In a long chain of those transmitting this statement, it is said that Rabbi Bizna bar Zavda said that Rabbi Akiva said that Rabbi Panda said that Rav Naḥum said that Rabbi Birayim said in the name of one elder, and who is he, Rabbi Bena’a: There were twenty-four interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem. One time, I dreamed a dream and went to each of them to interpret it. What one interpreted for me the other did not interpret for me, and, nevertheless, all of the interpretations were realized in me, to fulfill that which is stated: All dreams follow the mouth of the interpreter.

The verse states: “And so it was, that when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand” (Esther 5:2). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three ministering angels happened to join her at that time: One that raised up her neck, so that she could stand erect, free of shame; one that strung a cord of divine grace around her, endowing her with charm and beauty; and one that stretched the king’s scepter.How much was it stretched? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The scepter was two cubits, and he made it twelve cubits. And some say that he made it sixteen cubits, and yet others say twenty-four cubits. It was taught in a baraita: He made it sixty cubits. And similarly you find with the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter, which she stretched out to take Moshe. And so too, you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written: “You have broken the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8), with regard to which Reish Lakish said: Do not read it as “You have broken [shibbarta],” but as: You have enlarged [sheribavta]. Rabba bar Oferan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, who heard it from his teacher, who in turn heard it from his teacher: The scepter was stretched two hundred cubits.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: If not for the fact that they would call me: Babylonian who permits prohibitions, I would permit the insertion of many nails into a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: And how many nails would he have permitted? In Pumbedita they said: Twenty-four nails. In Sura they said: Twenty-two. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And this is your mnemonic to remember which opinion was stated in Sura and which opinion was stated in Pumbedita: UntilRabbi Ḥiyyacame from Pumbedita to Sura he lost two nails from his shoe. Since the route that Rabbi Ḥiyya took from Pumbedita to Eretz Yisrael passed through Sura, one could say: Due to the rigors of the journey, two nails fell from the sandal of Rabbi Ḥiyya between Pumbedita and Sura.

And Rav Yehuda said: There are three matters which, when one who prolongs their duration, they extend a person’s days and years. They are: One who prolongs his prayer, one who prolongs his mealtime at the table, and one who prolongs his time in the bathroom. The Gemara asks: And one who prolongs his prayer; is that a virtue? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:Anyone who prolongs his prayer and expects it to be answered, will ultimately come to heartache, as it is stated: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Proverbs 13:12). Similarly, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Three matters evoke a person’s sins, and they are: Endangering oneself by sitting or standing next to an inclined wall that is about to collapse, expecting prayer to be accepted, as that leads to an assessment of his status and merit, and passing a case against another to Heaven, as praying for Heaven to pass judgment on another person causes one’s own deeds to be examined and compared with the deeds of that other person. This proves that prolonging prayer is a fault. The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction: This is not difficult. This, where we learned that prolonging prayer is undesirable, refers to a situation when one expects his prayer to be accepted, while this, where Rav Yehuda says that prolonging prayer prolongs one’s life, refers to a situation where one does not expect his prayer to be accepted. How does he prolong his prayer? By increasing his supplication. As for the virtue of prolonging one’s mealtime at the table, which Rav Yehuda mentioned, the Gemara explains: Perhaps a poor person will come during the meal and the host will be in a position to give him food immediately, without forcing the poor person to wait. The Sages elsewhere praised a person who acts appropriately at a meal, as it is written: “The altar, three cubits high and the length thereof, two cubits, was of wood, and so the corners thereof; the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were also of wood” (Ezekiel 41:22), and it is written in the continuation of that verse: “And he said unto me: This is the table that is before the Lord.” The language of this verse is difficult, as it begins with the altar and concludes with the table. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: As long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel’s transgressions. Now that it is destroyed, a person’s table atones for his transgressions. With regard to what Rav Yehuda said in praise of one who prolongs his time in the bathroom, the Gemara asks: Is that a virtue? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten things bring a person to suffer from hemorrhoids: One who eats the leaves of bulrushes, grape leaves, tendrils of grapevines, the palate and tongue of an animal, as well as any other part of the animal which is not smooth and which has protrusions, the spine of a fish, a salty fish that is not fully cooked, and one who drinks wine dregs, and one who wipes himself with lime and clay, the materials from which earthenware is made, and one who wipes himself with a stone with which another person wiped himself. And some say: One who suspends himself too much in the bathroom as well. This proves that prolonging one’s time in the bathroom is harmful. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Thisbaraita, which teaches that doing so is harmful, refers to where one prolongs his time there and suspends himself, while this statement of Rav Yehuda refers to where one prolongs his time there and does not suspend himself. The Gemara relates the benefits of prolonging one’s time in the bathroom. Like that incident when a matron [matronita] said to Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi El’ai: Your face is fat and full, like the faces of pig farmers and usurers who do not work hard and who make a plentiful living. He said to her: Honestly, those two occupations are prohibited to me; rather, why is it that my face is nice? Because there are twenty-four bathrooms between my lodging and the study hall, and when I walk I stop and examine myself in all of them.

Rabbi Yehuda was sitting before Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Your face today is ruddy, i.e., a rosy, healthy color. Rabbi Yehudasaid to him: Last night your servants, i.e., we students, went out to the field, and beets were brought to us, and we ate them without salt. This is the reason for our healthy complexion. And had we eaten them with salt, all the more so would our faces have been ruddy.The Gemara cites related incidents: A certain gentile lady [matronita] said to Rabbi Yehuda, whose face was ruddy: How can one teach the Jews and be a drunk at the same time? He said to her: I place my integrity in the hands of this woman and should no longer be deemed credible if I ever taste any wine except for that of kiddush, havdala, and the four cups of Passover. And after I drink those four cups I tie my temples from Passover to Shavuot, as wine gives me a headache. Rather, my complexion is explained by the verse “A man’s wisdom makes his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes 8:1). A certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda: Your face is similar either to usurers or to pig breeders. These people would earn a good living without expending much energy, which gave them plump, healthy complexions. Rabbi Yehudasaid to him: Both of these occupations are prohibited to Jews. Rather, my face is ruddy because I have twenty-four bathrooms on the way from my home to the study hall, and all the time I enter each and every one of them. He did not suffer from constipation, which had a beneficial effect on his complexion.

After discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments. There is a dispute among amora’im with regard to a kelila, which is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and Shmuel permitted doing so. The Gemara sets the parameters of the disagreement: With a kelila made of metal, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a woven fabric inlaid with metal. One Sage,Rav, holds that in that type of ornament the metal is the primary element, and it is prohibited. And one Sage,Shmuel, holds that the woven fabric is the primary element, and it is consequently permitted. Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelilaof woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage,Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage,Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others. On the same topic, Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef who, due to illness, forgot his learning: You explicitly said to us in the name of Rav: With regard to a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. The Gemara relates that one day they said to Rav: A great, tall man came to Neharde’a and he was limping. And he taught: With a kelila, it is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Ravsaid: Who is a great, tall man who limps? Levi. Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes passed away and Rabbi Ḥanina is sitting at the head of the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in his place. And, consequently, Levi had no one before whom to sit and study and he came here. As long as Rabbi Afes headed the yeshiva, Rabbi Ḥanina would sit outside the study hall. Entering the study hall would indicate that he accepted the authority of Rabbi Afes. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a great man, refused to do so. In deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, Levi would sit with him as a colleague outside the study hall. When Levi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, it was clear that Rabbi Afes must have died. Levi, who considered himself Rabbi Ḥanina’s equal in terms of both scholarship and age, did not want to defer to Rabbi Ḥanina’s authority and decided to go to elsewhere, to Babylonia. The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized. The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in Neharde’a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meḥoza that the kelila ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament went out from one alleyway. Meḥoza was a wealthy mercantile city, and many women there owned precious jewelry.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: A certain Elder from among the residents of Jerusalem told me that there are twenty-four types of patients afflicted with boils, and with regard to all of them the Sages said that sexual relations are harmful to them, and those afflicted with ra’atan, a severe skin disease characterized by extreme weakness and trembling, are harmed even more than all of the others. The Gemara asks: From where and how does this disease come about? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who let blood and immediately afterward engaged in sexual relations will have weak [vitaykin] children. If both of them let blood and then engaged in sexual relations, he will have children afflicted with ra’atan. Rav Pappa said in response: We said this only if he did not taste anything between bloodletting and intercourse, but if he tasted something we have no problem with it, as it is not dangerous.

§ As for those eighteen women that the king may marry, from where do we derive that number? The Gemara responds: As it is written: “And to David sons were born in Hebron; and his firstborn was Amnon, from Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and his second, Chileab, from Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom, son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah, son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah, son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron” (II Samuel 3:2–5). In these verses, a total of six wives are mentioned. And the prophetNathansaid toKing David in his rebuke: “And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your bosom and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that were too little, then I would add to you like these and like those” (II Samuel 12:8). “Like these”; this is referring to the wives enumerated above, meaning another six. “And like those”; this is referring to another six, so that all together there are eighteen he would be permitted to marry. Ravina objects to this explanation: Say instead: “Like these”; this is referring to an additional six, like the wives enumerated above, totaling twelve. “And like those”; this is referring to all of those enumerated previously, totaling twenty-four.The Gemara adds: Support for Ravina’s interpretation is also taught in a baraita: “He shall not add many wives to himself”; this means he may not marry more than twenty-four women. The Gemara comments: According to the one who interprets the letter vav, translated as the conjunction “and” in the term “and like those,” to add and expand upon what came before, the vav is written in order to add more, and therefore, there are forty-eight women. The Gemara comments: Support for this interpretation is also taught in a baraita: “He shall not add many wives to himself”; this means he may not marry more than forty-eight women.

§ Rav says: My paternal uncle will not testify about me, neither he, nor his son, nor his son-in-law, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna. Furthermore, I will not testify about him, neither I, nor my son, nor my son-in-law.The Gemara asks: And why, for example, can Rav’s son not testify about the brother of his father’s father? But it is the testimony of a member of the third generation with regard to a related member of the first generation, as there is a two-generation difference between them. And we learned in the mishna that a member of the second generation cannot testify about a member of the second generation, e.g., one cannot testify about the son of his paternal uncle. We also learned that a member of the second generation cannot testify about a member of the first generation, e.g., one cannot testify about his uncle. But we did not learn that a member of the third generation cannot testify about a member of the first generation. The Gemara answers: In the statement that is taught in the mishna: They themselves, and their sons, and their sons-in-law are considered relatives, what is the ruling of the mishna concerning his son-in-law referring to? It is referring to the son-in-law of his son. Accordingly, the mishna disqualifies the testimony of a member of the third generation about a member of the first generation. The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach: And his son and the son of his son, instead of: His son-in-law. This would be a more straightforward manner of conveying the halakha with regard to a member of the third generation testifying about a member of the first generation. The Gemara answers: By mentioning his son-in-law, the mishna teaches us a matter in passing: That with regard to the different levels of familial relationships, a husband is like his wife. Therefore, there is no difference between one’s son and one’s son-in-law. The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is referring to the son-in-law of his son, a difficulty is posed by that which Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita: Eight fathers, i.e., eight principal relatives mentioned in the mishna, are disqualified, which are twenty-four including the son and son-in-law of each. If the mishna is referring to one’s grandson these are thirty-two, as the son, the son-in-law, and the grandson of each are included.

§ With regard to the phrase: “The ayya after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. Rather,Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds.It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds.

The Gemara explains: On the third day of the week, what is the reason that one does not let blood? It is because the planet Mars is dominant during the even hours. Since it is a planet of blood, and the even hours are a bad omen, that combination gives cause for concern. The Gemara asks: On Shabbat eve, Mars also dominates during the even hours. The Gemara answers: Since the multitudes have already become accustomed to letting blood on Shabbat eve, the verse: “The Lord protects the simple-hearted” (Psalms 116:6) applies in this case. Similarly, Shmuel says: On the fourth day of the week that is the fourth day of the month; on the fourth day of the week that is the fourteenth of the month; on the fourth day of the week that is the twenty-fourth of the month; and on the fourth day of the week after which there are not four days remaining in the month it is dangerous to let blood.

§ Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who says that a daughter of the deceased should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased, even if he is a prince of the Jewish people, one should not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees, and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. As it is taught in a baraita in Megillat Ta’anit, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: On the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law, i.e., the halakha was reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased. The baraita continues: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling? And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased’s son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

§ Apropos Geviha ben Pesisa and his cleverness in debate, the Gemara cites additional incidents where he represented the Jewish people in debates. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After a woman gives birth, her husband penetrates inside and spills his semen outside for the entire twenty-four months during which the baby is breastfeeding, so that his wife not become pregnant, as that would terminate her milk production and the child might die. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him: These acts are nothing other than acts similar to those of Er and Onan, which are prohibited. Regardless, it can be deduced from here that Er and Onan engaged in normative sexual intercourse with Tamar, only they did not fully complete the sexual act.

Ameimar permitted one to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Didn’t Rav and Shmuel both say that she needs to wait three full months, excluding the day on which the husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed? It is apparent that it is still prohibited to betroth a woman on the ninetieth day itself. Ameimar said to him: That which you heard, that the days of the husband’s death and of the betrothal are not included, was stated only with regard to a nursing woman, as it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: A nursing woman needs to wait twenty-four months before being betrothed, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there an incident concerning a certain person who prepared a betrothal feast on the ninetieth day following the death of the woman’s first husband, and Rava caused him to forfeit his feast by prohibiting the betrothal on that day? The Gemara answers: That feast was actually a marriage feast, but had it been a betrothal feast it would have been permitted. The Gemara summarizes: The halakha is that a nursing mother needs to wait twenty-four months, excluding the day on which the baby was born and excluding the day on which she is betrothed. And if she was widowed but was not nursing, then she needs to wait only three months, excluding the day on which her previous husband died and excluding the day on which she is betrothed.

The Gemara continues discussing the aforementioned baraita, which states: If the child ceased nursing after twenty-four months and then resumed, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara asks: How long must he cease nursing to be considered weaned? Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said that Shmuel said: Three days. There are those who say that this was not an amoraic statement, but rather a baraita that is taught by Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva before Shmuel: Weaning takes effect after three days.§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot relating to nursing. The Sages taught: A nursing woman whose husband died within twenty-four months of her child’s birth may not be betrothed and may not get marrieduntil twenty-four months from the day the child was born. The reason for this decree is to protect the child. If she remarries she may become pregnant and may not be able to continue nursing, but her second husband will not be obligated to support the child who is not his son. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda permits getting married after eighteen months. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said: These words are the same as the statement of Beit Shammai, and those words are the same as the statement of Beit Hillel, i.e., this is an ancient dispute, as Beit Shammai say: Twenty-four months, and Beit Hillel say: Eighteen months.

