIESTLY BENEDICTION], BUT IF HE IS CONFIDENT THAT HE CAN. RAISE HIS HANDS AND GO BACK TO HIS PLACE IN HIS PRAYER,4 HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one is asked to pass before the Ark, he ought to refuse,5 and if he does not refuse he resembles a dish without salt; but if he persists too much in refusing he resembles a dish which is over-salted. How should he act? The first time he should refuse; the second time he should hesitate; the third time he should stretch out his legs and go down.
Our Rabbis taught: There are three things of which one may easily have too much6 while a little is good, namely, yeast, salt, and refusal.
R. Huna said: If one made a mistake in the first three [of the Tefillah] blessings, he goes back to the beginning; if in the middle blessings, he goes back to ‘Thou graciously grantest knowledge;7 if in the last blessings, he goes back to the ‘Abodah.8 R. Assi, however, says that in the middle ones the order need not be observed.9 R. Shesheth cited in objection: ‘Where should he commence? At the beginning of the benediction in which the other went wrong’.10 This is a refutation of R. Huna, is it not?11 — R. Huna can reply: The middle blessings are all one.12
Rab Judah said: A man should never petition for his requirements either in the first three benedictions or in the last three, but in the middle ones. For R. Hanina said: In the first ones he resembles a servant who is addressing a eulogy to his master; in the middle ones he resembles a servant who is requesting a largess from his master, in the last ones he resembles a servant who has received a largess from his master and takes his leave.
Our Rabbis taught: Once a certain disciple went down13 before the Ark in the presence of R. Eliezer, and he span out the prayer to a great length. His disciples said to him: Master, how longwinded this fellow is! He replied to them: Is he drawing it out any more than our Master Moses, of whom it is written: The forty days and the forty nights [that I fell down]?14 Another time it happened that a certain disciple went down before the Ark in the presence of R. Eliezer, and he cut the prayer very short. His disciples said to him: How concise this fellow is! He replied to them: Is he any more concise than our Master Moses, who prayed, as it is written: Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee?15 R. Jacob said in the name of R. Hisda: If one prays on behalf of his fellow, he need not mention his name, since it says: Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee’, and he did not mention the name of Miriam.
Our Rabbis taught: These are the benedictions in saying which one bows [in the Tefillah]: The benediction of the patriarchs,16 beginning and end, and the thanksgiving, beginning and end.17 If one wants to bow down at the end of each benediction and at the beginning of each benediction, he is instructed not to do so. R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, reporting Bar Kappara: An ordinary person bows as we have mentioned;
____________________
(1) Minuth, (v. Glos. s.v. Min) implying that only the good are invited to bless God. This passage is wanting in the separate editions of the Mishnah, but occurs in Meg. 25a.
(2) Lit., ‘he who passes before the Ark’.
(3) V. P.B. 283a (15th ed.).
(4) Without making a mistake in the prayers.
(5) As feeling himself unworthy for the sacred duty.
(6) Lit., ‘a large quantity is hard’.
(7) The fourth benediction in the Tefillah, v. P.B. p. 46.
(8) Lit., ‘service’. The seventeenth blessing, v. P.B. p. 50.
(9) And if one was accidentally omitted it can be inserted anywhere. So Rashi. Tosaf., however, say that he goes back to that blessing and continues from there.
(10) So M.S. M. cur. edd. read: ‘To where does he go back’.
(11) Because it shows that he need not go back to ‘Thou graciously grantest’.
(12) And if one errs in any of them he has to go back to ‘Thou graciously grantest’.
(13) The reading desk was at a lower level than the floor of the Synagogue. (v. supra 10); hence the expression ‘went down’.
(14) Deut. IX, 25.
(15) Num. XII, 13.
(16) The first benediction.
(17) V. P.B. 51 and 53.a high priest at the end of each benediction; a king at the beginning of each benediction and at the end of each benediction.1 R. Isaac b. Nahmani said: It was explained to me by R. Joshua b. Levi that an ordinary person does as we have mentioned; a high priest bows at the beginning of each blessing; and a king, once he has knelt down, does not rise again [until the end of the Tefillah], as it says: And it was so that when Solomon had made an end of praying, ... he arose from before the Altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees.2
Kidah [bowing] is upon the face, as it says: Then Bath-Sheba bowed with her face to the ground.3 Keri'ah [kneeling] is upon the knees, as it says: From kneeling on his knees, prostration is spreading out of hands and feet, as it says: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren come to prostrate ourselves before thee on the ground.4
R. Hiyya the son of R. Huna said: I have observed Abaye and Raba bending to one side.5 One [Baraitha] taught: To kneel in the thanksgiving benediction is praiseworthy, while another taught: It is reprehensible? — There is no contradiction: one speaks of the beginning,6 the other of the end. Raba knelt in the thanksgiving at the beginning and at the end. The Rabbis said to him: Why does your honour act thus? He replied to them: I have seen R. Nahman kneeling, and I have seen R. Shesheth doing thus. But it has been taught: To kneel in the thanksgiving is reprehensible — That refers to the thanksgiving in Hallel.7 But it has been taught: To kneel in the thanksgiving and in the thanksgiving of Hallel is reprehensible? — The former statement refers to the thanksgiving in the Grace after Meals.8
MISHNAH. IF ONE MAKES A MISTAKE IN HIS TEFILLAH IT IS A BAD SIGN FOR HIM, AND IF HE IS A READER OF THE CONGREGATION9 IT IS A BAD SIGN FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COMMISSIONED HIM, BECAUSE A MAN'S AGENT IS EQUIVALENT TO HIMSELF. IT WAS RELATED OF R. HANINA BEN DOSA THAT HE USED TO PRAY FOR THE SICK AND SAY, THIS ONE WILL DIE, THIS ONE WILL LIVE. THEY SAID TO HIM: HOW DO YOU KNOW? HE REPLIED: IF MY PRAYER COMES OUT FLUENTLY,10 I KNOW THAT HE IS ACCEPTED, BUT IF NOT, THEN I KNOW THAT HE IS REJECTED.11
GEMARA. In which blessing [is a mistake a bad sign]? — R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Safra who had it from a member of the School of Rabbi: In the blessing of the Patriarchs.12 Some attach this statement to the following: ‘When one says the Tefillah he must say all the blessings attentively, and if he cannot say all attentively he should say one attentively’. R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Safra who had it from a member of the School of Rabbi: This one should be the blessing of the patriarchs.
IT WAS RELATED OF RABBI HANINA etc. What is the [Scriptural] basis for this? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: Because Scripture says: Peace to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith the Lord that createth the fruit of the lips, and I will heal him.13
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: All the prophets prophesied only on behalf of14 one who gives his daughter in marriage to a scholar and who conducts business on behalf of a scholar and who allows a scholar the use of his possessions. But as for the scholars themselves, Eye hath not seen, oh God, beside Thee what He will do for him that waiteth for Him.15
R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Johanan: All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah, but as for the world to come, ‘Eye hath not seen, oh God, beside Thee’. These Rabbis differ from Samuel; for Samuel said: There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except [that in the latter there will be no] bondage of foreign powers, as it says: For the poor shall never cease out of the land.16
R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Johanan: All the prophets prophesied only on behalf of penitents; but as for the wholly righteous, ‘Eye hath not seen, oh God, beside Thee’. He differs in this from R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu said: In the place where penitents stand even the wholly righteous cannot stand, as it says: Peace, peace to him that was far and to him that is near17 — to him that was far first, and then to him that is near. R. Johanan, however, said: What is meant by ‘far’? One who from the beginning was far from transgression. And what is meant by ‘near’? That he was once near to transgression and now has gone far from it.18 What is the meaning of ‘Eye hath not seen’? R. Joshua b. Levi said: This is the wine which has been preserved in its grapes from the six days of Creation.19 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: This is Eden,20 which has never been seen by the eye of any creature, perhaps you will say, Where then was Adam? He was in the garden. Perhaps you will say, the garden and Eden are the same? Not so! For the text says: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden21 — the garden is one thing and Eden is another.
Our Rabbis taught: Once the son of R. Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two scholars to R. Hanina b. Dosa to ask him to pray for him. When he saw them he went up to an upper chamber and prayed for him. When he came down he said to them: Go, the fever has left him; They said to him: Are you a prophet? He replied: I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I learnt this from experience. If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted: but if not, I know that he is rejected.22 They sat down and made a note of the exact moment. When they came to R. Gamaliel, he said to them: By the temple service! You have not been a moment too soon or too late, but so it happened: at that very moment the fever left him and he asked for water to drink.
On another occasion it happened that R . Hanina b. Dosa went to study Torah with R. Johanan ben Zakkai. The son of R. Johanan ben Zakkai fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived. Said R. Johanan ben Zakkai: If Ben Zakkai had stuck his head between his knees for the whole day, no notice would have been taken of him. Said his wife to him: Is Hanina greater than you are? He replied to her: No; but he is like a servant before the king,23 and I am like a nobleman before a king.24
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A man should not pray save in a room which has windows,25 since it says, Now his windows were open in his upper chamber towards Jerusalem.26
R. Kahana said: I consider a man impertinent who prays in a valley.27 R. Kahana also said: I consider a man impertinent who openly28 recounts his sins, since it is said, Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.29 [
____________________
(1) I.e., the greater the individual, the more he humbles himself.
(2) I Kings VIII, 54.
(3) Ibid. I, 31.
(4) Gen. XXXVII, 10.
(5) And not completely prostrating themselves.
(6) This is praiseworthy.
(7) The verse, Give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good, etc., v. P.B. p. 222.
(8) P.B. p. 281.
(9) Lit., ‘An agent of the congregation’.
(10) Lit., ‘is fluent in my mouth’.
(11) Lit., ‘he is torn’. The word, however, may refer to the Prayer, meaning that it is rejected.
(12) The first blessing in the Tefillah.
(13) Isa. LVII, 19. Bore translated ‘created’ has also the meaning ‘strong’, hence the verse is rendered to mean: if the fruit of the lips (prayer) is strong (fluent) then I will heal him.
(14) I.e., their promises and consolations had reference to.
(15) Isa. LXIV, 3.
(16) Deut. XV, 11. ‘Never’ i.e., not even in the Messianic era.
(17) Isa. LVII, 19.
(18) I.e., the Penitent.
(19) To feast the righteous in the future world.
