Talmud su Levitico 23:78

MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats¹For the determination of these grains, see Kilaim 1, Notes 2–3. In current practice, שיפון is interpreted as rye, following Rashi. Flour made from these and only these grains qualifies as bread flour. All other flours are cake flours; bread made from them is legally cake.. These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another²Mixed dough is subject to ḥallah if the volume of flour used is at least that specified in Mishnah 2:6.. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover³Lev. 23:14. and may not be cut before the ‘omer⁴The ‘omer is the sheaf of barley cut first in the spring harvest and brought to the Temple (Lev. 23:10), in rabbinic interpretation on the second day of Passover, the 16^th of Nisan.. If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them⁵While the first harvest is that of barley, all other grains, including wheat, are immediately permitted for profane use. Only for the Temple is new wheat forbidden until the Festival of First Fruits, Lev. 23:16.; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.

MISHNAH: The High Priest comes to read. If he wants to read in the byssus garments¹The white garment which he wore for the ceremonies in the Temple building. he may read; otherwise in his own while stole²Greek στολή, ἡ.. The beadle of the synagogue³The synagogue on the Temple Mount, outside the Temple precinct. The president of the Synagogue had to carry the scroll into the Temple courtyard. This clearly is a Pharisaic institution. takes the Torah scroll and hands it to the president of the synagogue, the president of the synagogue hands it to the executive officer of the Temple, the executive officer of the Temple hands it to the High Priest. The High Priest receives it standing, and reads standing. He reads after the death⁴Lev. 16:1–34. and but on the tenth day⁵Lev.23:26–32., rolls up the Torah, keeps it in his bosom, and says: More than what I read before you is written here. On the tenth day in Numbers⁶Num. 19:7–11. he recites⁷קורא always means to recite with the correct masoretic accents. by heart, and pronounces eight benedictions⁸These will be detailed in the Halakhah.: For the Torah, for the Service, for thanksgiving, for the remission of sin, for the Temple, for Israel, for the priests, and general prayer.
He who sees the High Priest reading does not see the burning of the bull and the ram; he who sees the burning of the bull and the ram does not see the High Priest reading. Not because he would not be entitled to it but because the distance was large and the actions happened simultaneously.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up lulav¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27). is disqualified. Of an ashera²A tree worshipped as a pagan deity, forbidden for all use. or a seduced city³An apostate city practicing idolatry which has to be destroyed and all its property burned, forbidden for all usufruct, Deut13:13–18., it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, it is disqualified. If its leaves were spread out, it is qualified; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall tie them at the top⁴As long as the leaves are connected they can be tied together to produce the desired shape of a solid tube.. The stone palms of Iron Mountain are qualified. Any lulav three hand-breadths long to shake it⁵As explained in Mishnaiot 8 ff., the main use of the “four kinds” mentioned in the verse is to shake them during the recitation of Hallel, Ps. 113–118. is qualified.

HALAKHAH: “The following separate regarding peah.” Because it has been said (Lev. 19:9, 23:22): “Your field⁸In the singular, cf. Sifra Qedošim 1:22.,” that he should not give from one field for another.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 23:22) “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” This shows that peah is given standing on the ground. One might think this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “harvest.” Harvest is special in that a small person can do it as well as a tall person; this excludes climbing vine and date palm where a small person cannot do it as well as a tall person⁵This tannaïtic statement is not found in any of the parallel collections..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya⁴Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of the House of Shammai (Lev. 19:10, 23:22)⁵“Do not go over your vineyard a second time, nor pick up the single berries of your vineyard; to the poor and the sojourner relinquish them.” Why does it say “relinquish,” and not “give”? “for the poor and the sojourner.” Why does the verse say, “relinquish them”? There is another relinquishing like this one. Just as this one is for the poor and not the rich, also what is spoken of elsewhere⁶Any meaning of עזב must conform with this paradigm. is for the poor and not for the rich.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside⁴Since any positive commandment which must be performed at a fixed date pushes the Sabbath aside, such as the daily and Sabbath sacrifices in the Temple and circumcision on the eighth day.; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important]⁵Corrector’s addition. man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding⁶In Num. 29:1, New Year’s Day is called a day of sounding, but in Lev. 23:24 it is remembrance of sounding.. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow⁷That this argument is treated as a novelty a full generation after R. Joḥanan shows that Cahana’s explanation was not disseminated.. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside⁸The Babli 29b accepts this as proof that the prohibition of blowing the shofar outside the Temple on the Sabbath must be purely rabbinic.. It was stated, on the first of the month⁹Both in Num. 29:1 and Lev. 23:24 this is the definition of the day.. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside¹⁰Since it is known with certainty which day is a Sabbath, but the exact date of New Year’s day depends on a declaration from the calendar court, it should be clear that at a distance from the court, in Temple times at a distance from Jerusalem, one cannot blow the shofar on a 30^th of Elul which is a Sabbath. (This argument is disputed in the Babli 29b).. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice¹¹Lev. 23:24., at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month¹²Lev. 25:9. The verse continues, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement,you shall convey a shofar in all your Land. There can be no doubt that on a day of Atonement in a Jubilee year which is a Sabbath the shofar has to be sounded in all the Land of Israel, not just at the Temple. Since it was established in Halakhah 3:5 that the rules of New Year’s Day and Day of Atonement in a Jubilee year are identical, there seems to be no reason not to blow the shofar on a Sabbath outside the Temple., etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one¹³While this argument is attributed here to an Amora of the generation before the last, it is given in Sifra Behar Parashah 2(5): “Why does the verse say, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement? Since it says, on the Day of Atonement, would I not know that it is on the tenth of the month? But to tell you that on the tenth of the month it pushes the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, but the sound of New Year’s day does not push the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, only at the place of the Court.” This argument justifies Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s decision to have the shofar blown at Jabneh.. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted¹³While this argument is attributed here to an Amora of the generation before the last, it is given in Sifra Behar Parashah 2(5): “Why does the verse say, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement? Since it says, on the Day of Atonement, would I not know that it is on the tenth of the month? But to tell you that on the tenth of the month it pushes the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, but the sound of New Year’s day does not push the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, only at the place of the Court.” This argument justifies Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s decision to have the shofar blown at Jabneh..

HALAKHAH: “A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: You shall take for yourselves¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27)., from what is your own⁶Babli 29b; Sifra Emor Pereq17(2). The paragraph is a much shortened version of Lev.r. 30(6), starting with R. Ḥiyya’s statement and ending with the lesson “woe to this one …”. Rebbi Levi said, to what is one compared who takes a robbed lulav? To one who honored the ruler with a basket and it turned out that it belonged to the latter. One says, woe to this one whose defender⁷Greek συνήγορος. became his prosecutor⁸Greek κατήγορος..

Some⁶Sifra Qedošim 2(5–7). want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon⁷Lev. 19:10: “Do not glean in your vineyard, neither collect single berries, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” Lev. 23:22: “When you are harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest, neither collect the gleanings of your harvest, abandon them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Eternal, your God.” The implication is that peah has to be given before any further processing.,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms⁸Dates grow in bunches that sit on the trunk; if the bunch is cut at the trunk and the dates are taken, the remainder may be used as a broom.. I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them⁹Only those items that are described by the term “harvest”..” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous¹⁰“Connected” here means “still hanging on the tree.” Then the plucking cannot be described as “harvest”. Since this derivation by inclusion and exclusion follows the method of R. Ismael, the preceding paragraph must represent the opinion of R. Aqiba..