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a nursing woman does not menstruate because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. But according to the one who says that the milk does not originate from blood, but rather the reason she does not menstruate is because her limbs become disjointed and her soul, i.e., her health, does not return to her until twenty-four months later, what is there to say? Why does the Torah employ a verse to render forbidden the milk of a non-kosher animal?

He would also say: A person can study Torah for twenty years and forget it all in two years. How so? If he sat for six months and did not review what he had learned, he would begin to say that what was impure was pure, and what was pure was impure. After twelve months of no review, he would mix up the names of the sages. After eighteen months of no review, he would forget the beginnings of the tractates. After twenty-four months of no review, he would forget the beginnings of the chapters. Finally, he would have to sit and be silent. [King] Solomon said about such a person (Proverbs 24:30–31), “I passed by the field of a lazy man, and by the vineyard of a heartless person. It was all overgrown with thorns, its surface was covered with weeds, and the stone wall around it had been destroyed.” And when the wall of a vineyard falls, soon enough the whole vineyard is destroyed.

Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him. Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen,I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four.The Gemara notes that this is like a dispute between tanna’im, based on the verse: “Train a child in the way that he should go” (Proverbs 22:6). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagreed about the age in which the verse instructs the parent to educate his child: One said that the verse is referring to the ages from sixteen until twenty-two, and one said it is referring to the ages from eighteen until twenty-four. The dispute concerning the correct age for marriage and the dispute about educating a child are the same, as while a father still has a large measure of influence over his son, he must both teach him and find him a wife.

Come and hear the baraitathat Rav Zuti from the school of Rav Pappi taught: Vows may be nullified on Shabbat only for the purpose of Shabbat. Rav Ashi said: We did not learn that way in the mishna here. The mishna teaches: If she took a vow with nightfall approaching, her father or husband can nullify the vow for her only until nightfall. And if you say that with regard to nullification of vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, he may nullify those vows, but nullifications that are not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, he may not, why does the tannaspecify nightfall? After all, even during the day he may not nullify that which is not for the purpose of Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Nullification on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day that the vow was heard. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: A vow can be nullified for a twenty-four-hour period from the time it was heard. According to the one who says all day, yes, one can nullify vows all day, but not more than that; he may nullify on Shabbat even when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, since otherwise, he could not nullify a vow taken on Shabbat at all. According to the one who says that one can nullify her vows for a twenty-four-hour period, that which is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, he may nullify, but that which is not necessary for Shabbat, he may not nullify, as he can do so after Shabbat.

§ The Gemara cites a series of expositions with regard to what is called the book of Yashar. The verse states: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Yashar”? (Joshua 10:13). The Gemara asks: What is the book of Yashar? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is Genesis, which is the book of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob, who were called righteous [yesharim], as it is stated: “Let me die the death of the righteous [yesharim]” (Numbers 23:10). The Gemara asks: And where is it alluded to in Genesis that the sun would stand still for Joshua? The verse states in reference to Ephraim, who was Joshua’s ancestor: “And his seed shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19). The Gemara asks: When will he become a multitude of nations? He became a multitude of nations at the time when the sun stood in place for Joshua, as it is written: “And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down for an entire day” (Joshua 10:13). The Gemara inquires: And how much time elapsed before the sun finally set? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that it took twenty-four hours: It traveled across the sky for six hours and stood still for six hours, and again traveled six hours and stood still for six hours, so that the entire matter lasted the duration of an entire day.Rabbi Elazar said that it lasted thirty-six hours: The sun traveled for six hours and stood for twelve hours, and again traveled six hours and stood for twelve hours, so that the accumulated time of its suspension was that of an entire day. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Forty-eight hours elapsed before it set. It traveled six hours and stood for twelve hours, and then traveled six hours and stood for twenty-four hours, as it is stated: “And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven,” and then: “And hastened not to go down for an entire day.” By inference, it can be understood that initially it was not suspended for an entire day. Rather, at first it stood still for twelve hours, and was later suspended for an entire day. There are those who say that these Sages do not disagree over how much time had elapsed before the sun set. Rather, they disagree with regard to the additional time by which the day was extended. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Twenty-four hours were added to that day, because the sun traveled six hours and stood twelve hours, and again traveled six hours and stood for another twelve hours, which meant that its standing time lasted for an entire day. Rabbi Elazar said that thirty-six hours were added: It traveled six hours and stood for twelve hours, and then traveled six hours and stood for twenty-four more hours. It is with regard to the second suspension that the verse states: “And hastened not to go down for an entire day.”Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: The time the sun stood in place was forty-eight hours in total. The sun traveled six hours and stood twenty-four hours, and then traveled another six hours and stood for another twenty-four hours. His reasoning is that the verse juxtaposes the sun’s suspension to its motion: Just as the sun is in motion for an entire day, so too, its suspension was for an entire day.

The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥanansaid toReish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakishsaid to him: Your beauty is fit for women.Rabbi Yoḥanansaid to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am.Reish Lakishaccepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakishwanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself. Rabbi YoḥanantaughtReish LakishBible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general. These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥanansaid toReish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakishsaid toRabbi Yoḥanan: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥanansaid to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill.Rabbi Yoḥanan’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥanan, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥanansaid to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.”Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,Reish Lakish, died. Rabbi Yoḥanan was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calmRabbi Yoḥanan’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedatwent and sat beforeRabbi Yoḥanan. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan would say,Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraitathat supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanansaid to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraitathat supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not. Rabbi Yoḥananwent around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish?Rabbi Yoḥananscreamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e., he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, andRabbi Yoḥanandied.

They emerged from the cave, and saw people who were plowing and sowing. Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai said: These people abandon eternal life of Torah study and engage in temporal life for their own sustenance. The Gemara relates that every place that Rabbi Shimon and his son Rabbi Elazar directed their eyes was immediately burned. A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: Did you emerge from the cave in order to destroy My world? Return to your cave. They again went and sat there for twelve months. They said: The judgment of the wicked in Gehenna lasts for twelve months. Surely their sin was atoned in that time. A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: Emerge from your cave. They emerged. Everywhere that Rabbi Elazar would strike, Rabbi Shimon would heal. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Elazar: My son, you and I suffice for the entire world, as the two of us are engaged in the proper study of Torah. As the sun was setting on Shabbat eve, they saw an elderly man who was holding two bundles of myrtle branches and running at twilight. They said to him: Why do you have these? He said to them: In honor of Shabbat. They said to him: And let one suffice. He answered them: One is corresponding to: “Remember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), and one is corresponding to: “Observe the Shabbat day, to keep it holy” (Deuteronomy 5:12). Rabbi Shimon said to his son: See how beloved the mitzvot are to Israel. Their minds were put at ease and they were no longer as upset that people were not engaged in Torah study. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir, Rabbi Shimon’s son-in-law, heard and went out to greet him. He brought him into the bathhouse and began tending to his flesh. He saw that Rabbi Shimon had cracks in the skin on his body. He was crying, and the tears fell from his eyes and caused Rabbi Shimon pain. Rabbi Pineḥas said to Rabbi Shimon, his father-in-law: Woe is me, that I have seen you like this. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Happy are you that you have seen me like this, as had you not seen me like this, you would not have found in me this prominence in Torah, as the Gemara relates: At first, when Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would raise a difficulty, Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir would respond to his question with twelve answers. Ultimately, when Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir would raise a difficulty, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would respond with twenty-four answers.