(20) Paradise.
(21) Gen. II, 10.
(22) V. supra, p. 214 n. 4.
(23) Who has permission to go in to him at anytime.
(24) Who appears before him only at fixed times.
(25) So that he should have a view of the heavens.
(26) Dan. VI, 11.
(27) A level stretch of ground where people constantly pass; one should pray in an enclosed and secluded spot.
(28) As though unashamed.
(29) Lit., trans. E.V. ‘whose sin is Pardoned’ Ps. XXXII, 1.MISHNAH. WHAT BLESSINGS ARE SAID OVER FRUIT? OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE ONE SAYS, WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE, EXCEPT FOR WINE, OVER WHICH ONE SAYS, WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE VINE. OVER THAT WHICH GROWS FROM THE GROUND ONE SAYS: WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND, EXCEPT OVER BREAD, FOR WHICH ONE SAYS, WHO BRINGEST FORTH BREAD FROM THE EARTH. OVER VEGETABLES ONE SAYS, WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: WHO CREATEST DIVERS KINDS OF HERBS.
GEMARA. Whence is this derived?1 — As our Rabbis have taught: The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto the Lord.2 This3 teaches that they require a blessing both before and after partaking of them. On the strength of this R. Akiba said: A man is forbidden to taste anything before saying a blessing over it.
But is this the lesson to be learnt from these words ‘Holy for giving praise’? Surely they are required for these two lessons: first, to teach that the All-Merciful has declared: Redeem it4 and then eat it, and secondly,that a thing which requires a song of praise requires redemption,5 but one that does not require a song of praise does not require redemption,6 as has been taught by R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan. For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that a song of praise is sung only over wine?7 Because it says, And the vine said unto them: Should I leave my wine which cheereth God and man?8 If it cheers man, how does it cheer God? From this we learn that a song of praise is sung only over wine.
Now this reasoning9 is valid for him who teaches ‘The planting of the fourth year’.10 But for him who teaches ‘The vineyard of the fourth year’, what can be said? For it has been stated: R. Hiyya and R. Simeon the son of Rabbi [taught differently]. One taught, ‘Vineyard of the fourth year’, the other taught, ‘Planting of the fourth year’ . — For him who teaches ‘Vineyard of the fourth year’ also there is no difficulty if he avails himself of a gezerah shawah.11 For it has been taught: Rabbi says: It says there, that it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof,12 and it says in another place, the increase of the vineyard.13 Just as in the latter passage ‘increase’ refers to the vineyard, so here it refers to the vineyard. Thus one hillul is left over to indicate that a blessing is required. But if he does not avail himself of a gezerah shawah, how can he derive this lesson? And even if he does avail himself of a gezerah shawah, while we are satisfied that a blessing is required after it,14 whence do we learn that it is required [before partaking]? — This is no difficulty. We derive it by argument a fortiori: If he says a blessing when he is full, how much more so ought he to do so when he is hungry?15
We have found a proof for the case of [the produce of the vineyard]: whence do we find [that a benediction is required] for other species?16 It can be learnt from the vineyard. Just as the vineyard being something that is enjoyed requires a blessing, so everything that is enjoyed requires a blessing. But this may be refuted: How can we learn from a vineyard, seeing that it is subject to the obligation of the gleanings?17 — We may cite the instance of corn.18 How can you cite the instance of corn, seeing that it is subject to the obligation of hallah?19 — We may then cite the instance of the vineyard, and the argument goes round in a circle: The distinguishing feature of the first instance is not like that of the second, and vice versa. The feature common to both is that being things which are enjoyed they require a blessing; similarly everything which is enjoyed requires a blessing. But this [argument from a] common feature [is not conclusive], because there is with them20 the common feature that they are offered on the altar!21 We may then adduce also the olive from the fact that it is offered on the altar. But is [the blessing over] the olive derived from the fact that it is offered on the altar? It is explicitly designated kerem,22 as it is written, And he burnt up the shocks and the standing corn and also the olive yards [kerem]?23 — R. Papa replied: It is called an olive kerem but not kerem simply. Still the difficulty remains: How can you learn [other products] from the argument of a common factor, seeing that [wine and corn] have the common feature of being offered on the altar? — Rather it is learnt from the seven species.24 Just as the seven species are something which being enjoyed requires a blessing,25 so everything which is enjoyed requires a blessing. How can you argue from the seven species. seeing that they are subject to the obligation of first-fruits? And besides, granted that we learn from them that a blessing is to be said after partaking, how do we know it is to be said before? — This is no difficulty, being learnt a fortiori: If he says a blessing when he is full, how much more should he do so when he is hungry? Now as for the one who reads ‘planting of the fourth year’, we may grant he has proved his point with regard to anything planted. But whence does he derive it in regard to things that are not planted, such as meat, eggs and fish? — The fact is that it is a reasonable supposition that it is forbidden to a man to enjoy anything of this world without saying a blessing.26
Our Rabbis have taught: It is forbidden to a man to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction, and if anyone enjoys anything of this world without a benediction, he commits sacrilege.27 What is his remedy? He should consult a wise man. What will the wise man do for him? He has already committed the offence! — Said Raba: What it means is that he should consult a wise man beforehand, so that he should teach him blessings and he should not commit sacrilege. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: To enjoy anything of this world without a benediction is like making personal use of things consecrated to heaven, since it says. The earth is the Lord's and the fulness there of.28 R. Levi contrasted two texts. It is written, ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof’, and it is also written, The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men!29 There is no contradiction: in the one case it is before a blessing has been said
____________________
(1) That a benediction is necessary before partaking of any food.
(2) Lev. XIX, 24, with reference to the fruit of the fourth year.
(3) The fact that the word hillulim (praise) is in the plural, indicating that there must be two praises.
(4) The fruit of the fourth year, if it is to be eaten outside Jerusalem.
(5) This is learnt from a play on the word hillulim, which is read also as hillulim (profaned, i.e., redeemed).
(6) Thus limiting the law relating to the fruit of the fourth year only to the vine, as infra.
(7) By the Levites at the offering of the sacrifices.
(8) Judg. IX, 13.
(9) That we learn the requirement of saying a blessing from the word hillulim.
(10) I.e., that the verse quoted from Leviticus refers to all fruit of the fourth year and not to the vine only. In this case the word hillulim can not be used to prove that only the vine requires redemption. and is available for teaching that a blessing must be said over fruit.
(11) v. Glos.
(12) Lev. XIX, 25.
(13) Deut. XXII, 9.
(14) On the analogy of grace after meals as prescribed in Deut. VIII, 10.
(15) And is about to satisfy his hunger.
(16) On the view that Lev. XIX, 24 refers only to a vineyard.
(17) Cf. Lev. XIX, 10. And this may be the reason why it requires a blessing.
(18) Which is not subject to the obligation of gleanings, and yet requires a blessing, as laid down in Deut. VIII, 10.
(19) The heave-offering of the dough.
(20) I.e., wine and corn.
(21) In the form of drink-offering and meal-offering.
(22) Lit. ‘vineyard’, and therefore it is on the same footing as wine.
(23) Judg. XV. 5.
(24) Mentioned in Deut. VIII, 8.
(25) As distinctly prescribed in Deut. VIII, 8.
(26) Whether we take the law of the fourth year to apply to the vine or to all fruit trees, we cannot derive from it the law for saying a blessing over all things — in the former case because of the difficulty about the altar, in the latter because of the difficulty about things other than plants. Nor can we derive the law from the ‘seven kinds’, because of the difficulty about first-fruits. Hence we are driven back upon ‘reasonable supposition’.
(27) Heb. ma'al, the technical term for the personal use of consecrated things by a layman.
(28) Ps. XXIV. 1.