⁹This paragraph is part of a text in Yebamot12:2 (Notes 50–59,ז). A ram’s horn of idolatry¹⁰The ram's horn used on New Year's Day. or a seduced city¹¹The usufruct of any implements of idolatrous worship is forbidden. The horn is only permitted since Divine Commandments are not for enjoyment or use. The Babli, Roš Haššanah28a, agrees.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified¹²The Babli, Roš Haššanah28a, disagrees in this case since a ram's horn in a “seduced city” must be burned and therefore is considered to be ashes even if not burned. Arguments of this kind are absent in the Yerushalmi.. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27)., from what is your own⁶Babli 29b; Sifra Emor Pereq17(2). The paragraph is a much shortened version of Lev.r. 30(6), starting with R. Ḥiyya’s statement and ending with the lesson “woe to this one …”. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you¹³Num. 29:1.. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself¹⁴It is a general rule that a stolen or robbed object has to be returned in kind to its owner only if it is unchanged. Once the thief or robber has changed it so its original shape cannot be restored, it becomes the property of its current holder and the original owner only has a claim for its money’s worth and eventual fines (Or zarua § 274). Therefore it is the robber’s property and even in the case of a lulav could be used on the holiday.. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah¹²Since a sukkah is a temporary house, one has to understand why the rules for a sukkah should be different from those for a house; in particular why a sukkah can be called by this name only up to a height of 20 cubits (11m). Naturally, a sukkah needs no parapet (Deut. 22:8) since nobody can walk on its roof, and it needs no mezuzah(Deut. 6:9) since it is used only for 7 days and the obligation of mezuzah starts only with 30 days’ use.? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed¹³A house must be a permanent shelter which also protects against winter rains; this does not apply to the thin thatching covering a sukkah.. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there¹⁴Mishnah 1:10. Everywhere an empty space up to 3 hand-breadths width is disregarded (cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 248). This also applies to houses., “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch¹⁵Greek ’εξέδρα ‘η, a covered walkway. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 88. was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of]¹⁶Corrector’s addition. A comparison with the text in Eruvin(Chapter 1, Note 92) shows that it is unnecessary, and could have been replaced by a comma. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety¹⁷While this is a well-defined space, it has no walls. In order to treat it by the rules of an alley one has to hold that the beams which form the frame for the roofing (which may be either a complete roof or simply lattice work) define virtual walls around the walkway. For the rules of the Sabbath, one should compare the porch to an enclosed alley, whose entry beam also cannot be higher than 20 cubits. The rule is waved for the porch.? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell¹⁸Lev. 23:42.. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it¹⁹The thatching. For him a low thatching in very high walls creates a qualified sukkah. is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.²⁰R. Jonah’s explanation is rejected; the thatching must be on top of the walls.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table²¹A minimal sukkah has space for one person. Since they were taking dinner lying on couches, there must be room inside for that part ot the couch on which his head and body rest; the legs may be outside. In addition there must be a small table for the food. For any sukkah larger than this, the restriction in height is not valid. Accepted in the Babli, 2b.. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree²²Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2b.? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena²³Of Adiabene, who moved to Jerusalem as a widow. in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated²⁴As a positive commandment tied to a specified time it does not apply to women, Mishnah Qiddušin1:7.. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons²⁵It is spelled out in the Tosephta that they were sitting with their mother in her sukkah.?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter²⁶Therefore it is accepted practice that the height restriction does not apply to a sukkah which is not minimal and whose thatching rests on the walls..

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together²⁶Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives²⁷The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken²⁸The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once²⁹Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one³⁰Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them³¹Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action³²It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written³³Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat³⁴Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives³⁵Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse³⁶Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath³⁷Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written³⁸Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate³⁹That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁴⁰Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since you say, one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; in things between him and the Omnipresent, one does not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent¹²Since this is not mentioned in the Mishnah. Since “the Omnipresent” is a name of God, the scribe inserted an apostrophe to make a later correction or erasure possible.. But since in matters between him and his father and mother one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; similarly, in things between him and the Omnipresent should one not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent? What is the honor of the Omnipresent? For example, that I shall not make a tabernacle¹³Lev. 23:42., that I shall not take a lulab¹⁴One of the “four kinds”, Lev. 23:40., that I shall not put on phylacteries¹⁵Ex. 13:9,16.. One understands that he does it for his own benefit. As in the following¹⁶Job 35:7. The reward of good deeds is purely the benefit of the doer.: “If you are just, what are you giving Him?” “If you sinned, what would you do to Him?¹⁷Job 35:6. The mention of this verse and the sermon following are induced by the preceding quote.” Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. What is the reason? “In yourself there shall be no alien force; do not bow down to a foreign god.¹⁸Ps. 81:10. The alien forces are the evil urges in a person; they are put in parallel with idol worship. In the Babli, Šabbat 105b, the statement is attributed to R. Abin.”

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank²⁷A solid wooden plank. While it is of vegetable origin, it cannot be used for thatching if it is too wide since it is impermeable by both light and rain. The pillar is standing in the middle of the sukkah. One may either sit under the protruding plank or on top of it. and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits²⁸But more than that.. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths²⁹If it cannot be used for thatching, cf. Note 13; Halakhah 10.. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits³⁰If the roof is made of solid material, only in the center there is a skylight which can be covered by thatching; this may be a qualified sukkah if the solid material does not extend 4 cubits from the walls. The solid roof then simply is considered a horizontal part of the vertical walls.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah³¹Babli 4a.. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there³²Mishnah 1:10.: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified³³Up to three hand-breadths of empty space are disregarded both on top (Note 13) or on the bottom of a wall. The wall is considered as if standing on the ground.;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified³⁴If he sits on the ground in such a sukkah, it is as if he sits in the open. But if he lies on a couch or sits on a chair higher that 3 hand-breadths, he is surrounded by walls and is under a thatched roof, fulfilling the commandment to sit in the sukkah. Similarly, in the case of Rav Hoshaia, one should say that if he sits on the ground, the sukkah is disqualified, but not if he sits on the plank.. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there³⁵Eruvin Mishnah 8:9.: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below³⁶The house is on a lakeshore, the balcony is built over the lake, and there is a hole in the balcony through which a pail may be lowered to draw water. While obviously water is always moving and it cannot be asserted that water drops found under the balcony on the Sabbath were there at sundown, and the water could have come from outside the house’s Sabbath domain, since the restriction is purely rabbinic it is enough that under the balcony one make a symbolic wall whose extension would enclose the water..” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail³⁷A quote from Eruvin Chapter 8 (Notes 73–80). Since water is always moving, it is impossible to know which molecules will be where at a given time. The answer is that this is irrelevant; at the time the pail is lowered it will draw water only from water on the house’s side of the partition lowered into the lake.. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain³⁸A technical term defined in this sentence. Cf. Šabbat1, Note 73.. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell¹⁸Lev. 23:42.. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits³⁹In all cases. R. Abba bar Mamal’s statement is disproved..

But is it not written²³Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written²⁵Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water²⁶The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written²⁷Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass²⁸The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written²⁹Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written³⁰Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]³¹Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct³³Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct²⁰In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him²¹The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”²²In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)²³This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]²⁴The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct²⁵If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads²⁶Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread²⁷The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve²⁸It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt²⁹Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav³⁰Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle³¹In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle³²Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing³⁴Babli 4a..

“If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says, them, them; not these are My holidays? Before its time, the 29th day; after its lengthening, the 32nd day.”¹⁸Sifra Emor Parashah 9(3). Lev. 23:2 prescribes publication of the dates of festivals. The masoretic text has אֹתָם “them” as if it were אַתֶּם “you”, empowering the High Court to determine the times even in disagreement with the astronomical data. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the diaspora¹⁹The Babylonians who come to Jerusalem in caravans to celebrate Passover. who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says, the Children of Israel. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

Rebbi Maluk in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If the spine is split it is as if the leaves were spread out²⁶In this case, the Mishnah states that it is qualified. In the Babli 32a R. Matun in the name of R. Johua ben Levi is reported to state that it is disqualified.. Date-palm palms¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27).. Rebbi Tarphon says, tied date-palms²⁷While in biblical Hebrew כַּפּוֹת is the plural of כַּף “palm, hand”, in rabbinic Hebrew (and Aramaic) there exists a verb כפת “to tie down”. R. Tarphon reads the verse in rabbinic Hebrew and disqualifies palm branches which are not tied tightly, a position attributed to R. Jehudah in Tosephta 2:10.. Rebbi Aqiba says, palms of date palms as they are called²⁸He reads the verse in biblical Hebrew and accepts the palm branch even if its leaves are spread out.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are spread out he shall tie them together²⁹In principle he agrees with R. Tarphon (Babli 31a, 32a) but he requires actual tying only if otherwise the leaves would be spread out. Attributed to R. Tarphon in Sifra Emor Pereq16(4)..

Is one guilty because of new grain²³New grain is forbidden until the sheaf of barley is brought to the Temple on Passover; Lev. 23:9–14. It is stated here that the definition of “bread” established for Passover and ḥallah is valid for the prohibition of new grain also. when it is roasted? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose bread you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for parched grain because of new grain; but anything for whose bread you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for parched grain because of new grain.