Reish Lakish once eulogized a certain young Torah scholar who was frequently present in Eretz Yisrael and who used to study halakha in the twenty-fourth row of the study hall. He sat so far back because he was not one of the principal scholars. Nevertheless, when he died, Reish Lakish said: Alas, Eretz Yisrael has lost a great man.In contrast, there was a certain man who used to study halakha, the Sifra, and the Sifrei, and the Tosefta, and he died. People came and said to Rav Naḥman: Let the Master eulogize him. He said to them: How can I eulogize him? Should I say: Alas, a basket filled with books is lost? This would not be true. Although the man studied many areas of Torah, he was not proficient in them. The Gemara compares the conduct of Reish Lakish in Eretz Yisrael to that of Rav Naḥman in Babylonia. Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael and the saintly ones of Babylonia. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was still more respectful than Rav Naḥman, who was known for his saintliness.

Resh Lakish eulogized a certain rabbinical student who was frequently in the Land of Israel and who used to repeat halakhoth before twenty-four rows [of disciples]. He said: Alas! The Land of Israel has lost a great man. There was a certain man who used to repeat halakhot, Sifra and Sifre and Tosefta, and when he died they came and said to R. Nahman: Let the master eulogize him. He said: How are we to eulogize him: Alas! A bag full of books has been lost! Observe now the difference between the rigorous scholars of the Land of Israel and the saints of Babylon.

§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And Aaron shall place both his hands [yadav] upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written “both,” which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said toRabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions? Reish Lakishraised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: “His own hands [yadav] shall bring the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); “his hands [yadav] shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); “Guiding his hands [yadav] wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazarwas silent, as he had no response. AfterReish Lakish had calmed down, he said toRabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.” The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: “And he placed his hands [yadav] upon him and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [yadav] instead of: His hand [yado]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savuasaw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property.Rabbi Akivawent and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how longwill you lead the life of a widow of a living man, living alone while your husband is in another place? She said to him: If he would listen to me, he would sit and study for another twelve years. When Rabbi Akiva heard this he said: I have permission to do this. He went back and sat for another twelve years in the study hall. When he came back he brought twenty-four thousand students with him. His wife heard and went out toward him to greet him. Her neighbors said: Borrow some clothes and wear them, as your current apparel is not appropriate to meet an important person. She said to them: “A righteous man understands the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10). When she came to him she fell on her face and kissed his feet. His attendants pushed her away as they did not know who she was, and he said to them: Leave her alone, as my Torah knowledge and yours is actually hers.In the meantime her father heard that a great man came to the town. He said: I will go to him. Maybe he will nullify my vow and I will be able to support my daughter. He came to him to ask about nullifying his vow, and Rabbi Akivasaid to him: Did you vow thinking that this Akivawould become a great man? He said to him: If I had believed he would know even one chapter or even one halakha I would not have been so harsh. He said to him: I am he.Ben Kalba Savuafell on his face and kissed his feet and gave him half of his money. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva’s daughter did the same thing for ben Azzai, who was also a simple person, and she caused him to learn Torah in a similar way, by betrothing herself to him and sending him off to study. This explains the folk saying that people say: The ewe follows the ewe; the daughter’s actions are the same as her mother’s.

§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in abaraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If a man married a woman in his youth, and she passed away, he should marry another woman in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should have more children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect.And the world was desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught his Torah to them. This second group of disciples consisted of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones who upheld the study of Torah at that time. Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations. With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot. Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. The Gemara inquires: What is it that is called a bad death? Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria.Rav Mattana said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things. By study, Attentive listening, Proper speech, By an understanding heart, By an intelligent heart, By awe, By fear, By humility, By joy, By attending to the sages, By critical give and take with friends, By fine argumentation with disciples, By clear thinking, By study of Scripture, By study of Mishnah, By a minimum of sleep, By a minimum of chatter, By a minimum of pleasure, By a minimum of frivolity, By a minimum of preoccupation with worldly matters, By long-suffering, By generosity, By faith in the sages, By acceptance of suffering. [Learning of Torah is also acquired by one] Who recognizes his place, Who rejoices in his portion, Who makes a fence about his words, Who takes no credit for himself, Who is loved, Who loves God, Who loves [his fellow] creatures, Who loves righteous ways, Who loves reproof, Who loves uprightness, Who keeps himself far from honors, Who does not let his heart become swelled on account of his learning, Who does not delight in giving legal decisions, Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague, Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor, Who leads him on to truth, Who leads him on to peace, Who composes himself at his study, Who asks and answers, Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge], Who learns in order to teach, Who learns in order to practice, Who makes his teacher wiser, Who is exact in what he has learned, And who says a thing in the name of him who said it. Thus you have learned: everyone who says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22).

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, Ḥalla 2:7–10): Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons, and all of them were given with a derivation from a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and with a covenant of salt. The verses in the book of Numbers, chapter 18, detail the gifts of the priesthood. The first verse (18:8) is written in general terms, followed by verses listing the actual gifts (9–18), followed by a final verse written in general terms. The method of interpreting verses written in this manner is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Additionally, the phrase: “Covenant of salt,” is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood. This serves to teach that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he fulfills the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he violates the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has not brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt.The baraita continues: And these are the twenty-four gifts: There are ten in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts that the priests consume only in the Temple are an animal sin-offering; and a bird sin-offering; and a definite guilt-offering; and a provisional guilt-offering; and communal peace-offerings, i.e., lambs offered on Shavuot; and a log of oil that accompanies the guilt-offering of a recovered leper; and the surplus of the omer, i.e., what remains of the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat offered on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of grain-offerings, after the priests have offered the required handful. The baraita continues: And the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s ram; and hides of consecrated animals. The baraita continues: And ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the tithe he receives and gives to a priest; and ḥalla, i.e., the portion of dough of the five main grains designated for the priest; and the first of the sheared wool; and the gifts of non-sacrificial, slaughtered animals, namely, the right foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw; and money given for the redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey; and a consecrated ancestral field the priests receive in the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs. The Gemara infers from the wording of the baraita: And this baraita, in any event, labels the payment for robbery of a convert a gift. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from this baraita that the priests who receive it are considered recipients of gifts, and not heirs. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