(29) Ibid. CXV, 16.in the other case after. R. Hanina b. Papa said: To enjoy this world without a benediction is like robbing the Holy One, blessed be He, and the community of Israel, as it says. Whoso robbeth his father or his mother and saith, It is no transgression, the same is the companion of a destroyer;1 and ‘father’ is none other but the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says. Is not He thy father that hath gotten thee;2 and ‘mother’ is none other than the community of Israel, as it says, Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother.3 What is the meaning of ‘he is the companion of a destroyer’? — R. Hanina b. Papa answered: He is the companion of Jeroboam son of Nebat who destroyed Israel's [faith in] their Father in heaven.4
R. Hanina b. Papa pointed out a contradiction. It is written, Therefore will I take back My corn in the time thereof, etc.,5 and it is elsewhere written, And thou shalt gather in thy corn, etc.!6 There is no difficulty: the one text speaks of where Israel do the will of the Omnipresent, the other of where they do not perform the will of the Omnipresent.7
Our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt gather in thy corn.6 What is to be learnt from these words? Since it says, This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth,8 I might think that this injunction is to be taken literally. Therefore it says, ‘And thou shalt gather in thy corn’, which implies that you are to combine the study of them9 with a worldly occupation. This is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Simeon b. Yohai says: Is that possible? If a man ploughs in the ploughing season, and sows in the sowing season, and reaps in the reaping season, and threshes in the threshing season, and winnows in the season of wind, what is to become of the Torah? No; but when Israel perform the will of the Omnipresent, their work is performed by others, as it says. And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks. etc.,10 and when Israel do not perform the will of the Omnipresent their work is carried out by themselves, as it says, And thou shalt gather in thy corn.11 Nor is this all, but the work of others also is done by them, as it says. And thou shalt serve thine enemy etc.12 Said Abaye: Many have followed the advice of Ishmael, and it has worked well; others have followed R. Simeon b. Yohai and it has not been successful. Raba said to the Rabbis: I would ask you not to appear before me during Nisan and Tishri13 so that you may not be anxious about your food supply during the rest of the year.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, reporting R. Judah b. Ila'i: See what a difference there is between the earlier and the later generations. The earlier generations made the study of the Torah their main concern and their ordinary work subsidiary to it, and both prospered in their hands. The later generations made their ordinary work their main concern and their study of the Torah subsidiary, and neither prospered in their hands.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah further said in the name of R. Johanan reporting R. Judah b. Ila'i: Observe the difference between the earlier and the later generations. The earlier generations used to bring in their produce by way of the kitchen-garden14 purposely in order to make it liable to tithe, whereas the later generations bring in their produce by way of roofs or courtyards or enclosures in order to make it exempt from tithe. For R. Jannai has said: Untithed produce is not subject to tithing15 until it has come within sight of the house, since it says. I have put away the hallowed things out of my house.16 R. Johanan, however, says that even [sight of] a courtyard imposes the obligation, as it says, That they may eat within thy gates and be satisfied.17
EXCEPT OVER WINE. Why is a difference made for wine? Shall I say that because [the raw material of] it is improved18 therefore the blessing is different? But in the case of oil also [the raw material of] it is improved, yet the blessing is not different, as Rab Judah has laid down in the name of Samuel, and so R. Isaac stated in the name of R. Johanan,that the blessing said over olive oil is ‘that createst the fruit of the tree’?19 — The answer given is that in the case of oil it is not possible to change the blessing. For what shall we say? Shall we say, ‘That createst the fruit of the olive’? The fruit itself is called olive!20 But we can say over it, ‘That createst the fruit of the olive tree’? — Rather [the real reason is], said Mar Zutra, that wine has food value but oil has no food value. But has oil no food value? Have we not learnt: One who takes a vow to abstain from food is allowed to partake of water and salt,21 and we argued from this as follows: ‘Water and salt alone are not called food, but all other stuffs are called food? May we not say that this is a refutation of Rab and Samuel, who say that the blessing "who createst various kinds of food" is said only over the five species [of cereals]?’22 and R. Huna solved the problem by saying that [the Mishnah] refers to one who says, ‘I vow to abstain from anything that feeds’; which shows that oil has food value?23 — Rather [say the reason is that] wine sustains24 and oil does not sustain. But does wine sustain? Did not Raba use to drink wine on the eve of the Passover in order that he might get an appetite and eat much unleavened bread? — A large quantity gives an appetite, a small quantity sustains. But does it in fact give any sustenance? Is it not written, And wine that maketh glad the heart of man . . . and bread that stayeth man's heart,25 which shows that it is bread which sustains, not wine? — The fact is that wine does both, it sustains and makes glad, whereas bread sustains but does not cheer. If that is the case, let us say three blessings after it?26 — People do not make it the basis of the meal. R. Nahman b. Isaac asked Raba: Suppose a man makes it the basis of his meal. what then? — He replied: When Elijah comes he will tell us whether it can really serve as a basis; at present, at any rate, no man thinks of such a thing.27
The text [above] stated: ‘Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and so too said R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan, that the blessing said over olive oil is "that createst the fruit of the tree”’. How are we to understand this? Are we to say that it is drunk? If so, it is injurious, as it has been taught: If one drinks oil of terumah,28 he repays the bare value, but does not add a fifth.29 If one anoints himself with oil of terumah, he repays the value and also a fifth in addition. Do we suppose then that he consumes it with bread? In that case, the bread would be the main ingredient and the oil subsidiary, and we have learnt: This is the general rule: If with one article of food another is taken as accessory, a blessing is said over the main article, and this suffices also for the accessory!30 Do we suppose then that he drinks it with elaiogaron? (Rabbah b. Samuel has stated: Elaiogaron is juice of beetroots; oxygaron is juice of
____________________
(1) Prov. XXVIII, 24. To rob God can only mean to enjoy something without saying a blessing, in recognition that it comes from Him.
(2) Deut. XXXII, 6.
(3) Prov. I, 8.
(4) Likewise he who enjoys things without a blessing sets a bad example to others.
(5) Hos. II, 11.
(6) Deut. XI,14.
(7) Who accordingly takes back the corn and shows that it is His.
(8) Joshua I, 8.
(9) Sc. the words of the Torah.
(10) Isa. LXI, 5.
(11) Tosaf. point out that this homily conflicts with that given above on the same verse by R. Hanina b. Papa.
(12) Deut. XXVIII, 48.
(13) Nisan being the time of the ripening of the corn and Tishri of the vintage and olive pressing.
(14) I.e., direct to the house, by the front way. V. infra.
(15) I.e., according to the Torah. The Rabbis, however, forbade a fixed meal to be made of any untithed produce.
(16) Deut. XXVI, 13.
(17) Ibid. 12; v. Git. 81a.
(18) Lit., ‘it has been changed for the better’.
(19) As over the olive itself.
(20) There is no special name in Hebrew for the olive tree as there is for the vine.
(21) ‘Er. 26b.
(22) wheat, barley, oats, spelt, and rye.
(23) Even according to Rab and Samuel.
(24) And has more than merely food value.
(25) Ps. CIV, 15.
(26) As after bread, v. infra 37a.
(27) Aliter ‘His opinion is rejected by all men’.
(28) V. Glos.
(29) Because the fifth is added only for what can be called food, since it says, And if a man eat of the holy thing through error (Lev. XXII, 14).
(30) V. infra 41a.all other boiled vegetables.) In that case the elaiogaron would be the main thing and the oil subsidiary, and we have learnt: This is the general rule: If with one article of food another is taken as accessory, a blessing is said over the main article, and this suffices for the accessory! — What case have we here in mind?1 The case of a man with a sore throat, since it has been taught: If one has a sore throat, he should not ease it directly with oil on Sabbath,2 but he should put plenty of oil into elaiogaron and swallow it.3 This is obvious!4 — You might think that since he intends it as a medicine he should not say any blessing over it. Therefore we are told that since he has some enjoyment from it he has to say a blessing.
Over wheaten flour5 Rab Judah says that the blessing is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’ ‘6 while R. Nahman says it is, ‘By whose word all things exist’. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Do not join issue with Rab Judah, since R. Johanan and Samuel would concur with him. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, and likewise R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan: Over olive oil the blessing said is ‘that createst the fruit of the tree’, which shows that although it has been transformed it is fundamentally the same. Here too, although it has been transformed, it is fundamentally the same. But are the two cases alike? In that case [of olive oil] the article does not admit of further improvement, in this case it does admit of further improvement, by being made into bread; and when it is still capable of further improvement we do not say over it the blessing ‘that createst the fruit of the ground’, but ‘by whose word all things exist’! — But has not R. Zera said in the name of R. Mattena reporting Samuel: Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we say the blessing ‘by whose word all things exist’, and may we not infer from this that over wheat-flour we say ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’? — No; over wheat-flour also we say ‘by whose word all things exist’. Then let him state the rule for wheat-flour, and it will apply to barley-flour as a matter of course?7 — If he had stated the rule as applying to wheat-flour, I might have said: That is the rule for wheat-flour, but over barley-flour we need say no blessing at all. Therefore we are told that this is not so. But is barley-flour of less account than salt or brine, of which we have learnt8 : Over salt and brine one says ‘by whose word all things exist’? — It was necessary [to lay down the rule for barley-flour]. You might argue that a man often puts a dash of salt or brine into his mouth [without harm], but barley-flour is harmful in creating tapeworms, and therefore we need say no blessing over it. We are therefore told that since one has some enjoyment from it he must say a blessing over it.
Over the palm-heart,9 Rab Judah says that the blessing is ‘that createst the fruit of the ground’, while Samuel says that it is ‘by whose word all things exist’. Rab Judah says it is ‘that createst the fruit of the ground’, regarding it as fruit, whereas Samuel says that it is ‘by whose word all things exist’, since subsequently it grows hard. Said Samuel to Rab Judah: Shinnena!10 Your opinion is the more probable, since radish eventually hardens and over it we say ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. This, however, is no proof; radishes are planted for the sake of the tuber,11 but palms are not planted for the sake of the heart. But [is it the case that] wherever one thing is not planted for the sake of another [which it later becomes], we do not say the blessing [for that other]?12 What of the caper-bush which is planted for the sake of the caper-blossom, and we have learnt: In regard to the various edible products of the caper-bush, over the leaves and the young shoots, ‘that createst the fruit of the ground’ is said, and over the berries and buds,13 ‘that createst the fruit of the tree’! — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Caper-bushes are planted for the sake of the shoots, but palms are not planted for the sake of the heart. And although Samuel commended Rab Judah, the halachah is as laid down by Samuel.
Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: In the case of an ‘uncircumcised’14 caper-bush outside of Palestine,15 one throws away the berries and may eat the buds. This is to say that the berries are fruit but the buds are not fruit — A contradiction was pointed out [between this and the following]: In regard to the various edible articles produced by the caper-bush, over the leaves and the young shoots ‘that createst the fruit of the ground’ is said; over the buds and the berries ‘that createst the fruit of the tree’ is said! — [Rab Judah] followed R. Akiba, as we have learnt: R. Eliezer says: From the caper-bush tithe is given from the berries and buds. R. Akiba, however, says that the berries alone are tithed, because they are fruit.16 Let him then say that the halachah is as laid down by R. Akiba? — Had he said that the halachah is as laid down by R. Akiba, I should have thought that this was so even in the Holy Land. He therefore informs us that if there is an authority who is more lenient in regard to [uncircumcised products in] the Holy Land, the halachah follows him in respect of [such products] outside of the Holy Land, but not in the Land itself. But let him then say that the halachah is as laid down by R. Akiba for outside the Holy Land, because if an authority is more lenient with regard to the Land, the halachah follows him in the case of outside the Land? — Had he said so, I should have argued that this applies to tithe of fruit which in the Holy Land itself was ordained only by the Rabbis,17 but that in the case of ‘orlah, the law for which is stated in the Torah, we should extend it to outside the Land. Therefore he tells us that we do not do so.
Rabina once found Mar b. R. Ashi throwing away [uncircumcised] caper-berries and eating the buds. He said to him: What is your view? Do you agree with R. Akiba who is more lenient?18 Then follow Beth Shammai, who are more lenient still, as we have learnt: With regard to the caper-bush, Beth Shammai say that it constitutes kil'ayim19 in the vineyard, whereas Beth Hillel hold that it does not constitute kil'ayim in the vineyard, while both agree that it is subject to the law of ‘orlah. Now this statement itself contains a contradiction. You first say that Beth Shammai hold that a caper-bush constitutes kil'ayim in a vineyard, which shows that it is a kind of vegetable,20 and then you say that both agree that it is subject to the law of ‘orlah, which shows that it is a kind of tree!21 — This is no difficulty; Beth Shammai were in doubt [whether it was a fruit or a vegetable], and accepted the stringencies of both. In any case,22 Beth Shammai regard it [the caper-bush] as a doubtful case of ‘orlah, and we have learnt: Where there is a doubt if a thing is subject to ‘orlah, in the Land of Israel, it is prohibited, but in Syria it is allowed; and outside of Palestine one may go down
____________________
(1) When it is stated that oil requires a benediction.