It is written⁶¹Lev. 23:38., in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, and in addition to your gifts, etc., which you will give to the Eternal. For I could think that on a holiday⁶²“Holiday” here always means “holiday of pilgrimage”, to exclude the High Holidays. one brings only the holiday sacrifices⁶³Since in general everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on a holiday except preparation of food.; from where that sacrifices by a single person or by a community which were dedicated for the holiday shall be brought on the holiday? The verse says, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, … which you will give to the Eternal⁶⁴“…” refers to your donations, all your vows, and all your voluntary gifts.. This refers to birds and flour offerings⁶⁵Which may be obligatory as reparation or purification offerings; for persons far from the Sanctuary they do not require an additional trip. Sifry Num. 152., to add all of them to be brought on the holiday. “I could think that this is voluntary; the verse says⁶⁶Num.29:39. “These” refer to in addition to your vows, and your voluntary gifts, your elevation offerings, and your flour offerings, and your libations, and your well-being offerings. The plural “your festive occasions” shows that for missing one holiday one cannot transgress “do not delay”; Babli 4b., these you shall do on your festive occasions, ‘these’ are established as duty, that all of them be brought on the holiday. I could think on any holiday of his choosing; the verse says⁶⁷Deut.12:5–6., you shall come there and bring there. If to permit, it already was permitted. If to establish, it already was established. Then why is it said, you shall come there and bring there? This refers to the first holiday which happens to come his way. I could think that one of these passed, he transgressed because ‘do not delay’? The verse says, these you shall do on your festive occasions; he does not transgress because of ‘do not delay’ until the holidays of a full year have passed by him⁶⁸The sentence is the last in the list of holiday sacrifices for the entire year. Sifry Deut.63.. Rebbi Simeon says three holidays in order. How is this? If he vowed before Passover, only if Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Pentecost, only if Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Tabernacles, only if Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him.”⁶⁹Sifra Emor Pereq15(1–4).
* Here starts an extensive Genizah fragment edited by L. Ginzberg (G).

Rebbi Simeon says four, but the rabbis say three⁶⁸Since it was established that according to the majority opinion a sukkah does not have to be a complete dwelling, the problem remains to find biblical support for a decision about the number of walls the sukkah must have.. What is the rabbis’ reason? סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת, these are three⁶⁹In Lev. 23:42,43 the word is used three times.. One for the top, and two for the bottom, and the third from their words⁷⁰Since the verses define the obligation to live in huts, the first mention is needed to establish the fact that the essence of a sukkah is its roofing, סְכָךְ, which has to be temporary and thatched from vegetable material. Since then only two occurrences of the word are remaining, in this opinion only two complete walls are required by biblical standards; the third wall is rabbinic or conventional usage.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? סוּכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת plene⁷¹In fact, in v. 42 one reads twice סֻכֹּת, in v. 43 once סֻכּוֹת. The first two follow the spelling standards of Moses’s time, the second one that of Ezra who copied the Torah from Hebrew into Aramaic letters (Babli Sanhedrin21b, cf. Sotah7:3 Note 57, Megillah1:11). It is presumed that Ezra incorporated here an oral tradition from earlier times. Babli 6b., these are four. One for the top, and three for the bottom, and the fourth from their words. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, two Amoraim. One explained the rabbis’ reason, the other explained Rebbi Simeon’s reason. What is the rabbis’ reason? A sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness⁷²Is. 4:6. A verse from prophets or hagiographs never can prove a commandment but is valid to verify common usage. Babli 6b, that is one for the top. [סוּכּוֹת סוּכּוֹת [סוּכּוֹת, these are three. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? A sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness, that is one for the top. סוּכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת סֻכּוֹת plene, these are four. The rabbis of Caesarea understand the reason of Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis’ reason from this verse: a sukkah shall be for shade during daytime against dryness, that is one. For shelter and hiding, that is two. From stream and rain. The rabbis consider from stream and rain as one, Rebbi Simeon considers from stream and rain as two⁷³In all three derivations, the requirement of 3 or 4 walls is “rabbinic”, i. e., an old common usage..

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree²²The etrog is identified as the “fruit of the splendid tree” (Lev. 23:40) to be taken in procession on the holiday of Tabernacles. If ‘orlah did apply, then the fruits of the young tree would not be usable. The question presupposes that the etrog is edible, the fruit of Citrus medica cedrata, cf. Ma‘serot 1, Note 86, but it is not intended to be eaten. was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation²³The “four kinds”, etrog, palm fronds, myrtle, and willow twigs, should be acquired for the holiday, not taken from what is already obligated for religious purposes; in the case of the etrog this refers to fruits of Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem for the holiday.? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere²⁴Since “religious obligations are not for usufruct”, a shofar can be used for blowing even if it is forbidden for usufruct.. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this²⁵Using the etrog for Tabernacles instead as food. and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum²⁶An olive tree planted with the idea that its fruits should be used exclusively to produce oil for the candelabrum in the Temple. By the preceding argument, it is subject to the rules of ‘orlah.; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree²²The etrog is identified as the “fruit of the splendid tree” (Lev. 23:40) to be taken in procession on the holiday of Tabernacles. If ‘orlah did apply, then the fruits of the young tree would not be usable. The question presupposes that the etrog is edible, the fruit of Citrus medica cedrata, cf. Ma‘serot 1, Note 86, but it is not intended to be eaten. was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation²³The “four kinds”, etrog, palm fronds, myrtle, and willow twigs, should be acquired for the holiday, not taken from what is already obligated for religious purposes; in the case of the etrog this refers to fruits of Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem for the holiday.? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere²⁴Since “religious obligations are not for usufruct”, a shofar can be used for blowing even if it is forbidden for usufruct.. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this²⁵Using the etrog for Tabernacles instead as food. and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum²⁶An olive tree planted with the idea that its fruits should be used exclusively to produce oil for the candelabrum in the Temple. By the preceding argument, it is subject to the rules of ‘orlah.; then both are biblical.

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened⁵³Since a month can only be either 29 or 30 days, New Year’s Day can be only the 30th or the 31st of Elul. If the Synhedrion did not proclaim New Year’s on the 30th of Elul, then the 31st is automatically sanctified; whether it needs a proclamation is a matter of controversy (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 2:8).? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, you, “these are My holidays.⁵⁴This is explained in Babli Roš Haššanah 25a and Sifra Behar Parashah 9(3). In Lev. 23:2 (Tell the Children of Israel and say to them, the holidays of the Eternal, you have to proclaim them as holy assemblies, these are My holidays), Lev. 22:4 (These are the holidays of the Eternal, holy assemblies; you have to declare them at their times), and Lev. 22:37 (These are the holidays of the Eternal; you have to declare them as holy assemblies) the word “them” is written defective אֹתָם so that it could also be read as אַתֶּם “you”. This is taken to imply that no holiday is sacred that is not proclaimed by the Synhedrion. Since the Synhedrion is human, it is error prone. The three “them - you” are explained in the Babli as “you, even if unintended, you, even if intentionally wrong, you, even in error.” In the Sifra, the three cases are “even if forced by an act of God, unintended, or in error.” This interpretation is the basis of the Jewish computed calendar which, being based on a constant mean synodal month and a base line outside the Land of Israel, is necessarily in error if compared with astronomical computations of the motions of the moon.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29^th day, after its lengthening, the 32^nd day. From where that one intercalates the year because of the [men of the] diaspora that set out but did not yet arrive⁵⁵This argument does not belong to the discussion about one or two days of the New Year since the intercalary month always has to precede Passover. The intercalary month is a necessary feature of any lunar-solar calendar. It is included here probably because it refers to the same verse and appears in Sifra Behar Parashah 9(1). Since both the Children of Israel and God’s holidays are mentioned in Lev. 23:2, it is inferred that the holidays must be appropriate for all Children of Israel. {The rule itself, without Scriptural justification, is in Babli Sanhedrin 11a.}? The verse says (Lev. 23:2), “the Children of Israel, my holidays”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover³Lev. 23:14..” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer⁶³Lev. 23:14 reads: “Bread, parched and green grains you shall not eat until that day proper, until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice, a permanent rule for your generations in all your dwelling places.” Sifra Emor, Parašah 10(10) points out that the sacrifice must be the ‘omer, the sheaf of barley brought to the Temple. If it would refer to the accompanying sacrifice (v. 13), then “doing” would be used instead of “bringing (in from the outside)”. Since the two conditions, the day proper (the morning light) and the ‘omer, are formulated in parallel, rather than sequential, it is not clear which one is determining when there is a Temple. If there is no Temple, the day is determining by default. The position of Ḥizqiah seems to follow the simple meaning of the verse. Contrary arguments are detailed in the next paragraphs.. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice⁶⁴When there is a Temple., the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits⁶⁵The difference between R. Jonah and R. Yose is purely in the formulation. According to R. Yose, if there is no sacrifice the meaning of the verse is clear and does not need rabbinic interpretation. In the Babli (Menaḥot 68a), the position of Ḥizqiah is that of his cousin Rav and of Samuel.. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits⁶⁶In the Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, 68a, R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish..

Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing⁶⁷Even R. Joḥanan will agree that new grain is not permitted early in the morning of the day after Passover. The Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, holds that R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish hold that dawn is “the day proper” and new grain is permitted immediately..