§ The mishna taught that these are the non-priestly watches: Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel.” The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying about the non-priestly watches? How does the verse relate to the watches? The Gemara explains that the mishna is saying as follows: These are the non-priestly watches, which will be explained later. And what is the reason that they instituted non-priestly watches? Since it is stated: “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering of food, which is presented to Me made by a fire, of a sweet savor to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in their due season” (Numbers 28:2). The mishna continues: But how can a person’s offering be sacrificed when he is not standing next to it? The early prophets,Samuel and David, instituted twenty-four priestly watches. For each and every priestly watch there was a corresponding watch in Jerusalem of priests, Levites, and Israelites. When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, the priests and Levites of that watch would ascend to Jerusalem.The Sages taught: There were twenty-four priestly watches in Eretz Yisrael, and twelve in Jericho. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Twelve in Jericho? In that case there are too many of them, as this makes a total of thirty-six watches. Rather, the baraita should be read as follows: There were twenty-four in total, twelve of which were in Jericho. How so? When the time arrived for the members of a certain priestly watch to ascend, half the priestly watch would ascend from all over Eretz Yisrael to Jerusalem, and half the priestly watch would ascend from Jericho, in order to provide water and food to their brothers in Jerusalem from Jericho. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Priests, Levites, and Israelites are all indispensable for the offering, and consequently, they all must be present when the daily offering is sacrificed. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Priests, Levites, and musical instruments are indispensable for the offering. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage,Shmuel, holds that the main aspect of the Levites’ song that accompanied the offerings is vocal, and one Sage,Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that the main aspect of their song is instrumental, performed with a vessel, and therefore both the Levites and their instruments must be present for the daily offering. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Moses initially instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from the descendants of Elazar and four from the descendants of Itamar. Samuel came and established them as sixteen, and David came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated, after the watches are listed: “In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valor at Jazer of Gilead” (I Chronicles 26:31). The Gemara raises an objection against this opinion from a baraita. Moses instituted for the Jews eight priestly watches, four from Elazar and four from Itamar. And David and Samuel came and established them as twenty-four, as it is stated: “Whom David and Samuel the seer ordained in their set office” (I Chronicles 9:22). This baraita indicates that David and Samuel together established the twenty-four watches. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraitais saying: Through their ordination by David and Samuel of Rama the priestly watches incrementally increased in number until they established them as twenty-four.It is taught in anotherbaraita: Moses instituted for the Jews sixteen priestly watches, eight from Elazar and eight from Itamar. And when the descendants of Elazar grew more numerous than the descendants of Itamar, he divided the descendants of Elazarand established them together with the descendants of Itamaras twenty-four watches, as it is stated: “And there were more chief men found of the sons of Elazar than of the sons of Itamar, and they were divided thus: Of the sons of Elazar there were sixteen heads of fathers’ houses, and of the sons of Itamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight” (I Chronicles 24:4). And it says: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar” (I Chronicles 24:6). The Gemara asks: What is: And it says? Why was it necessary to quote a second verse? The Gemara explains: And if you would say that just as the descendants of Elazar increased, so too, the descendants of Itamar increased, and the eight watches were initially four, as claimed by Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, then come and hear: “One father’s house taken for Elazar, and proportionately for Itamar,” which indicates that the descendants of Itamar remained as they were. This verse is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥama bar Gurya, who says that Moses established only eight priestly watches. The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥama bar Gurya could have said to you that the initial order of the priestly watches is a dispute between tanna’im, as indicated by the previous baraita, and I stated my opinion in accordance with that tanna who said that Moses instituted eight priestly watches. The Sages taught: Only four priestly watches ascended from the Babylonian exile, while the other twenty stayed in Babylonia. And these are the watches who returned: The descendants of Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur, and Immer. The prophets among those who returned aroseand divided them and established them as twenty-four watches. They achieved this by writing the names of these new twenty-four watches on pieces of paper, mixing them up, and putting them in a receptacle [kalfei] from which lots were drawn. A representative from the family of Jedaiah came and drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, for a total of six. Harim came and also drew his portion and the lot of five other watches, a total of six. And likewise Pashhur, and likewise Immer.And likewise the prophets among them stipulated that even if the descendants of Jehoiarib, who originally headed the priestly watches, ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Jedaiah would not be demoted from its place as the first of the watches. Rather, the watch of Jedaiah would retain precedence, and Jehoiarib would be subordinate to it.

The Gemara discusses the aforementioned curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the deputy High Priest: The curtain has the thickness of a handbreadth, and it is woven from seventy-two strands of yarn. And each and every strand from those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads. The curtain was made from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and a strand was made up of six threads of each type of material. And with regard to the dimensions of the curtain, its length was forty cubits, as the height of the ceiling of the Sanctuary; and its width was twenty cubits, to match the width of the entrance; and it was made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 golden dinar. And they used to make two new curtains every year. And the curtain was so heavy that they needed three hundred priests to carry it when they would immerse it.

Rabbi Yannai bar Naḥmani says that Shmuel says: In three instances, the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and these are those instances: With regard to the circular heap of ashes on the altar, with regard to the vine, and with regard to the Curtain that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, as explained below. The Gemara notes that Shmuel’s statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rava, as we learned in a mishna: The priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a cup of gold, and Rava said: This is an exaggeration. Shmuel teaches us that in these three instances, yes, the Sages employed exaggerated language, but there, in the case of the golden cup, it is not an exaggeration, as even the cup from which the lamb was given to drink was actually made of gold. This is because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., the Temple is a place of wealth, where one must act in a lavish manner. The Gemara details the three instances with regard to which Shmuel states that the Sages employed exaggerated language: The case of the circular heap of ashes is that which we stated above. The case of the vine is as it is taught in a mishna (Middot 3:8): A gold ornament in the form of a vine stood at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and it hung upon posts. And whoever would donate an ornamental gold leaf,or grape, or cluster of grapes, would bring it to the Temple and a priest would hang it on the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once an incident and three hundred priests were enlisted to lift the vine in order to move it, due to its immense weight. This description is an exaggeration, as although the vine was extremely heavy, it did not require three hundred priests to lift it. With regard to Shmuel’s statement that the Sages exaggerated with regard to the weight of the Curtain, it is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 21b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the deputy High Priest: With regard to the Curtain, its thickness is one handbreadth. It is woven from seventy-two strands of yarn, and each and every strand of those seventy-two strands is made from twenty-four threads. The Curtain is fashioned from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and every strand comprises six threads of each material. Its length is forty cubits, corresponding to the height of the entrance to the Sanctuary, and its width is twenty cubits, matching the width of the entrance. And it is made at the cost of eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000, gold dinars,and two new Curtains are made in each and every year. And the Curtain was so heavy that when it was immersed three hundred priests would immerse it.

GEMARA:The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those items of the priestly vestments about which it is stated they must be made with linen [shesh], their threads are spun six-fold, as suggested by the use of the term shesh, which also means six. When the Torah states that certain items are twined, it means their threads are spun eight-fold. Threads used to weave the robe were spun from twelve strands. The threads of the curtain were spun from twenty-four strands. The threads used to weave the breastplate and ephod were spun from twenty-eight strands.

GEMARA:The Sages taught in a baraita: The craftsmen of the House of Garmu were expert in the preparation of the shewbread, and they did not want to teach others the secret of its production. The Sages dismissed them and sent for and brought craftsmen from Alexandria in Egypt, a large city with many experts. And those craftsmen knew how to bake like the members of the House of Garmu did, but they did not know how to remove the bread from the oven like they did. The shewbread was baked in a complex shape, and it was difficult to place it in the oven and remove it without breaking it. The difference was that these Alexandrians light the fire outside the oven and bake it outside the oven; and these members of the House of Garmu light the fire inside the oven and bake it inside. In the case of these Alexandrians, their bread becomes moldy over the course of the week, and in the case of these members of the House of Garmu, their bread does not become moldy.When the Sages heard of the matter that the bread of the imported craftsmen was of lower quality than before, they said: Whatever the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, He created in His honor, as it is stated: “Everyone who is called by My name, I have created for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7). In deference to God, the Sages should diminish their honor for the greater glory of God and let the House of Garmu return to their original station. The Sages sent for them to reassume their previous position, and they did not come. They doubled their wages and they came. Each day until then they would take wages of twelve maneh, and today they take wages of twenty-four maneh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Each day they took twenty-fourmaneh, and today they take forty-eight.The Sages said to them: What did you see that led you not to teach others this craft? They said: The members of our father’s house knew that this house, the Temple, is destined to be destroyed, and they were concerned lest an unworthy man learn our skill of baking and go and engage in idol worship with that skill. Therefore, they attempted to prevent this skill from spreading beyond their family. The Gemara comments: And for this matter they are mentioned favorably: Never was refined bread of fine flour found in the hands of their descendants, so that people would not say that they are sustained from that technique of preparing the shewbread. They ate only bread made of coarse flour mixed with bran, to fulfill that which is stated: “And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22). Not only must one’s behavior be beyond reproach, he should also make certain to be beyond suspicion.