(2) Medicine being forbidden on Sabbath, for fear one might come to pound drugs.
(3) For in this case it is not obvious that he is taking it as a medicine.
(4) That in this case one should make a blessing over the oil, because the oil is here the principal item.
(5) When eaten raw.
(6) Which is the blessing over crushed wheat, v. infra 37a.
(7) Since It is inferior to wheat-flour.
(8) More correctly, ‘as it has been taught’, v. infra 40b.
(9) An edible part of the young palm, which afterwards hardens and becomes part of the tree.
(10) An affectionate designation given by Samuel to his disciple Rab Judah. Apparently it means ‘sharp-witted’. V. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60, n. 2.
(11) To be eaten before it becomes hard and woody.
(12) But ‘by whose word all things exist’.
(13) Aliter: ‘caper-flowers’, or ‘husks’.
(14) I.e., in its first three years. V. Lev. XIX, 23 (A.V.).
(15) To which the Rabbis extended the obligation of ‘orlah, (v. Glos.).
(16) But the buds are not fruit.
(17) Since according to the written Torah, tithe was to be given only on corn, oil and wine.
(18) In not exacting tithe for the buds.
(19) Diverse seeds, v. Glos.
(20) Otherwise it would not constitute kil'ayim in a vineyard.
(21) Vegetables are not subject to the law of ‘orlah.
(22) Rabina resumes here his argument against Mar b. R. Ashi.and buy it, provided he does not see the man plucking it!1 — When R. Akiba conflicts with R. Eliezer, we follow him, and the opinion of Beth Shammai when it conflicts with that of Beth Hillel is no Mishnah.2 But then let us be guided by the fact that it [the bud] is a protection for the fruit, and the All-Merciful said, Ye shall observe its uncircumcision along with its fruit;3 ‘with’ refers to that which is attached to its fruit, namely, that which protects its fruit?4 — Raba replied: When do we say a thing is a protection for the fruit? When it does so both when [the fruit is] still attached [to the tree] and after it is plucked. In this case it protects while [the fruit is] attached, but not after it is plucked.
Abaye raised an objection: The top-piece of the pomegranate is counted in with it,5 but its blossom is not counted in.6 Now since it says that its blossom is not counted in with it, this implies that it is not food: and it was taught in connection with ‘orlah: The skin of a pomegranate and its blossom, the shells of nuts and their kernels are subject to the law of ‘orlah!7 — We must say, then, said Raba, that we regard something as a protection to the fruit only where it is so at the time when the fruit becomes fully ripe; but this caper-bud falls off when the fruit ripens. But is that so? Has not R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The calyces surrounding dates in the state of ‘orlah are forbidden, since they are the protection to the fruit. Now when do they protect the fruit? In the early stages of its growth [only]. Yet he calls them a protection to the fruit’? — R. Nahman took the same view as R. Jose, as we have learnt: R. Jose says, The grape-bud is forbidden because it is fruit; but the Rabbis differ from him.8 R. Shimi from Nehardea demurred: Do the Rabbis differ from him in respect of other trees?9 Have we not learnt: At what stage must we refrain from cutting trees in the seventh year?10 Beth Shammai say: In the case of all trees, from the time they produce fruit; Beth Hillel say: In the case of carob-trees, from the time when they form chains [of carobs]; in the case of vines, from the time when they form globules; in the case of olive-trees, from the time when they blossom; in the case of all other trees, from the time when they produce fruit; and R. Assi said: Boser and garua’11 and the white bean are all one. (‘White bean’, do you say?12 — Read instead: the size [of them] is that of the white bean.) Now which authority did you hear declaring that the boser is fruit but the grape-bud is not? It is the Rabbis;13 and it is they who state that we must refrain from cutting down all other trees from the time when they produce fruit!14 — No, said Raba. Where do you say that something is the protection to the fruit? Where if you take it away the fruit dies, Here15 you can take it away and the fruit does not die. In an actual case, they once took away the blossom from a pomegranate and it withered; they took away the flower from a caper and it survived.16 (The law is as [indicated by] Mar b. R. Ashi when he threw away the caper-berries and ate the buds. And since for purposes of ‘orlah they [the buds] are not fruit, for the purposes of benedictions also they are not fruit, and we do not say over them, ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’, but, ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’.)17
With regard to pepper, R. Shesheth says that the blessing is ‘by whose word all things exist’; Raba says: It requires no blessing at all.18 Raba in this is consistent; for Raba said: If a man chews pepper-corns on the Day of Atonement he is not liable [to kareth];19 if he chews ginger on the Day of Atonement he is not liable. An objection was raised: R. Meir says: Since the text says. Ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden,20 do I not know that it is speaking of a tree for food? Why then does it say [in the same context], [‘and shall have planted all manner of] trees for food’? To include a tree of which the wood has the same taste as the fruit. And which is this? The pepper tree, This teaches you that pepper is subject to the law of ‘orlah, and it also teaches you that the land of Israel lacks nothing, as it says, A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack anything in it!21 — There is no contradiction; one statement refers to moist pepper,22 the other to dried. The Rabbis23 said to Meremar: One who chews ginger on the Day of Atonement is not liable [to kareth]. But has not Raba said: The preserved ginger which comes from India is permitted,24 and we say over it the benediction ‘Who createst the fruit of the ground’?25 — There is no contradiction: one statement refers to moist ginger, the other to dried.
With regard to habiz26 boiled in a pot, and also pounded grain, Rab Judah says the blessing is ‘by whose word all things exist’, while R. Kahana says that it is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. In the case of simple pounded grain all agree that the correct blessing is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. Where they differ is in respect of pounded grain made like boiled habiz.27 Rab Judah says that the blessing for this is ‘by whose word etc.’, considering that the honey is the main ingredient; R. Kahana holds that the blessing is ‘who createst all kinds of food’, considering the flour the main ingredient. R. Joseph said: The view of R. Kahana is the more probable, because Rab and Samuel have both laid down that over anything containing an ingredient from the five species [of cereals] the blessing is ‘who createst all kinds of foods’.
The [above] text [states]: ‘Rab and Samuel both lay down that over anything containing an ingredient from the five species [of cereals] the blessing is ‘who createst all kinds of foods’. It has also been stated: Rab and Samuel both lay down that over anything made of the five species the blessing is ‘who createst all kinds of foods’. Now both statements are necessary. For if I had only the statement ‘anything made of etc.’, I might say, this is because the cereal is still distinguishable, but if it is mixed with something else, this is not [the blessing].
____________________
(1) Consequently Mar b. R. Ashi should have eaten also the berries.
(2) Consequently the caper-bud is certainly subject to the law of ‘orlah.
(3) Lit. trans. E.V, ‘Then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden’. Lev. XIX. 23.
(4) How then did he eat the buds?
(5) To bring it to the size of an egg and so render it susceptible to uncleanness.
(6) The blossom bears the same relationship to the pomegranate that the caper-bud bears to the berry.
(7) Although the blossom of the pomegranate does not protect it after it is plucked. The same should apply to the caper-bud.
(8) And the halachah follows the Rabbis, who are the majority. And similarly the caper-bud is not subject to ‘orlah.
(9) And can we say therefore that the halachah does not follow R. Nahman following R. Jose?
(10) Cf. Ex, XXIII, 21; Lev. XXV, 4.
(11) Boser is the sour grape; garua’ the grape when the stone is formed inside.
(12) Lit., can you imagine’.
(13) Who differ from R. Jose.
(14) Which shows that in other cases the halachah is according to R. Jose.
(15) In the case of the caper-bud.
(16) And therefore you cannot argue from one to the other.
(17) The passage in brackets reads like a marginal gloss.
(18) Not being regarded as food.
(19) V. Glos.
(20) Lev. XIX, 23.
(21) Deut. VIII, 9. This contradicts Raba.
(22) I.e., preserved only in this condition does it become an article of food.
(23) MS.M. Rabina.
(24) In spite of the fact that it has been prepared by heathens.
(25) Which shows that it is food. How then does the chewing thereof on the Day of Atonement not carry with it the guilt of kareth.
(26) This is described later as a kind of pull made of flour, honey, and oil.
(27) I.e., to which honey has been added.We are told therefore, ‘anything containing an ingredient etc.’. If again I had only the statement, anything containing an ingredient etc.’, I might think that this applies to the five species [of cereals], but not to rice and millet when they are mixed with other things; but when they are distinguishable the blessing even over rice and millet is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. So we are told that over anything which is made of the five species we say ‘who createst various kinds of foods’, excluding rice and millet, over which we do not say ‘who createst various kinds of foods’ even when they are distinguishable.
And over rice and millet do we not say, ‘who createst various kinds of foods’? Has it not been taught: If one is served with rice bread or millet bread, he says blessings before and after it as for a cooked dish [of the five species]; and with regard to cooked dishes, it has been taught: He says before partaking, ‘Who createst various kinds of foods’, and after it, he says one blessing which includes three?1 — It is on a par with cooked dishes in one way and not in another. It resembles cooked dishes in requiring a benediction before and after, and it differs from cooked dishes, because the blessing before these is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’ and the blessing after is the one which includes three, whereas in this case the blessing before is ‘by whose word all things exist’, and the blessing after. ‘Who createst many living beings with their wants, for all which He has created etc.’2
But is not rice a ‘cooked dish’?3 Has it not been taught: The following count as cooked dishes: spelt groats, wheat groats, fine flour, split grain, barley groats, and rice? Whose opinion is this?4 That of R. Johanan b. Nuri; for it has been taught: R. Johanan b. Nuri says: Rice is a kind of corn, and when leavened it can entail the penalty of kareth,5 and it can be used to fulfil the obligation of [eating unleavened bread on] Passover.6 The Rabbis, however, do not admit this.4 But do not the Rabbis admit this? Has it not been taught: If one chews wheat, he says over it the benediction, ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it [in liquid], so long as the pieces are still whole7 he says before [partaking the blessing], ‘who bringest forth bread from the earth’ ‘and after, the grace of three blessings;8 if the pieces are no longer whole, he says before partaking ‘that createst various kinds of foods’, and after it one blessing that includes three.8 If one chews rice, he says before partaking ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it, even if the pieces are still whole, he says before partaking who createst various kinds of foods’, and after it the one blessing which includes three? Now whose opinion is this? Shall I say it is R. Johanan b. Nuri's? But he said that rice is a kind of corn, and therefore [according to him] the blessing should be ‘who bringest forth food from the earth’ and the grace the one of three blessings! It must therefore be the Rabbis’; and this is a refutation of Rab and Samuel, is it not? — It is a refutation.