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah⁸¹The objection from the previous paragraph that the institution of Rabban Joḥanan makes sense only if the prohibition of new grain on the day of the ‘omer is biblical. and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah⁸²Mishnah Menaḥot 6(10):5; Sifra Emor Parašah 10(10). R. Jehudah interprets בעצם היום הזה as: “including the essence of the day”, meaning the entire day in the absence of the Temple (Rashi). The Babli, Menaḥot 68b, holds that Rabban Joḥanan agrees with R. Jehudah and, therefore, he did not institute a rabbinic decree but decreed the correct interpretation of the biblical law., since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they⁹⁶If it is barley. be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so⁹⁷In this version, nothing sown before the New Year can be used for the ‘omer.? They objected, are there not the other kinds⁹⁸All grains which are not barley. which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable⁹⁹It is explained in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 15(1) that “first fruits” is a requirement that is waived if no ripe barley is found in the fields by Passover. Since it can be disregarded under certain circumstances this cannot be an absolute requirement.. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya¹⁰⁰He is R. Abin bar Ḥiyya, student of R. Zeïra. That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place²²Since he forbids only what he did not eat but nobody can forbid another person’s property for other people, he did not say anything., or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you²³This clause is extremely difficult to explain since it is formulated exactly the standard way in which a person can prohibit another’s food for himself. The Babli reads הָקָרְבָּן, an expression which had been determined not to be an oath (Chapter 1, Note 153). It is clear in all three cases that the same vow declared as qônām or any other substitute would be valid and the person making the vow would be forbidden to eat from the other person since then the intent would be clear. It is only the use of the word which refers directly to sacrifice which makes the vow invalid., no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you²⁴This clearly is idle talk.; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you²⁵For a person who holds that a double negation is a positive this is an oath that he will eat; this excludes R. Meїr who does not accept that argument, cf. Chapter 1, Note 158.; he is forbidden²⁶He is bound by his oath for negative or positive.. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah²⁷Lev. 23:42. The hut must at least get a new roof each year, Mishnah Sukkah 1:1., that I shall not take a lulab²⁸Lev. 23:40, the palm branch of the “4 kinds”., that I shall not put on phylacteries²⁹Ex. 13:9, 16., as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments³⁰This is a principle accepted by all Jewish groups: Philo, The Special Laws II, 12–15; Damascus Document CD XIV 9..

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place²²Since he forbids only what he did not eat but nobody can forbid another person’s property for other people, he did not say anything., or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you²³This clause is extremely difficult to explain since it is formulated exactly the standard way in which a person can prohibit another’s food for himself. The Babli reads הָקָרְבָּן, an expression which had been determined not to be an oath (Chapter 1, Note 153). It is clear in all three cases that the same vow declared as qônām or any other substitute would be valid and the person making the vow would be forbidden to eat from the other person since then the intent would be clear. It is only the use of the word which refers directly to sacrifice which makes the vow invalid., no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you²⁴This clearly is idle talk.; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you²⁵For a person who holds that a double negation is a positive this is an oath that he will eat; this excludes R. Meїr who does not accept that argument, cf. Chapter 1, Note 158.; he is forbidden²⁶He is bound by his oath for negative or positive.. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah²⁷Lev. 23:42. The hut must at least get a new roof each year, Mishnah Sukkah 1:1., that I shall not take a lulab²⁸Lev. 23:40, the palm branch of the “4 kinds”., that I shall not put on phylacteries²⁹Ex. 13:9, 16., as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments³⁰This is a principle accepted by all Jewish groups: Philo, The Special Laws II, 12–15; Damascus Document CD XIV 9..

HALAKHAH: It is written, and a branch from the rope tree¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27)., a tree whose branches cover it and it rises like plaiting⁴¹The tops of the leaves look like forming a spiral.. Which one is this? The myrtle. If you would say the olive tree, it rises like plaiting but its branches do not cover it. If you would say the vine⁴²Arabic (from the Persian) זרגון “gold colored”, used for branches of the vine (French sarment)., its branches cover it but it does not rise like plaiting. Therefore, which one is this? The myrtle.

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden²⁷Folding garments or bedsheets, as mentioned in Mishnah 3. Two people folding a sheet is professional work. Babli 113a (which has a list of further restrictons unknown to the Yerushalmi.). Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool²⁸Latin subsellium, -ii, n. it is as if two persons were folding²⁹Since folding garments on a low bench is easier than folding when holding them in the air, the low bench has the status of a work tool which rabbinically cannot be used.. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome]³⁰As E proves, this word, which was written by the Leiden scribe, is the correct expression. It was changed by the corrector into a word, reproduced in the Venice edition, which makes no sense in this context. (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah³¹Here E has an explanatory addition which is attested to in some Medieval sources [Sefer Haˋittim §198 p. 290; some mss. of Meїri ad 118b, ed. I. S. Lange p. 459, Or zarua Šabbat §89; it is missing in the quotes of the paragraph in Šibbole Halleqet (ed. S. Buber fol. 34a) and Sefer Hamanhig (ed I. Raphael p. 181)]: “on weekdays since he is occupied he has no free time to occupy himself with words of Torah; holidays and Sabbaths were given to him to occupy himself with words of Torah.”. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal³²Lev. 23:3. This means totally to the Eternal., and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal³³Deut. 16:8. This means partially to the Eternal., your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended., rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended..

HALAKHAH: ²⁵Sukkah3:13, Notes 146–150. It is written²⁶Lev. 23:40, the verse about the lulav and the 4 kinds.: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: ⁴⁷Sifra Emor Pereq16(6), Babli 34a.“It is written, and brook-willows¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27).. I admit not only from a brook, from where also from an unirrigated place or from mountains? The verse says, and willows⁴⁸The plural and the prefixed “and” indicate the inclusion of two additional kinds of willow twig.. Abba Shaul says, brook-willows, two. A willow twig for the lulav and a willow twig for the Temple⁴⁹He disputes the admission of willow twigs from trees growing far from water by pointing out that willow twigs were needed not only for the “4 kinds” tied to the lulav but also to surround the altar (Mishnah 4:4). This explains both the plural and the prefixed “and”..” Then why was it written and brook-willows? To exclude the osier. ⁵⁰Babli 34a, Tosephta 2:7.“What is an osier? If its is like a sickle. It was stated: Like a sickle it is disqualified, like a plane it is (qualified) [disqualified]⁵¹The correct text is the (scribe’s); the [corrector’s] clearly is erroneous.. What is a disqualified willow twig? The leaf is round and the stem white. What is a qualified willow twig? The leaf is long and the stem red.”

²⁷Sukkah3:14, Notes 153–159. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days²⁸Lev. 23:8., there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days²⁶Lev. 23:40, the verse about the lulav and the 4 kinds., there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day²⁹Lev. 23:40., He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and elsewhere included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

²⁷Sukkah3:14, Notes 153–159. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days²⁸Lev. 23:8., there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days²⁶Lev. 23:40, the verse about the lulav and the 4 kinds., there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day²⁹Lev. 23:40., He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and elsewhere included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid⁶⁴If the bill of divorce has to be returned immediately, there is no divorce. Deut. 24:1 requires that the bill of divorce be “given into her hand”, i. e., be legally in her power.. “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rebbi Yose said, after you went to court⁶⁵Once the document has served its purpose, it may be returned without invalidating the divorce. In the Babli, 20b, the formulation is: “ ‘This is your bill of divorce but I remain the owner of the paper’ is invalid; ‘this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return the paper to me’ is valid.” Here also it is understood that the paper will be returned only when it is no longer needed.
The Geniza text reads: “after you acquired it.” The Leiden text is preferable since for the Geniza text the explanation which follows is unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.⁶⁶He agrees with R. Yose; he only gives the legal formula for what the Babli calls “a transfer of ownership on condition that it be returned.” This is everywhere considered a valid transfer of ownership and, therefore, satisfies Deut. 24:1.” Similar to that: Etrogim⁶⁷Persian turungān (a word of Indian origin) designates all citrus fruits. It was used for citrus medica, rabbinic Hebrew etrôg, which was identified as the “fruit of the tree of splendor” mentioned in Lev. 23:40 together with palm branches, brook willows, and a branch of the thick-leaf tree (traditionally the myrtle). were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me⁶⁸Lev. 23:40 reads: “You shall take for yourselves on the first day palm branches …”. The prescribed ritual can only be fulfilled if the four kinds mentioned are the personal property of the celebrant. Therefore, if a person gives his “four kinds” to another person for the celebration, it cannot be a loan but must be “a transfer of ownership on condition that it be returned.” In Babylonian sources (Sukkah 41b, Tosephta Sukkah 2:11) the conditional transfer of ownership is a tannaïtic institution..