§ The Sages taught: Teruma is given to a priest, and the first tithe is given only to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:The first tithe is given to a priest. The Gemara is puzzled: To a priest and not to a Levite? But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: Say he means it can be given also to a priest. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion? As it is written: “You shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them” (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, the verse speaks of Levites, not priests. And the othertanna, Rabbi Eliezer, maintains in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15).

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the altar mentioned there, in Ezekiel, was measured from its center? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square, to its four sides” (Ezekiel 43:16). The Gemara asks: Does the verse mean twelve cubits in each direction from the center of the altar, so that in total it was twenty-four by twenty-four cubits? Or perhaps the altar was only a total of twelve by twelve cubits. The Gemara answers: When the verse states: “To its four sides,” it teaches thatEzekiel was measuring from the center of the altar.

They stood for prayer. The congregation appoints an elder, who is experienced in leading prayer, to descend before the ark as communal prayer leader. And this prayer leader must have children and must have an empty house, i.e., he must be poor, so that his heart will be fully concentrated on the prayer for the needs of his community. And he recites twenty-four blessings before the congregation: The eighteen blessings of the everydayAmida prayer, to which he adds another six blessings, and they are as follows: The special series of blessings recited on Rosh HaShana, the Remembrances and Shofarot; and the sections of Psalms that begin with the verses: “In my distress I called to the Lord and He answered me” (Psalms 120:1), “I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; from where will my help come” (Psalms 121:1), “Out of the depths I have called You, O Lord” (Psalms 130:1), and “A prayer of the afflicted, when he faints” (Psalms 102:1). Rabbi Yehuda says: The prayer leader did not need to recite the Remembrances and Shofarot passages. Rather, he recites instead of them the passage beginning with: “If there be famine in the land, if there be pestilence” (I Kings 8:37), followed by the verse “The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts” (Jeremiah 14:1). And he recites at the end of all of these six blessing their unique conclusions.

Similarly the Sages taught: In four perutot, payments, there is never a sign of blessing: Wages of scribes of sacred books; wages of disseminators, who repeat and explain the lectures delivered by the Sages on Shabbat; payment of orphans, which one receives when engaging in a partnership with the executor of an orphan’s estate; and money that comes from a country overseas.The Gemara asks: Granted, one will be unsuccessful when receiving wages of disseminators, as it appears as if he is receiving wages for work performed on Shabbat, even though what he is doing is not actually prohibited. And it is also understandable that one will see no blessing from orphans’ money, as minors are not capable of relinquishing property. Minors do not have the legal right to forgive even negligible losses, which partners typically overlook. Therefore, one who in the course of business takes even the smallest amount of money from them beyond the sum to which he is entitled is considered a thief. One sees no blessing from money that comes from a country overseas, because a miracle does not transpire every day. Since the risks involved in shipping cargo on long sea voyages are great, one’s merit is diminished each time his merchandise miraculously arrives intact. However, what is the reason that one sees no blessing from wages of scribes? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The members of the Great Assembly observed twenty-four fasts, corresponding to the twenty-four priestly watches (Maharsha), for scribes who write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot, so that they will not become wealthy from their craft, as were they to become wealthy, they would no longer write these sacred items. Similarly, the Sages taught: Scribes who write scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; and their merchants, who buy the sacred scrolls from the scribes to sell them; and their merchants’ merchants; and all those engaged in the work of Heaven and earn their living from it, a phrase that comes to include those who sell the sky-blue dye for ritual fringes, never see a sign of blessing from their labor. And if they engage in these activities for their own sake, to ensure that there will be more sacred items available to the public, then they do see blessing from their labor.

When Solomon built the Temple and sought to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, the gates clung together and could not be opened. Solomon uttered twenty-four songs of praise, as in his prayer there are twenty-four expressions of prayer, song, etc. (I Kings 8), and his prayer was not answered. He began and said: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be you lifted up, you everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in” (Psalms 24:7). Immediately, the gates ran after him to swallow him, as they thought that in the words: “King of glory” he was referring to himself, and they said to him: “Who is the King of glory?” (Psalms 24:8). He said to them: “The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle” (Psalms 24:8). And he said again: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, yea, lift them up, you everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in. Who then is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts; He is the King of glory. Selah” (Psalms 24:9–10), and he was not answered. When he said: “O Lord God, turn not away the face of Your anointed; remember the good deeds of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and a fire descended from Heaven (II Chronicles 7:1). At that moment, the faces of all of David’s enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot. And all of Israel knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin. And if so, is it not appropriate what Solomon said: “And I praised the dead that are already dead,” David, more than the living, Solomon, to whose request to open the gates of the Temple God did not respond?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Temple the gates clung together and could not be opened. Solomon uttered twenty-four songs of praise, and his prayer was not answered. He began and said: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in” (Psalms 24:7), but once again his prayer was not answered, and the Temple gates remained closed. Once he said: “Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into your resting place, You, and the Ark of Your strength; Let your priests, O Lord God, be clothed with victory and let Your pious ones rejoice in goodness. O Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the faithful love of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:41–42), he was immediately answered. At that moment the faces of David’s enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot, and all knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin involving Bathsheba, as they saw that it was only in his merit that the gates of the Temple opened.

The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, i.e., this minimum area for each of the joint owners. And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. And the court does not divide a jointly owned garden unless there is space in it to plant a half-kav of seed for this one and a half-kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Akiva says that half that amount is sufficient, i.e., the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova]. Similarly, the court does not divide a hall [hateraklin], a drawing room, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, an olive press, and an irrigated field unless there is enough for this one to use the property in the usual manner and enough for that one to use the property in the usual manner. This is the principle: Anything for which when it is divided, each of the parts is large enough to retain the name of the original item, the court divides it. But if the parts will not retain the original name, the court does not divide it. When does this rule apply? It applies when the joint owners do not both wish to divide the item; when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property, he cannot force the other to do so. But when both of them wish to divide the item, they may divide it, even if each of the owners will receive less than the amounts specified above. But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half.