The Master said [above]: ‘If one chews wheat ‘he says over it the blessing, "who createst the fruit of the ground"’. But it has been taught: ‘Who createst various kinds of seeds’? There is no contradiction: one statement represents the view of R. Judah,9 the other that of the Rabbis, as we have learnt: Over vegetables one says, ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’; R. Judah. however, says: ‘Who createst various kinds of herbs’.
The Master said [above]: ‘If one chews rice he says over it "Who createst the fruit of the ground". If he grinds and bakes it and then soaks it, even if the pieces are still whole, he says before it, "Who createst the various kinds of foods", and after it one blessing which includes three’. But it has been taught: After it he need not say any blessing at all?10 — R. Shesheth replied: There is no contradiction: the one statement expresses the view of R. Gamaliel, the other that of the Rabbis, as it has been taught: This is the general rule: after partaking of anything that belongs to the seven species,11 R. Gamaliel says that three blessings should be said, while the Rabbis say, one that includes three. Once R. Gamaliel and the elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho, and dates12 were brought in and they ate, and R. Gamaliel gave permission to R. Akiba to say grace. and R. Akiba said quickly the one blessing which includes three. Said R. Gamaliel to him: Akiba, how long will you poke your head into quarrels?13 He replied: Master, although you say this way and your colleagues say the other way, you have taught us, master, that where an individual joins issue with the majority, the halachah is determined by the majority. R. Judah said in his [R. Gamaliel's] name:14 [After partaking of] any food from the seven species
____________________
(1) The benediction, ‘for the nourishment and the sustenance etc.’, V. infra 44a; v. P.B. p. 287ff.
(2) Ibid. p. 290.
(3) For the purpose of a blessing.
(4) That rice counts as a cooked dish.
(5) If eaten on Passover. V. Glos.
(6) V. Ex. XII, 19.
(7) I.e., have not been softened into a pulp.
(8) The grace after meals which originally consisted of three blessings. V. infra 46a.
(9) Who requires (infra 40a) a separate blessing for each kind of fruit or vegetable.
(10) Rashi explains this to mean, not one of the blessings said after the seven species of food, but simply ‘who createst many living creatures etc.’, (v. infra, and P.B. p. 287ff.).
(11) Enumerated in Deut. VIII, 8.
(12) One of the ‘seven species’, being included in the term ‘honey’ in Deut. VIII, 8.
(13) I.e., go against me.
(14) So Rashi. We should rather, however, expect it to be R. Akiba's, as R. Gamaliel is mentioned in the statement, and R. Judah can hardly have been a disciple of R. Gamaliel., not being a kind of corn or which belongs to one of the kinds of corn but has not been made into bread, R. Gamaliel says that three blessings are to be said, while the Sages say, only one blessing [which includes three]. [After] anything which belongs neither to the seven species nor to any kind of corn, for instance bread of rice or millet, R. Gamaliel says that one blessing which includes three is to be said, while the Sages say, no grace at all. To which authority do you then assign this statement?1 To R. Gamaliel. Look now at the latter half of the first statement2 viz., ‘if the pieces are no longer whole, he says before partaking "who createst various kinds of foods", and after partaking one blessing which includes three’. Whose view does this express? Shall I say that of R. Gamaliel? Seeing that R. Gamaliel requires a grace of three blessings after dates and pounded grain,3 is there any question that he should require it if the pieces are no longer whole?4 Hence, obviously, it must be the view of the Rabbis.5 If that is the case, there is a contradiction between two statements of the Rabbis?6 — No; I still say, it is the view of the Rabbis; and in connection with rice you should read, ‘after partaking he does not say any blessing’.
Raba said: Over the rihata7 of the field workers, in which there is a large quantity of flour, the blessing said is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. What is the reason? The flour is the main ingredient. Over the rihata of the townspeople in which there is not so much flour, the blessing said is ‘by whose word all things exist’. What is the reason? The main ingredient is the honey. Raba, however, corrected himself and said: Over both the blessing is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. For Rab and Samuel both laid down that over anything containing one of the five species as an ingredient, the blessing to be said is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’.
R. Joseph said: If in a habiz there are pieces of bread8 as big as an olive, the blessing said before it is ‘who bringest forth bread from the earth’, and after it a grace of three blessings is said. If there are no pieces as big as an olive in it, the blessing said before it is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’, and after it one blessing which includes three. Said R. Joseph: Whence do I derive this? Because it has been taught: If one9 is in the act of offering meal-offerings in Jerusalem, he says, ‘Blessed be He that hath kept us alive and preserved us and brought us to this season’. When he10 takes them up in order to eat them, he says the blessing, ‘Who bringest forth bread from the earth’, and it was taught in this connection. They are all11 broken into fragments of the size of an olive.12 Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then similarly according to the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who says that he crushes them until he reduces them to flour, he should not require to say who bringest forth bread from the earth’? And should you reply that that is indeed the case, has it not been taught: If he scraped together as much as an olive from all of them13 and ate [all of] it, if it is leaven he is punished with kareth,14 and if it is unleaven a man may perform his obligation with it on Passover?15 — With what case are we dealing here?16 If he re-kneaded the crumbs.17 If so, look at the next clause: This is only if he ate them within the time which it takes to eat half [a roll].18 Now if they are re-kneaded, instead of saying ‘to eat them’, it should say, ‘to eat it’? [Rather] with what case are we here dealing? When it comes from a large loaf.19 Now what do we decide upon this matter? R. Shesheth said: If the crumbs of bread in a habiz are even less than an olive, the benediction ‘who bringest forth bread from the earth’ is said over it. Raba added: This is only if they still have the appearance of bread.
Troknin20 is subject to the law of hallah. When Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Johanan: Troknin is not subject to the law of hallah. What is Troknin? — Abaye said: [Dough baked] in a cavity made in the ground.
Abaye also said: Tarita is exempt from the obligation of hallah. What is tarita?-Some say, dough just lightly baked;21 others say, bread baked on a spit;22 others again, bread used for kuttah.23 R. Hiyya said: Bread used for kuttah is not liable to hallah. But it has been taught that it is liable for hallah? — There the reason is stated: Rab Judah says that the way it is made shows what it is; if it is made
____________________
(1) That after rice one has to say the one blessing including three.
(2) In the above-cited Baraitha, ‘if one chews wheat etc.’, supra p. 232.
(3) Which is the same as ‘corn which has not been made into bread’, mentioned in the Baraitha quoted above.
(4) Since they were originally bread.
(5) Who hold that after pounded grain (v. n. 2) only the one blessing which includes three is said, and where the pieces are no longer whole the cooked wheat is treated like pounded grain.
(6) There the Rabbis declare that after bread made of rice no benediction is necessary, while in the previously cited Baraitha they are said to require one benediction which includes three.
(7) A dish resembling the habiz, and containing the same ingredients.
(8) I.e., if bread is broken up into it.
(9) According to Rashi, this is the layman who gives it to the priest to offer; according to Tosaf., the priest himself.
(10) The priest.
(11) I.e., all the various kinds of meal-offerings mentioned in Lev. II.
(12) V. Lev. II, 6. This proves that crumbs must be at least the size of an olive for the benediction ‘Who bringest forth bread’ to be said.
(13) The various kinds of meal-offerings. Tosaf., however, refers it to ordinary crumbs of different species of cereals, since the continuation, ‘if it is leaven etc.’, could not apply to meal-offerings which had to be unleavened.
(14) If he eats it on Passover.
(15) And of course the prescribed blessing ‘who bringest forth etc.’, must be said over it also.
(16) In the teaching last cited.
(17) Making them into a compact mass.
(18) A piece of bread the size of four eggs. If he does not eat the size of an olive within this time, it does not count for any purpose.
(19) Some of which still remains unbroken, even though he did not reknead the bread crumbs.
(20) Bread baked in a hole in the ground.
(21) By being poured on the hot hearth and formed into fritters.
(22) And covered with oil, or eggs and oil. Aliter: ‘Indian bread.’
(23) A dish made of bread mixed with sour milk and baked in the sun.like cakes, it is liable for hallah, if like boards,1 it is not liable.
Abaye said to R. Joseph: What blessing is said over dough baked in a cavity in the ground? — He replied: Do you think it is bread? It is merely a thick mass, and the blessing said over it is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. Mar Zutra made it the basis of his meal and said over it the blessing, ‘who bringest forth bread from the earth’ and three blessings after it. Mar son of R. Ashi said: The obligation of Passover can be fulfilled with it. What is the reason? We apply to it the term, ‘bread of affliction.
Mar son of R. Ashi also said: Over honey of the date-palm we say, ‘by whose word all things exist’.2 What is the reason? — Because it is merely moisture [of the tree]. With whose teaching does this accord? — With that of the following Tanna, as we have learnt: With regard to the honey of the date-palm and cider and vinegar from stunted grapes3 and other fruit juices of terumah. R. Eliezer requires [in case of sacrilege] payment of the value and an additional fifth,4 but R. Joshua exempts [from the additional fifth].5
One of the Rabbis asked Raba: What is the law with regard to trimma?6 Raba did not quite grasp what he said. Rabina was sitting before Raba and said to the man: Do you mean of sesame7 or of saffron8 or of grape-kernels?9 Raba thereupon bethought himself10 and said: You certainly mean hashilta;11 and you have reminded me of something which R. Assi said: It is permissible to make trimma12 of dates of terumah, but forbidden to make mead of them.13 The law is that over dates which have been used to make into trimma we say the blessing ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’. What is the reason? They are still in their natural state.
With regard to shatitha,14 Rab said that the blessing is ‘by whose word all things were made’, while Samuel said that it is ‘who createst various kinds of foods’. Said R. Hisda: They do not really differ: the latter is said over the thick variety, the former over the thin. The thick is made for eating, the thin for a medicine. R. Joseph raised an objection to this: Both alike15 say that we may stir up a shatitha on Sabbath and drink Egyptian beer. Now if you think that he intends it as a remedy, is a medicine permitted on Sabbath? — Abaye replied: And do you hold that it is not? Have we not learnt: All foods may be eaten on Sabbath for medical purposes and all drinks may be drunk?16 But what you must say is: in these cases the man intends it for food;17 here too, the man intends it for food.