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος²³²“For the king the law is unwritten.”. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he²³³Translated following G and A. In the text: “if they want”. desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal²³⁴Lev. 22:9., I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal²³⁵Lev. 19:32.. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person²³⁶Gen. 18:2.. Rebbi Simon said, it is written²³⁷Deut. 4:8, misquoted.: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it²³⁸Deut. 4:7, text of G. A only quotes the first words of the verse, but clearly this indicates v. 7, not v. 8. Since in the ms. the start of v. 7 is grafted on the text of v. 8 it is reasonable to assume that the original quote is v. 7..> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy²³⁹On New Year’s Day.. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber²⁴⁰Greek ληστής. says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders²⁴¹Greek συνήγορος., summon accusers²⁴²Greek κατήγωρ. A instead reads ספיקטורין which probably is shortened from ספקלטורין, Semitic plural of Latin speculator “examiner.”, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.]²⁴³Corrector’s addition, confirmed by G. If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob²⁴⁴Ps. 81:5.. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak²⁴⁵The customary expression to excuse anthropomorphisms. Babli 8b. it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare²⁴⁶Lev. 23:2. While the holidays are declared to be “the Eternal’s holidays”,
since they depend on calendar dates, the actual dates are fixed not by God but by the calendar authorities. Cf. Shevi`it10:2 Notes 53–54.. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁷Ps. 40:6.. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁸This passage is explained in A: “From the creation of the world up to Moses did the Holy One, praise to Him, compute the motions of the stars, and New Moons, and turning points (Note 161). When Moses was appointed, He handed over to him the secret of the calendar as it is said, this month is for you the head of months. Up to this time it was Mine, from now on it is delivered to you.” The following parables have to be explained as exploring the meaning of this handing over the sacred calendar to human interpretation.. Rebbi <Joshua ben>²⁴⁹Added from G and A. This attribution is most likely correct even though the Yerushalmi, in contrast to the Babli, does not in general follow a chronological sequence of the quotes. R. Joshua ben Levi, great authority of the first generation of Amoraim, can precede the second generation authority R. Yose ben Ḥanina better than the third generation preacher (but not halakhic authority) R. Levi. Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

¹⁴⁵This formulation is exactly the inverse of the same argument in Halakhah 1, Note 23. Is one guilty for bread from it because of new grain? Rebbi Yudan said, it is written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose parched grain you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for bread because of new grain; but anything for whose parched grain you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for bread because of new grain.

⁸¹Sifra Emor Pereq 14(3). Babli 81 a.“Warning about work on the day: Any work you shall not do⁸²Lev. 16:29.. Punishment, and I shall destroy this person⁸³.Lev. 23:30.. Warning about deprivation on the day, for any person who will not be deprived⁸⁴Lev. 23:29.; punishment, and this person will be extirpated⁸⁴Lev. 23:29..” There is no warning about work in the night, there is no punishment. There is no warning nor punishment written for deprivation in the night⁸⁵In both verses quoted from Lev. 23 it is stressed בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה which in general in interpreted “in full daylight” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 9.) Since the night is forbidden as is the day (Lev. 23:32), there is an obvious contradiction to be resolved..

HALAKHAH: ⁵²Sifra Emor Pereq15(7), Babli 34b.“Rebbi Ismael explained, ¹Lev.23:40: You shall take for yourselves on the First Day a fruit of the splendor tree, date-tree palms, a branch of the rope tree, and brook-willows. The lulav is the young palm branch. While in the verse it is called “palm”, because the leaves of the palm-tree spread out from the spine of the branch like fingers of a hand, it is traditional to take a young branch with the leaves still tightly clinging to its spine. From this the name לולב “tube” (cf. Note 27).a fruit of the splendor tree, one. Date-palm roped, one⁵³He reads the verse in accordance with R. Tarphon, Note 27. The clause is in the singular.. A branch of the rope tree, three⁵⁴While “branch” is in the singular, there are three words to describe the myrtle branch.. And brook-willows, two⁵⁵As always, an unspecified plural means “2”, the smallest number > 1.. And two lifted ones; one which is not truncated. Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncated.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: Since Rebbi Ismael adds for the myrtle⁵⁶While R. Ismael seems to accept that only one myrtle branch is really needed since עֲנַף is a singular, the additional two being inferred from the additional words used in his characterization requiring two additional branches, it is difficult to understand why he requires only one lulav and only one etrog instead of two each., should he not add for the other kinds? He answered, you are thinking that Rebbi Ismael thinks that truncated is splendor, and we have stated, “Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncates.” Nobody says “even” if he does not accept the preceding statement⁵⁷Since R. Tarphon and R. Ismael agree in the interpretation of the verse, the requirement that one branch be not truncated for R. Ismael is a rabbinic requirement, not derived from the verse.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Jose: What does Rebbi Tarphon add to the words of Rebbi Ismael? He answered him, Rebbi Ismael does not think that truncated is splendor, but Rebbi Tarphon thinks that truncated is splendor. When Rebbi Yasa came up here he saw them being selective about myrtle branches⁵⁸That they should not be truncated and tightly cover the stem of the branch.. He said, why are the Westerners selective about myrtle branches? He had not heard thar Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: And they made known and proclaimed in all cities⁵⁹Neh. 8:15. In the verse, myrtle and branches of the `avot tree are mentioned separately. How can they be identified? etc. Myrtle is not the same as rope tree, but myrtle is for the sukkah, and rope tree for the lulav<sup>60</sup>Since the rope tree was mentioned in the Torah as part of the “four kinds” to be taken on the first day, “myrtle” must refer to a kind not satisfying the criteria specified in Halakhah 2 which only may be used for roofing the sukkah. Babli 12a.. Rebbi Ze`ira blew it⁶¹At the time of shofar blowing on New Year’s Day he instructed on the requirement for a qualified myrtle..

¹⁴⁴This paragraph is copied from Megillah 1:3, Notes 134–140. One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work¹⁴⁵Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do¹⁴⁶Lev. 23:21.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside⁷⁰Since it says (Lev.23:4): These are the times of the Eternal, holy convocations, which you have to proclaim at their fixed times. Cf. Chapter 6, Halakhah 1.. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13).: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal⁷²Lev. 23:44.. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time⁷³Num. 9:2, 28:2., from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times⁷⁴Num. 29:39.. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13)., this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵Lev. 7:19.. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

“And the festive offering.” One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work^134*Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do¹³⁵Lev. 23:21. The first verse seems to require harvesting on Pentecost, the second verse forbids it. Babli Ḥagigah 17b.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest¹³⁶Since Pentecost is only one day, the next day is a regular work day.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only ears for her dough¹³⁷On a day of sacrificing one is forbidden gainful work, as on a holiday. Therefore on the Sunday after Pentecost on Sabbath the only harvesting permitted is collecting for immediate consumption.. As what was stated¹³⁸Pesaḥim 4:1, Notes 6–7; Megillat Ta`anit Chapter 5., “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement¹³⁹The arrangement of firewood on the altar. on that day are forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working¹⁴⁰Work is not forbidden in a formal sense as on the Sabbath or holiday, only any gainful employment, including harvest for later sale..”

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁴⁸This paragraph (from Sukkah4:1, fol. 54b) is an introduction to the next one which will mention the ten saplings. It deals with the laws of the feast of Tabernacles when in addition to the ceremonies prescribed by the Torah the altar was adorned by long willow twigs and water was poured as libation on the altar, against the opposition of the Sadducees.: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two⁴⁹Babli Sukkah 34a. In the Babli, it is not implied that taking the willows in the Temple is a separate biblical commandment. (In the opinion of I. Löw, ערבה denotes not the willow but the Euphrates poplar but in Arabic ע̇דב means “willow”.). One willow for the lulab⁵⁰The three kinds of branches taken together on Tabernacles, Lev. 23:40., the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah⁵¹Babli Zebaḥim 110b. There, the derivation of R. Aqiba parallels the argument of Abba Shaul here, that (Num. 29:31) “and its libations” implies two libations, one of wine and one of water.. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”⁵²In Sifry Num. 150, the argument is given in the name of R. Jehudah ben Batyra. In Num. 29:17–34, the sacrifices for the intermediate days of Tabernacles are given in identical language after the mention of the number of animals required. The only deviations from the identical patterns are ונסכיה ,ונסכיהם instead of ונסכה and כמשפטם instead of כמשפט. The additional letters are taken to form the word for “water.” Rabbenu Hillel notes in his commentary that ונסכיהם has two letters in excess over ונסכה so that the word to be formed would be מײם, in the time of the Yerushalmi the standard spelling of מים.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough⁷Since the institution of the Sabbatical year is interwoven with that of the Jubilee year and the Jubilee is possible only if the Twelve Tribes are living on their ancestral lands, the Sabbatical in the times of the Second Commonwealth is not a biblical but a rabbinic institution. It is a general rule in dealing with institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly that one is restrictive in interpretation while the Temple exists and lenient when the Temple does not exist. Since one hopes that the Temple will be re-established, the rules have to be stated in the Mishnah for future generations (Interpretation of Rav Ashi in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 4a)..