The Gemara cites a different interpretation of the same verse. Reish Lakish said: If you see a studentwhose studies are hard as iron for him, i.e., difficult to understand, this is due to his lack of familiarity with the Mishna, which is not organized for him. If the Mishna is unclear, any further study of Gemara is rendered all the more difficult, as it is stated: “And does not whet [kilkal] the edge [panim]” (Ecclesiastes 10:10). As panim can also mean surface, this indicates that the surface, i.e., the basic statements of the Mishna, is corrupted. As stated previously, kilkal can also mean corrupted. What is his remedy? He must increase the time he sits and studies, as it is stated: “Then must he increase his strength” (Ecclesiastes 10:10). The last part of the verse: “But wisdom is profitable to direct,” means that all the more so, if his study of the Mishna is organized for him from the beginning, he will avoid this trouble. That is like this practice of Reish Lakish, who would review his studies forty times, corresponding to the forty days in which the Torah was given to Moses at Sinai, and only afterward would he go before Rabbi Yoḥanan to study from his teacher. Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava would review his learning twenty-four times, corresponding to the twenty-four books in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, i.e., the Bible, and only afterward go before Rava to study with him.

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: The one who concludes with a reading from the Prophets may not read fewer than twenty-one verses, corresponding to the seven who read from the Torah. Each one who reads from the Torah must read at least three verses, for a total of at least twenty-one verses. And if it is so, that the one who reads the haftara does not count toward the quorum of seven readers, and he is an eighth reader, the minimum number of verses that must be read from the Torah is twenty-four and not twenty-one. The Gemara answers: Since the one who reads the haftara reads from the Torah first only due to respect for the Torah,it is not necessary to also add corresponding verses in the haftara.

There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.

§ The Gemara relates: The Elders of the city of Nezonya did not come to Rav Ḥisda’s lecture.Rav Ḥisdasaid to Rav Hamnuna: Go and ostracize them [tzaninhu] because they act disrespectfully toward the Sages. Rav Hamnunawent and said to the Elders of Nezonya: What is the reason that the rabbis did not come to the lecture? They said to him: Why should we come, as we asked him about a matter and he did not resolve it for us. We have nothing to learn from him. Rav Hamnunasaid to them: Have you asked me anything that I did not resolve for you? Ask me your question. They raised the following dilemma before him: With regard to a slave whose master castrates his testicles, what is the halakha? Is that considered an exposed blemish that is sufficient to emancipate him or not? An answer to their dilemma was not available toRav Hamnuna. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Hamnuna. They said to him in jest: You should not be called Hamnuna, a good hot fish; rather, your name should be Karnuna, a cold fish that is no longer tasty. After this encounter Rav Hamnunacame before Rav Ḥisda and told him what had happened. Rav Ḥisdasaid to him: They raised before you a dilemma that can be resolved from a baraita, which was cited in connection to a mishna, and you did not know how to answer them. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 6:7): There are twenty-four extremities in a person, none of which can become ritually impure due to unaffected skin. The Torah states that if a leprous spot contains some healthy flesh, the person is immediately rendered impure (Leviticus 13:14). The halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to the extremities because the priest must be able to see the entirety of the untainted area at once. Due to the shape of the twenty-four extremities, it is impossible to see the entirety of the area from a single vantage point. Consequently, the halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to them. And these are the twenty-four extremities: The extremities of the fingers and toes, twenty in total, and the extremities of the ears, and the extremity of the nose, and the extremity of the penis, and the extremities of the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the nipples of a man are included. And it is taught in that regard in a baraita: A slave is emancipated for injuries to all of them. The body parts listed with regard to leprosy are the same ones that, when injured, lead to the emancipation of a slave. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also, the castration of a slave by his master entails his freedom. Ben Azzai says: The tongue is also considered an exposed body part, as it is exposed when one speaks. Consequently, if the master severs his slave’s tongue, the slave goes free. The Master said above that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also castration. The Gemara asks: Castration of what? If we say that it is referring to castration of the penis, i.e., that the master severed the slave’s penis, this is the same as the mishna that already mentioned a penis. What, then, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rather, is it not correct to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to castration of the testicles? If so, this baraita resolves the dilemma raised by the Elders of Nezonya.

§ The mishna teaches that if one has an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit while the Rabbis disqualify him. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And both derived their opinions from one verse, as it is stated with regard to David’s war against the Philistines: “And there was again war at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), and it is also written in that same verse: “And there was a champion, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number.” One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the verse speaks of negative qualities of the champion, and therefore it may be derived from here that extra appendages are blemishes; and one Sage,Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the verse speaks in his praise, which means that extra appendages are not blemishes at all. With regard to that verse, Rabba says: Why do I need that which is written in the verse: “On every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number”? Isn’t it obvious that one who has six appendages on each limb will have twenty-four in total? Rabba explains: All of these details are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only six and six, I would say there were six of his hand and six of his foot, i.e., he had only twelve appendages. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “twenty-four.” And had the Merciful One written only “twenty-four,” I would say he had five fingers on this side and seven fingers on that side. Therefore, the verse wrote six and six. The verse concludes with the term “in number” to indicate that these fingers were counted in a single row on the back of the hand.With regard to the dispute concerning whether or not extra appendages are a blemish, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was an incident involving one man who came before Rabbi Tarfon, and he had extra appendages on his hands and on his feet, six and six, for a total of twenty-four appendages. Rabbi Tarfonsaid to him: There should increase among the Jewish people those that are like you, i.e., strong men. Clearly, extra appendages are not a blemish but a praiseworthy condition. Rabbi Yosei said toRabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? This is what Rabbi Tarfon actually said to him: All mamzerim and Gibeonites should be like you, i.e., physically weak, so that they should decrease from the Jewish people.

Ḥilfai said: Bring me to the river’s edge. If I cannot derive Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder’s baraita from the Mishnah, throw me into the river. They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “A tetradrachma are four denar.” He said to them, we also have stated: “By how much can a tetradrachma be deficient without being fraudulent? Rebbi Meïr said four as, one as per denar.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Six silver obols are a denar.” He said to him, I also have stated it: “Fraud is four silver coins for twenty-four silver coins, a tetradrachma, one sixth of the selling price.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two dupondii are an obolus.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He gives a tetradrachma and a dupondius per year.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two as are a dupondius”. He said to them, we also have stated thus: “He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.” They said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “Two semisses are an as, two quadrantes are a semis, two peruṭot are a quadrans.” He said to them, we also have stated thus: “How much is a peruṭah? One eighth of an Italic as.”

(7) The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough]. If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth. If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth. If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth. If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.

If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys. But when they were mixed up during transport. But did we not state: “In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah.” And we stated on that, this is a qab or half a qab. What could one do with the twenty-fourth part of half a qab? For that, they are worried because of the bad impression. They were not worried because of the bad impression from a lesser amount.

MISHNA:The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silverma’afrom the twenty-four silverma’ain a sela, or one-sixth of the transaction. Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? He may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity. The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silverma’afrom the twenty-four silverma’aof a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfonsaid to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar. Rather, deduct one-sixth and another dinar, and these that are left are for the redemption of the firstborn son. The Gemara challenges: But the calculation is still inexact, as this sum is twenty dinars less one-sixth of a dinar. Rather, first deduct one dinar, and from the remainder, i.e., twenty-four dinars, deduct one-sixth, and these that are left are the five sela coins that one must give for the redemption of the son. The Gemara notes that these are a weight of twenty matkalei of the small golden dinars known as matkalei, which are worth twenty-eight and a half dinars, and half of a sixth of a dinar, in Arabian silver dinars.