(Another version of this is: But what you can say is that the man intends it for food and the healing effect comes of itself. So here too. the man intends it for food, and the healing effect comes of itself.) And it was necessary to have this statement of Rab and Samuel.18 For if I had only the other statement19 I might think that [he says a blessing because] he intends it for food and the healing effect comes of itself; but in this case, since his first intention is to use it for healing. I might think that he should not say any blessing at all over it. We are therefore told that since he derives some enjoyment from it, he has to say a blessing.FOR OVER BREAD IS SAID, WHO BRINGEST FORTH etc. Our Rabbis taught: What does he say? ‘Who bringest forth [ha-mozi] bread from the earth’. R. Nehemiah says: ‘Bringing [mozi]20 forth bread from the earth’. Both agree that the word mozi means ‘who has brought forth’,21 since it is written, God who brought them forth [moziam] from Egypt.22 Where they disagree is as to the meaning of ha-mozi. The Rabbis held that ha-mozi means ‘who has brought forth’, as it is written, Who brought thee forth [ha-mozi] water out of the rock of flint,23 whereas R. Nehemiah held that ha-mozi means ‘who is bringing forth’, as it says, Who bringeth you out [ha-mozi] from under the burden of the Egyptians.24 The Rabbis, however, say that those words spoken by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel were meant as follows: When I shall bring you out, I will do for you something which will show you that it is I who brought you forth from Egypt, as it is written, And ye shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out.24
The Rabbis used to speak highly to R. Zera of the son of R. Zebid25 the brother of R. Simeon son of R. Zebid as being a great man and well versed in the benedictions. He said to them: When you get hold of him bring him to me. Once he came to his house and they brought him a loaf, over which he pronounced the blessing mozi. Said R. Zebid: Is this the man of whom they say that he is a great man and well versed in benedictions? Had he said ha-mozi,
____________________
(1) I.e in flat thick pieces not resembling bread.
(2) Not ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’.
(3) I.e., which never come to maturity. So Rashi; v.l. ‘winter grapes’.
(4) V. Lev. V, 15ff.
(5) Because he does not regard these things as fruit.
(6) GR. **, something pounded but not out of recognition; here, a brew made of pounded fruit.
(7) Pounded sesame over which wine is poured.
(8) Saffron pounded to extract its oil.
(9) Over which water is poured to make mead.
(10) Rabina's question suggested to Raba the meaning of the question put to him.
(11) A brew made with rounded date-stones.
(12) I.e., a mere brew, not so strong as mead.
(13) Because then they completely lose their identity.
(14) Flour of dried barleycorns mixed with honey.
(15) R. Judah and R. Jose b. Judah; v. Shab. 156a.
(16) Shab. 109b.
(17) And the healing effect is produced incidentally.
(18) That shatitha though used for medicinal purpose is treated as food and requires a benediction, in addition to the teaching that it is regarded as food and may be partaken of on Sabbath.
(19) That all foods may be consumed on Sabbath for medical purposes.
(20) Mozi is the present participle; ha-,mozi is the same with the definite article.
(21) Which is the meaning required.
(22) Num. XXIII, 22.
(23) Deut. VIII, 15.
(24) Ex. VI, 7.
(25) So the text. There seems to be some corruption. and Goldschmidt reads: The Rabbis praised the father of R. Simeon b. Zebid to R. Zera b. Rab; cf. D.S.he would have taught us the meaning of a text and he would have taught us that the halachah is as stated by the Rabbis. But when he says mozi, what does he teach us?1 In fact he acted thus so as to keep clear of controversy. And the law is that we say, ha-mozi bread from the earth’, since we hold with the Rabbis who say that it means ‘who has brought forth’.
OVER VEGETABLES ONE SAYS etc. Vegetables are placed [by the Mishnah] on a par with bread: just as over bread which has been transformed by fire [the same blessing is said], so [the same blessing is said over] vegetables when they have been changed by fire. Rabinnai said in the name of Abaye: This means to say that over boiled vegetables we say ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. [How? — Because the Mishnah puts vegetables on a par with bread].2
R. Hisda expounded in the name of our Teacher, and who is this? Rab: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. But teachers who came down from the land of Israel, and who are these? ‘Ulla in the name of R. Johanan, said: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘by whose word all things exist’. I say, however,3 that wherever we say over a thing in its raw state ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, if it is boiled we say ‘by whose word all things exist’; and wherever we say over it in the raw state ‘by whose word all things exist’,if it is boiled we say ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. We quite understand that where the blessing over a thing in its raw state is ‘by whose word all things were created’, if it is boiled we say, ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’;4 you have examples in cabbage, beet, and pumpkin. But where can you find that a thing which in its raw state requires ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’ should, when boiled, require ‘by whose word all things exist’?5 — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: You have an instance in garlic and leek.
R. Nahman expounded in the name of our teacher, and who is this? Samuel: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’; but our colleagues who came down from the Land of Israel, and who are these? ‘Ulla in the name of R. Johanan, say: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘by whose word all things exist’. I personally say that authorities6 differ on the matter, as it has been taught: One may satisfy the requirement [of eating unleavened bread on Passover] with a wafer which has been soaked, or which has been boiled, provided it has not been dissolved. So R. Meir. R. Jose, however, says: One fulfils the requirements with a wafer which has been soaked, but not with one which has been boiled, even though it has not been dissolved. But this is not the case.7 All [in fact] would agree that over boiled vegetables the blessing is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’; and R. Jose was more particular in the case of the wafer only because we require the taste of unleavened bread and it is not there. In this case, however, even R. Jose would admit [that boiling does not alter its character].
R. Hiyya b. Abba.said in the name of R. Johanan: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. R. Benjamin b. Jefet, however, said in the name of R. Johanan: Over boiled vegetables the blessing to be said is ‘by whose word all things exist’. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: ‘Ulla8 became confirmed in his error by accepting the word of R. Benjamin b. Jefet. R. Zera expressed his astonishment.9 How [he said], can you mention R. Benjamin b. Jefet along with R. Hiyya b. Abba? R. Hiyya b. Abba was very particular to get the exact teaching of R. Johanan his master, whereas R. Benjamin b. Jefet was not particular. Further, R. Hiyya b. Abba used to go over what he had learnt every thirty days with his teacher R. Johanan, while R. Benjamin b. Jefet did not do so. Besides, apart from these two reasons10 there is the case of the lupines which were cooked seven times in the pot, and eaten as dessert,11 and when they came and asked R. Johanan about them, he told them that the blessing to be said was ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’. Moreover R. Hiyya b. Abba said: I have seen R. Johanan eat salted olives and say a blessing both before and after. Now if you hold that boiled vegetables are still regarded as the same, we can understand this: before eating he said ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’, and after it a grace of one blessing which includes three.12 But if you hold that vegetables after being boiled are not regarded as the same, no doubt he could say before eating ‘by whose word all things are created’, but what could he say after? — Perhaps he said, ‘who createst many living things and their requirements for all that he has created’.
R. Isaac b. Samuel raised an objection: With regard to the herbs with which one may fulfil the requirement [of eating bitter herbs on] Passover,13 both they and their stalks may serve this purpose, but not if they are pickled or cooked or boiled.14 Now if you maintain that after boiling they are still regarded as the same, why may they not be used boiled? — The case is different there. because we require the taste of bitter herbs, and this we do not find.
R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: How could R. Johanan make a blessing over a salted olive? Since the stone had been removed,
____________________
(1) Seeing that all are agreed as to its meaning.
(2) These words seem to be a needless repetition, and are bracketed in the text.
(3) In order to reconcile the two opinions.
(4) Because usually it is improved by boiling.
(5) I.e., should deteriorate through being boiled.
(6) I.e., Tannaim.
(7) That the authorities differ with regard to vegetables and that R. Jose supports R. Johanan.
(8) Who reported supra in the name of R. Johanan that the blessing is ‘by whose word etc.’.
(9) That this difference of opinion should have been recorded.
(10) Showing that R. Johanan did not make the statement attributed to him by R. Benjamin b. Jefet.
(11) And therefore required a separate blessing.
(12) Because in spite of the salting, it was still regarded as an olive.
(13) V. Ex. XII, 8.
(14) I.e., reduced to a pulp. V. Pes. 39a.it was less than the minimum size! — He replied: Do you think the size we require is that of a large olive? We require only that of a medium sized olive, and that was there, for the one they set before R. Johanan was a large one, so that even when its stone had been removed it was still of the requisite size. For so we have learnt: The ‘olive’ spoken of1 means neither a small nor a large one, but a medium one. This is the kind which is called aguri. R. Abbahu, however, said: Its name is not aguri but abruti, or, according to others, samrusi. And why is it called aguri? Because its oil is collected [agur] within it.2
May we say that this controversy [about the blessing to be said over boiled vegetables] is found between Tannaim? For once two disciples were sitting before Bar Kappara, and cabbage, Damascene plums and poultry were set before him. Bar Kappara gave permission to one of them to say a blessing, and he at once said the blessing over the poultry.3 The other laughed at him, and Bar Kappara was angry, He said: I am not angry with the one who said the blessing, but with the one who laughed. If your companion acts like one who has never tasted meat in his life, is that any reason for you to laugh? Then he corrected himself and said: I am not angry with the one who laughed, but with the one who said the blessing. If there is no wisdom here, is there not old age here?4 A Tanna taught: Neither of them saw the year out.5 Now did not their difference lie in this, that the one who said the blessing held that the benediction over both boiled vegetables and poultry is ‘by whose word all things exist’, and therefore the dish he liked best had the preference,6 while the one who laughed held that the blessing over boiled vegetables is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, and that over poultry is ‘by whose word all things were created’, and therefore the vegetables should have had the preference?7 — Not so. All agree that for both boiled vegetables and poultry the blessing is ‘by whose word all things exist’, and their difference lies in this, that one held that what is best liked should have the preference, and the other held that the cabbage should have the preference, because it is nourishing.8
R. Zera said: When we were with R. Huna, he told us that with regard to the tops of turnips, if they are cut into large pieces, the blessing is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, but if they are cut into small pieces, ‘by whose word all things exist’.9 But when we came to Rab Judah, he told us that for both the blessing is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, since the reason for their being cut into small pieces is to make them taste sweeter.