⁶⁶Sifra Emor Parashah 11(9), Sifry Num. 73.“From where that there are three sets of three sounds each? The verse says, a day of sound⁶⁷Num. 29:1, a remembrance of sound⁶⁸Lev. 23:24., shofar of sound⁶⁹Lev. 25:9..” So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? ⁷⁰Sifry Num. 73.“You shall blow sounding⁷¹Num. 10:5.; and you shall blow sounding a second time⁷²Num. 10:6.; sounding you shall blow for your travels⁷²Num. 10:6.. If you would say that blowing is sounding, is it not written, to assemble the people you shall blow but not sound⁷³Num. 10:7.”

¹⁵¹The main parallels for the first part of this paragraph are Eruvin 10(Note 147) and Pesaḥim 6:1(33b 1.34), also Bava qamma3:12 (Notes 140–144); cf. Babli Šabbat106a, Beṣah 12b, Yebamot 16b, Bava qamma 34b, Sanhedrin 62b. There, we have stated¹⁵²Mishnah 13:3.: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes¹⁵³There is obviously a sentence missing here stating the position of R. Joḥanan. The sentence is reported in all parallel sources and is quoted by Naḥmanides in his Novellae to Šabbat 106a (ed. M. Herschler col. 365) as text here: “R. Joḥanan says, one making a fire only if he needs the ashes, one causing a wound only if he needs the blood.”. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.¹⁵⁴“Liable” and “not liable” here means financial responsibility for damages. The human who sets a fire on the Sabbath does not have to pay since he has committed a capital crime and it is a principle of talmudic law that the possibility of a death penalty bars monetary claims (cf. Terumot 7:1 Notes 16 ff.). The payment is excluded even if there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose¹⁵⁵The statement of the Mishnah does not mention intent; it excludes payment even if the ashes from the fire are not needed. This indicates that there is potential criminal liability also in this case, disproving R. Joḥanan’s assertion.. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose¹⁵⁶Naḥmanides (loc. cit. Note 153) quotes the text as: R. Ḥanina ben R. Hila said, this is correct. Since if it were for a purpose he would be guilty of a capital crime here even if it was for no purpose he is free from paying restitution. he should be free from paying restitution, from the following¹⁵⁷Lev. 23:21. Babli Ketubot 35a,38a; Bava qamma 35a; Sanhedrin 74b,84b.: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money¹⁵⁸The argument based on the Mishnah in Bava qamma is disproved; there is no Mishnaic source contradicting R. Joḥanan..

Rebbi Phineas asked¹⁴⁵Here starts the discussion of the last case of the Mishnah, if part of the field was dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple.: Can a harvest outside of the Land become subject to peah? Could you not say that a dedicated crop is exempt and (a crop) outside the Land is exempt; just as a dedicated crop may become obligated¹⁴⁶As explained in the Mishnah, if the field is sold by the Temple officials with the crop still standing., so from outside the Land it may become obligated? He found it stated: (Lev. 19:9, 23:22) “When you harvest the harvest of your Land,” and not the harvest outside of the Land¹⁴⁷Under any circumstance..

MISHNAH: On Passover one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus¹¹²Lev. 23:1–44.. On Pentecost, seven weeks¹¹³Deut. 16:9–12 to be repeated five times.. On New Year’s Day, in the Seventh month on the First of the month¹¹⁴Lev. 23:23–25 to be repeated five times. On the Day of Atonement, after the death¹¹⁵Lev. 17:1–34. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday¹¹⁶The appropriate verses from Num. 29:17–39..

MISHNAH: How is the priestly blessing? In the countryside they recited it as three blessings¹⁷⁸Each one of the verses Num. 6:24–26 to be answered by “Amen”., but in the Temple as one blessing¹⁷⁹To be answered by the people at the end by “praised be the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever”.. In the Temple one says the Name as it is written, but in the countryside by its circumlocution¹⁸⁰“The Lord” אֲדוֹנָי or κύριος.. In the countryside the Cohanim lift their hands to the height of their shoulders but in the Temple over their heads except for the High Priest who does not lift his hands over the diadem. Rebbi Jehudah says, the High Priest also lifts his hands over his head, as it is said¹⁸¹Lev. 9:22; since the ritual of blessing with raised hands is derived from this verse, it would be unreasonable to have the Cohanim not conform to Aaron’s, the High Priest’s, example.: “Aaron lifted his hands towards the people and blessed them.” How are the blessings of the High Priest¹⁸²On the Day of Atonement; cf. Mishnah Yoma 7:1.? The organizer of the synagogue¹⁸³On the Temple Mount. This is a non-scriptural ceremony, purely Pharisaic, but followed, at least since Hasmonean times, even by Sadducee High Priests. takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; the president of the synagogue gives it to the Second¹⁸⁴The second in command in the Temple after the High Priest; in effect his executive officer.; the Second gives it to the High Priest. The High priest receives it standing, he stands and reads “after the death¹⁸⁵Lev. 16:1–34, the description of the Atonement service.” and “but on the tenth¹⁸⁶Lev. 23:26–32. Winding from Chap. 17 to 23 does not take much time.”; he rolls the Torah tight, puts it in his bosom and says: More than what I read before you is written here. “And on the tenth” in Numbers¹⁸⁷Num. 29:7–11. he recites by heart, and recites eight benedictions¹⁸⁸These are detailed in Halakhah 7.: For the Torah, for the Temple service, for thanksgiving, for forgiveness of sins, for the Temple, for Israel, for the Cohanim, and the remainder of the prayer.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field¹¹²Lev. 19:9, 23:22, speaking of peah.” and it says about kilaim “your field¹¹³Lev. 19:19: “Your field you shall not sow with two different kinds.” It is assumed that a word in the Books of Moses never changes its meaning.”. Just as “your field” mentioned there¹¹⁴Mishnah Kilaim 2:10 states that two fields of different crops become forbidden if planted too closely one to the other but only if they are the minimum size of bet rova‘. means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two¹¹⁵Mishnah 6:5 states that a forgotten sheaf is for the poor only if it is less in volume than two seah. Similarly, Mishnah 6:6 states that a forgotten part of the field is not for the poor if its yield is at least 2 seah. Rebbi Joshua seems to argue that anything that is not a field for the definition of leqeṭ (collecting grain forgotten be the farmer) and šiḵḥah(collecting forgotten sheaves) cannot be a field for the definition of peah since all three obligations always go together., so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch¹¹⁶In Mishnah Kilaim 3:1, the standard vegetable patch for intensive cultivation is defined as being one square cubit. R. Eliezer either is of the opinion that no vegetables are grown for storage or that onions grown for storage are such a rare case that one may take grain fields as the standard for everything. R. Ṭarphon seems to think that the smallest plot used to grow any plant for storage is the standard for all crops.. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount¹¹⁷R. Joshua ben Bathyra argues that the verse: “When you harvest the harvest of your land,” means all kinds of harvest and that therefore any plot which can be harvested is subject to peah. The question is only whether the harvest has to be professional or whether simple plucking is enough. The verse from Psalms is taken to mean that only a cut that will fill at least the hollow of one’s hand qualifies for “harvesting.” This argument is the base of the first discussion in Halakhah 1:1.? Since it is written (Ps. 132:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

HALAKHAH: “On Pentecost, seven weeks.” There are Tannaim who state, in the third month¹¹⁷Ex. Chapters 19–20. While Pharisaic and Sadducee traditions differ about the date of Pentecost, both are in agreement that the holiday celebrates the anniversary of the theophany of Sinai and the giving of the Ten Commandments, the theme of these Chapters. Tosephta 3:5. “And on New Year’s Day, and in the Seventh month¹¹⁸In this version the reading is Num. 29:1–5..” There are Tannaim who state, and the Eternal counted Sarah¹¹⁹Gen. Chapter 21. The reading is appropriate because v. 21:17 states that a person is judged only by his state at the moment of judgment; if he is repentant then his prior misdeeds are disregarded; a proper reading for the Day of Judgment. Tosephta 3:6 For the Babylonian rite, Babli 31a.. “On the Day of Atonement, after the death. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa, to teach you that the world only exists by the sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “The entire day is qualified to read the Scroll,” as it is written⁹¹Esth.9:1., on the day the enemies of the Jews thought they would rule over them. To read the Hallel, as it is written¹¹²Ps, 118:24., this is the day the Eternal made, let us enjoy and be happy on it. To blow the shofar, as it is written¹¹³Num. 29:1., a day to shofar blowing it shall be for you. To take the lulav, as it is written¹¹⁴Lev. 23:40, you shall take for yourselves on the first day. For the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, as it is written¹¹⁵Lev. 7:38. The verse continues: to bring their sacrifices to the Eternal., on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel, etc.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles¹⁴³It is mentioned several times in the Pentateuch that the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, rabbinically called Peṣah, and the festival of booths both start on the 15th of their respective months. Since the particular source is not identified, the argument is informal and not binding as “equal cut”.. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first¹⁴⁴Since the Seventh Day of Passover has the same public sacrifices as the first., also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days¹⁴⁵Lev. 23:41.. Are they seven? Are they not eight¹⁴⁶While it is noted in Lev. 23:36 that the seven days of Tabernacles are immediately followed by a separate holiday on the eighth day, in Num. 29:35 the holiday appears as the Eighth Day of Tabernacles. This Eighth Day therefore has a double role, as last day of Tabernacles and as separate festival.? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place¹⁴⁷Since the holiday offerings are private sacrifices they automatically are excluded on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six¹⁴⁸The argument of R. Hoshaia cannot be correct.. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania¹⁴⁹He shows that the previous discussion was based on a faulty version of R. Hoshaia’s argument., Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice¹⁵⁰This is a misquote of Ex. 12:14 for the last word in Lev. 23:41, תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ; bring it as holiday sacrifice. Since the sacrifice is mentioned in the singular it is shown that there is a single required sacrifice for the eight-day festival of which up to seven are days of sacrifice. Sifra Emor Pereq 17.? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