Since matters relating to the respect due Torah scholars were raised, the Gemara continues, citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: There are twenty-four places in which the court ostracizes over matters of respect due the rabbi, and we learned them all in our Mishna. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where are those cases to be found? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When you look, you will find them. He went out, analyzed, and found three examples: One who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands, one who speaks disparagingly after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven. The Gemara cites sources for each of these cases. What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism. And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben Ḥanokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordinance of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism. What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shataḥ, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication. The Gemara challenges this: And are there no more cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? Surely there are additional cases like the one in the baraitataught by Rav Yosef: It is told that Theodosius of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids, young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, on the eve of Passover, as they did in the Temple. Shimon ben Shataḥ sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple. The Gemara responds: This case should not be included, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that there were twenty-four cases in our Mishna, and this is merely a baraita. The Gemara asks: And are there none in the Mishna? Isn’t there that which we learned in the mishna: One who cut an earthenware oven horizontally into ring-shaped pieces and put sand between the pieces, Rabbi Eliezer deems the oven ritually pure, i.e., it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. He holds that, although the fragments of the oven were pieced together, it is not considered an intact vessel but, rather, as a collection of fragments, and a broken earthenware vessel cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure. Since the oven continues to serve its original function, it is still considered a single entity and a whole vessel despite the sand put between the pieces. And this is called the oven of akhnai, snake. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oven of the snake? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is called snake to teach that the Rabbis surrounded Rabbi Eliezer withhalakhot and proofs like a snake surrounds its prey, and declared the oven and its contents ritually impure.And it was taught in a baraita: On that day, they gathered all of the ritually pure food items that had come into contact with the oven that Rabbi Eliezer had declared ritually pure, and burned them before him, and because he did not accept the decision of the majority, in the end they “blessed,” a euphemism for ostracized, him. This is another case that ended in ostracism. The Gemara answers: Even so, we did not learn the ruling with regard to his ostracism in the mishna. The Gemara asks: Then where do you find the twenty-four places mentioned in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likens one matter to another similar matter. Whenever he would encounter a case in a mishna where one of the Sages expressed himself inappropriately in reference to other Sages, he concluded that they should have been excommunicated. Rabbi Elazar does not liken one matter to another similar matter, and therefore located only three explicit cases of ostracism.

And Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For my people have committed two evils” (Jeremiah 2:13)? Were there only two evils they performed? Were, then, the twenty-four violations listed in the book of Ezekielabandoned, i.e., pardoned? Rabbi Yitzḥaksaid toRav Naḥman that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: They have violated one transgression that isequivalent to two. And what is this sin? Idol worship, as it is written: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns” (Jeremiah 2:13), and it is written about the Jewish people: “For pass over the isles of the Kittim and see; and send to Kedar and observe carefully, and see if there has been such a thing. Has a nation exchanged its gods, although they are no gods? But My people has exchanged its glory for that which does not profit” (Jeremiah 2:10–11).

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it is not written “and they were prostrating themselves,” but they are prostrating you^,, that they were bowing down to the sun and prostrating to the Temple. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, for two evils did my people do. Did my people only commit two evils? Did He not forgive in thousands? Only that they were bowing down to the sun and prostrating to the Temple. NOTE from Olivia: This is a parallel text to Taanit 5a where they say thousands instead of 24, give credence to the idea that 24 is a hyperbole, even tho Rashi connects it to Ezekiel 22...

§ In relation to the preceding discussion with regard to the daughters of Lot, who acted in a wanton manner for the sake of a mitzva, the Gemara cites that which Ulla said: Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her father-in-law, Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri ben Salu also engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers, chapter 25). Yet despite the similarity between their actions, Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the sake of a mitzva, to have children, and therefore she merited that kings of the House of Daviddescended from her.King David’s lineage traces back to Tamar’s son Peretz (see Ruth 4:18–22). And she also merited to be the ancestor of prophets, e.g., Isaiah, who was related to the royal family. Conversely, with regard to Zimri, who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse for the purpose of a transgression, several multitudes of Israel fell due to him; twenty-four thousand in a plague (see Numbers 25:9). This shows that a great deal depends on one’s intentions.

§ With regard to the same matter, Rav Naḥman says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The thigh-belted greyhound [zarzir], or the he-goat, and the king against whom none can rise” (Proverbs 30:31)? That wickedZimriengaged in four hundred and twenty-four, the numerical value of the word zarzir, acts of intercourse with Cozbithat day. And Pinehas waited until his strength waned from all that activity. AndPinehasdid not know that it was not necessary to wait that long because the king against whom none can rise, a reference to the Holy One, Blessed be He, was with him.

§ With regard to Balaam, it is stated: “And they slew the kings of Midian, with the rest of their slain…And Balaam, son of Beor, they slew with the sword” (Numbers 31:8). The Gemara asks: Balaam, what did he seek there; what was his role in that war? He lived in Aram. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He went to collect payment for twenty-four thousand members of the Jewish people, whom he felled with his advice. Mar Zutra bar Toviya says that Rav says that this is in accordance with the adage that people say: A camel goes to seek horns and the ears that it had are severed from it. Not only was Balaam unsuccessful in collecting his fee, he also lost his life.

The Gemara cites a third listing of primary categories of damage. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches that there are twenty-four primary categories of damage: Payment of double the principal, paid by a thief who is apprehended and convicted based on the testimony of witnesses and who does not admit his crime; and payment of four or five times the principal, paid by a thief who steals an ox or sheep, respectively, and then slaughters or sells it; and payment of the principal, by a thief who admits his crime; and a robber, who steals openly and by force or threat of violence; and conspiring witnesses who pay the individual against whom they falsely testified with regard to a sum that they conspired to cause him to lose. And the rapist, and the seducer, who seduces an unmarried young woman, who pay a fine of fifty sela; and the defamer, i.e., one who defames his wife by claiming falsely in court that he discovered that she was not a virgin when he consummated the marriage and alleges that she engaged in intercourse with another man while betrothed, who pays a fine of one hundred sela; and one who causes another’s terumato become ritually impure, rendering it prohibited to partake of that teruma; and one who mixesteruma with another’s non-sacred food, rendering it prohibited for any non-priest to partake of it; and one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idolatry. When one combines the eleven categories enumerated by Rabbi Ḥiyya and these thirteen categories enumerated by Rabbi Oshaya, this totals twenty-four principal categories of damage.

Rabbi Oshaya says: Until Jeroboam, Israel was suckling, i.e., suffering the consequences, from worshipping one calf that they fashioned in the wilderness. From that point forward, they were suckling from two and three calves, as Jeroboam added the calves in Bethel and Dan. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: You have no punishment that comes to the world in which there is not one twenty-fourth of the surplus of a litra of the first calf. When weighing a substance, there would often be a disparity of up to one twenty-fourth of its weight. The point is that a minuscule portion of the sin of the Golden Calf is added to every punishment imposed upon the Jewish people, as it is stated: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them” (Exodus 32:34), indicating that atonement for that sin is incomplete, and the Jewish people will continue to suffer for it. Rabbi Ḥanina says: After twenty-four generations elapsed from the sin of the Golden Calf, the debt referred to in this verse was collected, as it is stated: “And he cried in my ears with a loud voice, saying: Those who have charge over the city draw near, every man with his deadly weapon in his hand” (Ezekiel 9:1). This prophecy occurred twenty-four generations after the sin of the Golden Calf.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a sukka that is shaped like a furnace and is completely round, if its circumference has sufficient space for twenty-four people to sit in it, it is fit, and if not, it is unfit.