R. Ashi said: When we were with R. Kahana, he told us that over a broth of beet, in which not much flour is put, the blessing is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, but for a broth of turnip, in which much flour is put, the blessing is ‘who createst all kinds of foods’. Subsequently, however, he said that the blessing for both is ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’, since the reason why much flour is put in it is only to make it cohere better.
R. Hisda said: A broth of beet is beneficial for the heart and good for the eyes, and needless to say for the bowels. Said Abaye: This is only if it is left on the stove till it goes tuk, tuk.10
R. Papa said: It is quite clear to me that beet-water is on the same footing as beet,11 and turnip-water on the same footing as turnips. and the water of all vegetables on the same footing as the vegetables themselves. R. Papa, however, inquired: What about aniseed water? Is its main purpose to sweeten the taste12 [to the dish] or to remove the evil smell?13 — Come and hear: Once the aniseed has given a taste to the dish, the law of terumah no longer applies to it,14 and it is not liable to the uncleanness of foods.15 This proves that its main purpose is to sweeten the dish, does it not? — It does.
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: Over a dry crust which has been put in a pot [to soak], the blessing is ‘who bringeth forth bread etc.’. This view conflicts with that of R. Hiyya; for R. Hiyya said: The bread should be broken with the conclusion of the blessing.16 Raba demurred to this. What [he said], is the reason [why hamozi should not be said] in the case of dry crust? Because, you say, when the blessing is concluded, it is concluded over a broken piece. But when it is said over a loaf, it finishes over a broken piece!
____________________
(1) As a standard of quantity.
(2) I.e., can be squeezed out immediately. Probably all these names refer to the place of origin of different kinds of olive.
(3) As being the principal dish.
(4) And why did you not consult me?
(5) As a punishment for the disrespect shown to Bar Kappara.
(6) I.e., he said the blessing over that one first and commenced to eat it.
(7) Even though he liked the poultry better, because the blessing over vegetables is more dignified.
(8) I.e., more than poultry. v. infra 44b.
(9) Because they have been more or less spoilt.
(10) I.e., has been brought to the boil.
(11) And the blessing to be said over it is ‘who createst the fruit of the earth’.
(12) And is the blessing to be said over it ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’.
(13) And the blessing will be ‘by whose word etc.’.
(14) It is regarded as merely wood, not liable to terumah.
(15) ‘Uk. III, 4.
(16) But this has already been broken off, and therefore the blessing is ‘by whose word’.The fact is, said Raba, that the benediction is said first and then the loaf is broken.1 The Nehardeans acted as prescribed by R. Hiyya, while the Rabbis acted as prescribed by Raba. Rabina said: Mother told me: Your father acted as prescribed by R. Hiyya; for R. Hiyya said: The bread should be broken with the conclusion of the blessing, whereas the Rabbis acted as prescribed by Raba. The law is as laid down by Raba, that one says the blessing first and afterwards breaks the loaf.
It has been stated: If pieces and whole loaves are set before one, R. Huna says that the benediction can be said over the pieces,2 and this serves also for the whole loaves, whereas R. Johanan says that the religious duty is better performed if the blessing is said over the whole one. If, however, a broken piece of wheat bread and a whole loaf of barley bread are set before one, all agree that the benediction is said over the piece of wheaten bread, and this serves also for the whole loaf of barley bread. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: There is the same difference of opinion between Tannaim:3 Terumah is given from a small whole onion, but not from the half of a large onion. R. Judah says: Not so, but also from the half of a large onion.4 Are we to say that the point in which they differ is this: one authority holds that the fact of being worth more is more important, while the other holds that the fact of being whole is more important? — Where a priest is on the spot,5 all agree that the fact of being worth more is more important. Where they differ is when there is no priest on the spot, since we have learnt: Wherever a priest is on the spot, terumah is given from the best of the produce; where the priest is not on the spot,6 terumah is set aside from that which will keep best. R. Judah said: Terumah is in all cases given from the best.7 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A Godfearing man will seek to satisfy both.8 Who is such a one? Mar the son of Rabina. For Mar the son of Rabina used to put the broken piece under9 the whole loaf and then break the bread.10 A Tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman b. Isaac: One should place the broken piece under the whole loaf and then break and say the benediction. He said to him: What is your name? Shalman, he replied. He said to him: Thou art peace [shalom] and thy Mishnah is faultless [shelemah], for thou hast made peace between the scholars.
R. Papa said: All admit that on Passover one puts the broken cake under the whole one and breaks [them together]. What is the reason? Scripture speaks of ‘Bread of poverty’.11 R. Abba said: On Sabbath one should break bread from two loaves. What is the reason? Scripture speaks of ‘double bread’.12 R. Ashi said: I have observed R. Kahana take two and break one. R. Zera used to break off [a piece of bread] sufficient for the whole meal [on Sabbath]. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Does not this look like greediness? He replied: Since every other day he does not act thus and today he acts thus, it does not look like greediness. When R. Ammi and R. Assi happened to get hold of a loaf which had been used for an ‘erub,13 they used to say over it the blessing, ‘who bringest forth bread from the earth’, saying, Since one religious duty has been performed with it, let us perform with it still another.
____________________
(1) So that when the blessing is concluded the bread is still whole.
(2) Especially if they are larger than the whole loaf, in which case preference must be given to the broken one (Rashi).
(3) In the case where the broken one is of wheat and the whole one of barley.
(4) Ter. II, 5.
(5) And the terumah can be given to him immediately.
(6) And the produce has to be kept till he turns up.
(7) Ibid. 4.
(8) I.e., both points of view, sc. of R. Huna and R. Johanan.
(9) V. Rashi.
(10) From both, v. Rashi.
(11) Deut. XVI, 3. (E.V. ‘affliction’). A poor man has usually only a piece.
(12) Ex. XVI. 22, of the manna on Friday. (E.V. ‘twice as much bread’).
(13) For allowing transport through the courts on Sabbath. V. Glos.Rab said: [If the host says to his guests,]1 Take, the benediction has been said,2 take, the benediction has been said, he [the host] need not say the benediction [again].3 If he said [between the benediction and the eating], Bring salt, bring relish, he must say the benediction [again]. R. Johanan, however, said that even if he said, Bring salt, bring relish, the benediction need not be repeated. If he said, Mix fodder for the oxen, mix fodder for the oxen, he must repeat the blessing; R. Shesheth. however, said that even if he said, Mix fodder for the oxen, he need not repeat; for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A man is forbidden to eat before he gives food to his beast, since it says. And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle, and then, thou shalt eat and be satisfied.4
Raba b. Samuel said in the name of R. Hiyya: The one who is about to break the bread is not permitted to do so before salt or relish is placed before each one at table. Raba b. Samuel was once at the house of the Exilarch, and they brought him bread and he broke it at once. They said to him: Has the Master retraced his own teaching? — He replied: This requires no condiment.5
Raba b. Samuel also said in the name of R. Hiyya: Urine is never completely discharged except when sitting.6 R. Kahana said: If over loose earth, even when standing. If there is no loose earth, one should stand on a raised spot and discharge down a declivity.
Raba b. Samuel also said in the name of R. Hiyya: After every food eat salt, and after every beverage drink water, and you will come to no harm. It has been taught similarly: After every food eat salt, and after every beverage drink water, and you will come to no harm. It has been taught elsewhere: If one ate any kind of food without taking salt after it, or drank any kind of liquor without taking water after it, by day he is liable to be troubled with an evil-smelling mouth, and by night with croup. The Rabbis taught: One who swills down his food with plenty of water will not suffer with his bowels. How much should he drink? R. Hisda says: A cupful to a loaf.
R. Mari said in the name of R. Johanan: If one takes lentils regularly once in thirty days, he will keep croup away from his house.7 He should not, however, take them every day. Why so? Because they cause a bad smell in the mouth. R. Mari also said in the name of R. Johanan: If one takes mustard regularly once in thirty days, he keeps sickness away from his house. He should not, however, take it every day. Why so? Because it is weakening for the heart. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: One who eats regularly small fish will not suffer with his bowels. Moreover, small fish stimulate propagation and strengthen a man's whole body. R. Hama b. Hanina said: One who takes regularly black cumin will not suffer from heartburn.8 The following was cited in objection to this: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Black cumin is one of the sixty poisons. and if one sleeps on the east side of the place where it is stored, his blood will be on his own head?9 — There is no contradiction: The latter statement speaks of its smell, the former of its taste. The mother of R. Jeremiah used to bake bread for him and stick [black cumin] on it10 and then scrape it off.11
R. JUDAH SAYS, WHO CREATEST DIVERS KINDS OF HERBS. R. Zera, or as some say R. Hinnena b. Papa, said: The halachah is not as stated by R. Judah. R. Zera, or as some say, R. Hinnena b. Papa, further said: What is R. Judah's reason? Scripture says, Blessed be the Lord day by day.12 Are we then to bless Him by day and not bless Him by night? What it means to tell us is that every day we should give Him the blessing appropriate to the day.13 So here, for every species we should give Him the appropriate blessing.
R. Zera, or as some say,R. Hinnena b. Papa, further said: Observe how the character of the Holy One, blessed be He, differs from that of flesh and blood. A mortal can put something into an empty vessel14 but not into a full one. But the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so; He puts more into a full vessel15 but not into an empty one; for it says, If hearkening thou wilt hearken,16 implying, if thou hearkenest [once] thou wilt go on hearkening, and if not, thou wilt not hearken. Another explanation is: If thou hearkenest to the old,17 thou wilt hearken to the new, but if thy heart turns away, thou wilt not hear any more.
MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS OVER FRUIT OF THE TREE THE BENEDICTION, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. BUT IF HE SAID OVER PRODUCE OF THE GROUND, ‘WHO CREATEST THE FRUIT OF THE TREE’, HE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE SAYS ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS EXIST OVER ANY OF THEM, HE HAS PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION.
GEMARA. What authority maintains that the essence of the tree is the ground? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is R. Judah, as we have learnt: If the spring has dried up or the tree has been cut down,18 he brings the first-fruits but does not make the declaration.19 R. Judah, however, says that he both brings them and makes the declaration.20
OVER FRUIT OF THE GROUND etc. This is obvious, is it not? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It required to be stated in view of the opinion of R. Judah, who maintains that wheat is a kind of tree. For it has been taught: R. Meir holds that the tree of which Adam ate was the vine, since the thing that most causes wailing to a man is wine, as it says, And he drank of the wine and was drunken.21 R. Nehemiah says it was the fig tree, so that they repaired their misdeed with the instrument of it, as it says, And they sewed fig leaves together.22 R. Judah says it was wheat, since a child does not know how to call ‘father’ and ‘mother’ until it has had a taste of corn.23 Now you might think that because R. Judah says that wheat is a kind of tree, therefore we should say over it the benediction ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’. Therefore we are told that we say ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’ only in those cases where if you take away the fruit the stem still remains to produce fruit again
____________________
(1) After saying the blessing on behalf of all.
(2) Lit., ‘(the bread) has been blessed’.
(3) In spite of the fact that there has been an interruption between the saying and the eating, because the words spoken have reference to the benediction.
(4) Deut. XI, 15.
(5) So Jast. Rashi translates: no delay (in waiting for the salt).
(6) Because one who discharges standing is afraid of the drops falling on his clothes (Rashi).
(7) Rashi explains that they keep away indigestion which is the cause of croup.
(8) Lit., ‘pain of the heart’.
(9) Because the west wind will carry the odour to him and poison him.
(10) So that it should absorb the taste.
(11) To remove the smell.
(12) Ps. LXVIII, 20.
(13) E.g., on Sabbath the Sabbath blessing, on festivals the festival blessing. etc.
(14) Lit., ‘in the case of a mortal man, an empty vessel can be made to hold, etc.’.
(15) I.e., He gives more wisdom to the wise.
(16) Ex. XV, 26, lit. trans. E.V. ‘If thou wilt diligently hearken’.
(17) I.e., constantly revise what you have learnt.
(18) If one has gathered first-fruits, and before he takes them to Jerusalem the spring which fed the tree dries up, or the tree is cut down.
(19) V. Deut. XXVI, 5-10, because it contains the words ‘of the land which Thou, O Lord, hast given me’, and the land is valueless without the tree or the spring.
(20) Because the land is the essence, not the tree; v. Bik. I, 6.
(21) Gen. IX, 21. The reference is to Noah.
(22) Ibid. III, 7.
(23) Hence the Tree of Knowledge must have been some kind of corn., but in cases where if you take the fruit the stem does not remain to produce again, the benediction is not ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’ but ‘who createst the fruit of the ground’.
IF HE SAYS, BY ‘WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS EXIST’ etc. It has been stated: R. Huna said: Except over bread and wine.1 R. Johanan, however, said: Even over bread and wine. May we say that the same difference of opinion is found between Tannaim? [For it was taught:] ‘If a man sees a loaf of bread and says, What a fine loaf this is! Blessed be the Omnipresent that has created it! he has performed his obligation. If he sees a fig and says, What a fine fig this is! Blessed be the Omnipresent that has created it! he has performed his obligation. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: If one alters the formula laid down by the Sages in benedictions, he has not performed his obligation’. May we say that R. Huna concurs with R. Jose and R. Johanan with R. Meir? — R. Huna can reply to you: I can claim even R. Meir as a supporter of my view. For R. Meir went as far as he did in that case only because the bread is actually mentioned, but where the bread is not actually mentioned even R. Meir would admit [that the obligation is not fulfilled]. And R. Johanan can reply to you: I may claim R. Jose also as a supporter of my view. For R. Jose only went as far as he did in that case because he made a benediction which was not instituted by the Sages, but if he says, ‘by whose word all things exist’, which has been instituted by the Sages, even R. Jose would admit [that he has performed his obligation].
Benjamin the shepherd made a sandwich2 and said, Blessed be the Master of this bread,3 and Rab said that he had performed his obligation. But Rab has laid down that any benediction in which God's name is not mentioned is no benediction? — We must suppose he said, Blessed be the All-Merciful, the Master of this bread. But we require three blessings?4 — What did Rab mean by saying that he had performed his obligation? He had performed the obligation of the first blessing. What does this tell us [that we did not already know]? That [he has performed his obligation] even if he says it in a secular language. But we have already learnt this: ‘The following may be said in any language: the section of the Unfaithful wife,5 the confession over tithe,6 the recital of the Shema’, and the Tefillah and grace after food?7 — It required to be stated. For you might have thought that this is the case only if one says the grace in a secular language in the same form as was instituted by the Rabbis in the holy tongue, but if one does not say it in the secular language in the same form as was instituted by the Rabbis in the holy tongue, he has not performed his obligation. We are therefore told [that this is not so].
It was stated above: Rab said that any benediction in which the Divine Name is not mentioned is no benediction. R. Johanan, however, said: Any benediction in which [God's] Kingship is not mentioned is no benediction. Abaye said: The opinion of Rab is the more probable. For it has been taught: I have not transgressed any of Thy commandments, neither have I forgotten.8 This means: ‘I have not transgressed’ so as not to bless Thee,9 ‘neither have I forgotten’ to mention Thy name therein. Of sovereignty, however, there is no mention here. R. Johanan, however, reads: ‘Neither have I forgotten’ to mention Thy name and Thy sovereignty therein.
MISHNAH. OVER ANYTHING WHICH DOES NOT GROW FROM THE EARTH ONE SAYS: ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS EXIST’. OVER VINEGAR, NOBELOTH10 AND LOCUSTS ONE SAYS, ‘BY WHOSE WORD ALL THINGS EXIST’. R. JUDAH SAYS: OVER ANYTHING TO WHICH A KIND OF CURSE ATTACHES NO BENEDICTION IS SAID.11 IF ONE HAS SEVERAL VARIETIES BEFORE HIM, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT IF THERE IS AMONG THEM SOMETHING OF THE SEVEN KINDS,12 HE MAKES THE BLESSING OVER THAT, BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE MAY MAKE THE BLESSING OVER ANY KIND THAT HE PLEASES.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Over anything which does not grow from the ground, such as the flesh of cattle, beasts and birds and fishes, one says ‘by whose word all things were created’. Over milk, eggs and cheese one says, ‘by whose word, etc.’. Over bread which has become mouldy and over wine on which a film has formed and cooked food which has become spoilt one says, ‘by whose word’. Over salt and brine and morils and truffles one says, ‘by whose word’. This would imply that morils and truffles do not grow from the ground. But has it not been taught: If one vows to abstain from fruit of the ground, he is forbidden to eat of fruit of the ground but is allowed to eat morils and truffles? If he said, I vow abstention from all that grows from the ground, he is forbidden to eat morils and truffles also?13 — Abaye said: They do indeed spring up from the earth, but their sustenance is not derived14 from the earth. But it says, ‘over anything which grows from the earth’? — Read: Over anything which draws sustenance from the earth.
OVER NOBELOTH. What are NOBELOTH? — R. Zera and R. El'a [gave different answers]. One said: fruit parched by the sun;15 the other said: dates blown down by the wind. We have learnt: R. JUDAH SAYS: OVER ANYTHING TO WHICH A KIND OF CURSE ATTACHES NO BLESSING IS SAID. This accords with the view of the one who says that nobeloth are fruit parched by the sun, which can rightly be called something to which a curse attaches. But if we say they are dates blown down by the wind, what has ‘a kind of curse’ to do with them? — This expression relates to the other things [mentioned].16
Some report as follows: On the view of him who says that they are fruit parched by the sun, it is quite right that we should say ‘by whose word, etc.’; but according to the one who says that they are dates blown down by the wind, we should say, ‘who createst the fruit of the tree’?17 — The fact is that all are agreed that nobeloth in general are fruit parched by the sun. The difference arises over nobeloth of the date-palm, since we have learnt:18 Things in regard to which the law of demai is not so strict19 are shittin, rimin, ‘uzradin, benoth shuah, benoth shikmah, gofnin, nizpah and the nobeloth of the date-palm. Shittin, according to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reporting R. Johanan, are a kind of figs. Rimin are lote. ‘Uzradin are crabapples. Benoth shuah, according to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reporting R. Johanan, are white figs. Benoth shikmah, according to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reporting R. Johanan, are sycamore figs. Gofnin are winter grapes. Nizpah is the caper-fruit. Nobeloth of the date-palm are explained differently by R. Zera and R. El'a. One says that they are fruit parched by the sun, the other that they are dates blown down by the wind. Now the view of him who says that they are fruit parched by the sun accords well with what it teaches [concerning them], ‘things about which the law of demai is not so strict’, and if there is a doubt about them, they are free from the obligation of tithe, which shows that if there is no doubt20 they are subject to it. But on the view of him who says that they are dates blown down by the wind, must, in case of certainty, tithe be given from them? They are hefker!21 — With what case are we dealing here? Where one made a store of them. For R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan reporting R. Eliezer b. Jacob: If [a poor man] has made a store of gleanings, forgotten sheaves and produce of the corner,22 they are liable for tithe.
Some report as follows:
____________________
(1) Bread because it is the mainstay of the meal, wine because many special benedictions are said over it.
(2) Lit., ‘doubled (wrapped) a loaf’, which seems to mean that he made a sandwich of bread and some relish.
(3) He said it in Aramaic.
(4) It was assumed that he said this formula after eating.
(5) Num. V, 21ff.
(6) Deut. XXVI, 13-15.
(7) V. Sot. 32a.
(8) Deut. XXVI, 13 in reference to the tithe.
(9) The benediction, ‘Blessed be He . . . who commanded us to set aside terumah and tithe’.
(10) Lit., ‘withering products’. This is explained in the Gemara.
(11) And the things just mentioned come under this heading.
(12) Enumerated in Deut. VIII, 8.
(13) V. Ned. 55b.
(14) Lit., ‘they do not suck’.
(15) While still on the tree.
(16) Viz., vinegar and locusts.
(17) Since they are still dates.
(18) Demai I, 1.
(19) I.e., which a haber (v. Glos.) need not tithe if he buys them from an ‘am ha-arez (v. Glos.). These things being of little value, the presumption is that they have been tithed.
(20) That they have not been tithed.
(21) I.e., ownerless (v. Glos.) and not subject to tithe.
(22) Which he had gathered and which are ordinarily not titheable.