There¹⁹⁵Mishnah Megillah 4:5., we have stated: “One winds in Prophets¹⁹⁶In the public reading from Prophets after the Sabbath reading from the Torah, it is permissible to piece the reading together from different chapters of one prophet. but one does not wind in the Pentateuch.” One winds in one prophet, but not from one prophet to another, but among prophets of the Twelve it is permitted¹⁹⁷Since all 12 minor prophets are written together in one scroll, moving from one to the next is like winding in one of the major prophets, each of which is written in his own scroll.. But one does not wind in the Pentateuch; Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not wind the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small portion¹⁹⁸In the Palestinian 3½ year cycle, it might be that the portion was too small to be read by seven different persons; may some readers read from another place after the allotted portion was already recited?? But that Israel should hear it in its order¹⁹⁹Even if one reads more than the allotted portion on one Sabbath, it must be a continuous text.. But did we not state²⁰⁰The Mishnah here.: “He reads ‘after the death¹⁸⁵Lev. 16:1–34, the description of the Atonement service.’ and ‘but on the tenth¹⁸⁶Lev. 23:26–32. Winding from Chap. 17 to 23 does not take much time.’ ”? It is different here, because that is the order of the day²⁰¹This is a holiday reading, not a Sabbath reading; it has to concentrate on the texts dealing exclusively with that holiday.. Know that it is so since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not recite by heart, and here he recites by heart²⁰²From the text too far removed to be wound without inconveniencing the public.. Rebbi Yose commanded Bar Ulla, the organizer of the congregation of Babylonians: When the Torah has been brought back, wind it behind the curtain²⁰³In Yoma, the text reads: כַּד דְּהִיא חָדָא אוֹרִיָּא תְּהֵא גַייֵל לָהּ לְהָדֵי פָרוֹכְתָא. “When you have only one Torah, wind it by the curtain.” The text here is preferable since a good organizer will wind the Torah well before it is used the next time. The editors who mishandled the text, replacing the text here by that from Yoma in modern editions, probably never were Torah readers themselves.. If there are two, return one and bring the other²⁰⁴This is not the common usage where one takes out both scrolls and reads from them one after the other. This shows that in Babylonia already in Talmudic times one read from two different scrolls at special occasions (in particular, holidays). One has to correct the statement by Elbogen (cf. Note 205, p. 127) that this practice is not recorded before Rav Yehudai Gaon..

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, I am decreeing about you that you shall come to me with your staff and your money purse on the day when the Day of Atonement¹¹²When it is forbidden to carry in the public domain since all the rules of the Sabbath are applicable to the Day of Atonement. As the sequel shows, the disagreement must have been about the determination of Elul. should be according to your computation. Rebbi Aqiba went and found him afflicted. He said to him, I have to infer that all which Rabban Gamliel does is valid, as it is said¹¹³Lev. 23:2., these are the festive times of the Eternal which you have to proclaim. Whether on the correct time or not the correct time, I only have these as festive times¹¹⁴Those which are proclaimed by the court entrusted with the regulation of the calendar..

MISHNAH: On Ḥanukkah, about the princes¹²¹Num. 7:12–59 (-89), on each day of Ḥanukkah one reads the princes’ offerings for that day of the dedication of the Tabernacle.. On Purim, Amaleq came¹²²Ex. 17:8–16.. On New Moons, on the start of your months¹²³Num. 28:11–15.. For the bystanders, the Creation¹²⁴On each day of the week one reads the corresponding day of Creation; Gen. 1:1–2:3.. On fast days, blessings and curses¹²⁵Either Lev. 26:3–46 or Deut. Chapter 28.. One does not interrupt curses, but one person reads them entirely. On Monday, Thursday, and Sabbath afternoon one reads regularly but they may not count it in the series¹²⁶One reads the start of the portion to be read on the next Sabbath; this has no influence on the text to be read on the Sabbath., as it is said¹²⁷Lev. 23:44., Moses spoke to the Children of Israel about the holidays of the Eternal; the obligation is that each one be read in its time.

HALAKHAH: ⁹¹The origin of the paragraph is in Ma`serot 1:4, Notes 99–106, ע. A parallel but different discussion is in the Babli 36a/b. Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon<sup>92</sup>In Mishnah Ma`serot1:4 he frees unripe etrog from tithes. follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one⁸²The etrog is disqualified if either on one side most of it is covered by scab, as noted here, or if all around it has infected spots, as noted in the next Halakhah. Therefore if the top was covered by scab it is covered on all sides and therefore disqualified., one that grew in a form⁹³Greek τύπος., or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit⁹⁴Lev.23:40. and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here⁷⁹Lev. 23:42., you shall sit, and it says there⁸⁰Lev. 8:35, misquoted., at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days⁸¹“Day and night” is interpreted as “some time during the day and some time during the night” (Yoma 1:1, Note 81); the same applies here., so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael⁸²In the Babli 27a: in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq (R. Joḥanan’s teacher); in the Munich ms. of the Babli R. Ṣadoq.: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional⁸³This is an application of one of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. It is written (Ex. 13:6) seven days you shall eat mazzot, and (Deut. 16:8) six days you shall eat mazzot. R. Ismael’s rule reads: Anything that was in a set and was taken out from the set implies the same for the whole set.” Since the last mentioned verse implies that on the seventh day one need not eat unleavened bread (one may not eat leavened bread, however), the same is true for all seven days of Passover with the only exception of the first night of which it is said explicitly (Ex. 12:18): In the evening you shall eat mazzot., so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite⁸⁴Mishnah Pesaḥim10:1: “On Passover eve, starting close to afternoon prayers, a person may not eat until nightfall” (so he shall eat the first mazzah with a good appetite.) There is no similar rule spelled out for Tabernacles; R. Joḥanan’s argument is homiletic but cannot be legal., so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive⁸⁵The biblical obligation contained in Ex. 12:18 can only be fulfilled by eating a mazzah in an amount that triggers a biblical obligation to say Grace. But for the sukkah, sitting is prescribed but not eating; the same standards cannot apply., so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they⁸⁶R. Joḥanan, who requires a meal only the first night, and R. Hoshaia, who requires it for 7 days. disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it⁸⁷R. Hoshaia really does not require to eat in the sukkah for 7 days; he is more lenient than R. Joḥanan and requires that once one must come to the sukkah to recite the appropriate benedictions (Halakhah 1:1, Notes 123–126) but this does not necessarily be the first night..

“New grain is forbidden everywhere from the Torah.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer’s as we have stated there¹⁵⁷Mishnah Qiddušin 1:9. The parallel discussion is in the Babli, Qiddušin 38a/b.: “Any commandment not connected with the Land applies both inside and outside the Land. But any connected with the Land applies only inside the Land except for ‘orlah and kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer¹⁵⁸The end of this paragraph and the next one are also in Qiddušin 1:9, fol. 61d.? Everywhere, (Lev. 23:14) “in all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported.

Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: We find that the Holy One, praise to Him, did forego¹⁴⁵He did forego meting out punishment. for Israel about idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed¹⁴⁶The three cardinal sins.. But for their rejection of the Torah he did not forego. What is the reason? It is not written here “The Eternal said, because they committed idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed,” but the Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that they abandoned Me I could forego, maybe they would keep My Torah¹⁴⁷A sermon on Jer. 32:23., since if they abandoned Me but kept My Torah, the leavening in it would bring them close to Me. Rav Ḥuna said, study Torah even not for its own merit, since through {studying} not for its own merit you come to {study} for its own¹⁴⁸Babli Pesahim 50b, Sotah 22b,47a, Nazir 23b, Sanhedrin 105a, Horaiot 10b,. Arakhin 16b..

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him¹⁵⁸There is no such verse in Scripture. The consensus of the commentators is that it should read: (Ps. 82:3) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt.” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend¹⁵⁹The judge may not say: His opponent has deep pockets; let me rule for the poor; then he will need no public assistance., but you may bend for him in his gifts¹⁶⁰To rule for him also in doubtful cases.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he¹⁶¹The poor acquires as his right, not as a possibility as in the previous argument. acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own¹⁶²The term “abandon” first refers to the gifts that belong to the poor as of right; the second mention in the same verse refers to the doubtful cases when one has to renounce his rights; a similar argument is found in Sifra Qedošim 2:7. The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:9).. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

MISHNAH: If one who cannot walk saw the new moon one transports him on a donkey, even on a litter³¹³On a Sabbath.. If they are fearful³¹⁴Of wild animals or any other form of attack., they take sticks with them. If the distance was great they take with them food, for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon, as it is said³¹⁵Lev. 23:2., these are the festive times of the Eternal, proclaimed as holy.

I could think that just as one desecrates the Sabbath to testify about them, so one desecrates the Sabbath to proclaim that they were fixed³¹⁹The messengers sent out to inform the people about the fixation of the holidays must keep the Sabbath, in contrast to the people who go to testify about a new moon on the Sabbath. Babli 21b; Sifra Emor Pereq 10(7).. The verse says³¹⁵Lev. 23:2., which you shall call out. About its being called you desecrate the Sabbath, you do not desecrate the Sabbath to proclaim that they were fixed.

⁶⁴³This text is from ‘Orlah 3:8 (62b, line 37) (ל); Notes 158–160.“Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Lev. 23:14) “In all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rebbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

Moses¹In V and H a passage has been interpolated after ‘Moses’ which has no relation to the subject-matter. It seems to have been originally a marginal note explanatory of the meaning of hiḳni’, an unusual verb to be employed in the sense of ‘warn’. It reads as follows: Hiḳni’, i.e. ‘he warned’, as we have learned in a Mishnah (Soṭ. I, 1), hammeḳannë’ (of the same root as hiḳni’ which means), If [a husband] ‘warns’ his wife [not to associate with a certain man], R. Eliezer said: His warning is valid if it was given in the presence of two witnesses, though he makes her drink [the water of bitterness] on the evidence of one witness [who saw that she had secluded herself with the man after she had been given due warning], because a warning is not valid if given in the presence of less than two witnesses; for [only where there are two witnesses] would she be able to plead, ‘I was not warned’, but when [there was only] one witness she might dare to plead, ‘I was not warned’. warned²For hiḳni’ some eds. read the normal verb hithḳin, ‘he established a custom, ordained’. Israel that they should read out of the Torah³In the service of the Synagogue. on Sabbaths, Festivals, New Moons and the intermediate days of the Festivals;⁴lit. ‘the secular [part] of the Festival’, the days intervening between the holy days which begin and end the Festivals of Passover and Tabernacles. as it is stated, And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord.⁵Lev. 23, 44.

HALAKHAH: It is written¹⁰⁷Lev. 23:42., in sukkot you shall sit. But sitting means dwelling¹⁰⁸Babli 28b., as you are saying, you shall inherit it and sit in it¹⁰⁹Deut. 11:31.; that he eats in the sukkah, and rests in the sukkah, and brings his utensils to the sukkah.

It is permitted to skip from place to place in [a scroll of] a Prophet,¹¹Omitting the intermediate portions. but not in a Torah scroll, because [the scroll of] a Prophet may be unrolled in public but not of the Torah.¹²The unrolling of which might disturb the congregation. Similarly ruled R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Simeon b. Laḳish: A Torah scroll may not be unrolled in public.
R. Jose enquired: Suppose¹³GRA in agreement with j.Meg. IV, 5, 75b. V and H read ‘interpreted it, as for instance’. there was only a small section [which one wished to skip]!¹⁴And consequently no unrolling is required. Why, then, should skipping in such a case be forbidden? The real reason¹⁵lit. ‘but’ added by GRA. V and H omit. is that Israel shall hear the Torah in its proper order. But have we not learned: [The High Priest] reads [in public] aḥarë moth¹⁶lit. after the death, designating the section Lev. 16. and ’ak be‘asor?¹⁷lit. howbeit on the tenth, designating the section beginning Lev. 23, 27. These sections are far removed from one another and the Torah scroll must consequently be unrolled in public. Why is this permitted? [With these two sections] it is different,¹⁸Therefore unrolling in public is permitted. because they deal with the statutory order [of the reading] of the day.¹⁹i.e. the Day of Atonement. As they form one subject, skipping from place to place is allowed. You can see the reason²⁰lit. ‘and you may know’. for yourself, because R. Simeon b. Laḳish ruled, ‘No part of the Torah may be²¹lit. ‘in every place one may not’. read by heart’, and yet here²²The section beginning And on the tenth day (Num. 29, 7). [the High Priest] reads by heart.²³For the reason stated above.

HALAKHAH: It is written¹⁴⁶Lev. 23:40, the verse about the lulav and the 4 kinds.: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices¹⁴⁷The general exhortation to enjoy the holidays (Deut. 16:11,15) is read as referring to the joyous family meals connected with the holiday pilgrimage to the Temple. This interpretation would read the verse as duplicate of the same exhortation in Deut. 16:15.. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav¹⁴⁸This interpretation reads Lev. 23:40 separate from Deut. 16:15, commanding a lulav festivity in the Temple, “before the Eternal”, in addition to the requirement of taking the lulav on the first day, independent of location. Babli 43a.. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah¹⁴⁹It is obvious that instead of “well-being sacrifices” one has to read “lulav”. Since in this case there is a biblical requirement to take the lulav for seven days in the Temple, taking the lulav for seven days has biblical roots, and the statement about Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai makes sense.. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution¹⁵⁰Here one has to read “well-being sacrifices”. If the verse does not force a 7-day observation of lulav anywhere, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai would have extended a purely customary observation from the Temple to the outside world. Since rabbinic extensions of Biblical prescriptions are legitimate only as “fences around the law”, extending any of these is unnecessary. Therefore Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai must have held that Lev. 23:40 refers to lulav(Note 149). Babli Šabbat11a.?

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days¹⁵³Lev. 23:8., there are no seven without a Sabbath¹⁵⁴In the detailed list of the holiday sacrifices, Num. 28–29, it is written in v. 28:24 that on the Holiday of unleavened bread there have to be sacrifices for seven days. Therefore the mention of the seven days of sacrifices in Lev. 23:8, in the holiday list whose emphasis is not on the sacrifices, can be read as emphasizing that these sacrifices have to be offered also on the Sabbath, the Sabbath prohibition being not applicable in this regard., why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath¹⁵⁵By the argument of the preceding note, it should follow that the Sabbath prohibitions are nonexistent for taking the lulav on a Sabbath which is the first day of the holiday, since it was established in the preceding paragraph that the second part of Lev. 23:40 also refers to lulav.? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them¹⁵⁶Since there is no direct evidence that the second part of Lev. 23:40 must refer to lulav.. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country¹⁵⁷Since both Lev.23:8 and Num. 28:24 refer to the Temple service, the argument should be transferable to Lev. 23:40.. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and at another place included¹⁵⁸It would be reasonable to restrict the rules of lulav to the Temple.. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem¹⁵⁹Since the first part of 23:40 is addressed to everybody everywhere, it excludes differentiating between Temple and outside for the rules of the first day. Since the rules “before the Eternal” refer either to the Temple, as in matters of sacrifices, or to the place of the Temple, as in the rules of Second Tithe (Deut. 14:26); by the previous argument this cannot apply to lifting the Sabbath rules on the first day, and, therefore, not to any other day..

On Mondays and Thursdays and at the Sabbath afternoon service the regular portion of the week is read, and this is not reckoned as a part of the reading [for the succeeding Sabbath].⁴⁶When it must be repeated. [The reason⁴⁷For the various readings prescribed above. is] because it is stated, And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord,⁴⁸Lev. 23, 44. which implies that it is an ordinance that each [appointed section] shall be read in its season. Hence [the Rabbis] said: [The sequence of the readings] is interrupted for them all—for New Moons, Ḥanukkah, Purim, fasts, ma‘amadoth and the Day of Atonement,⁴⁹Cf. Rule 2. irrespective of whether these occur on a Sabbath, a Monday or Thursday, on which days there exists a regular sequence of readings.⁵⁰lit. ‘which they read according to order’. H (so N.Y.) has ‘on which they do not read’, etc., changing shehem to she’ain. This sequence is interrupted⁵¹lit. ‘that they interrupt’. and the [special sections] are read. You cannot, however, say of fasts or ma‘amadoth⁵²Which can never occur on the Sabbath. that they would fall on a Sabbath in order [to lay down the rule that] the normal sequence of the Sabbath [readings] is interrupted on their account. [For these can interrupt the sequence] of a Monday or Thursday only.

There was never a defect in the omer offering, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread.