meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Moed/Chagigah/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Chagigah
  חגיגה
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Chagigah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  Mishnah: All are obligated in "the appearing" [i.e. making a pilgrimage on the major holidays to the Temple], except a deaf man, a mentally ill person, and a child, and one of doubtful gender, and one of double gender, and women, and slaves who are not freed, the lame man, and the blind man, and the sick man, and the old man, and he who is not able to go up on his feet.
  What is the definition of a child? One who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the Temple. These are the words of the house of Shammai. But the house of Hillel say, Anyone who is not able to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, as it is said, (Exodus 23:14) "three times."
  The house of Shammai say, The "appearing" involves two pieces of silver and the hagigah a meah of silver, but the house of Hillel say, The "appearing" involves a meah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver. 
  Gemara: What is the expression "all" to include? It is to include one who is half a slave and half free. But according to Ravina, who said,  He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the "appearing", what is the expression "all" to include? It is to include one who is lame on the first day and well on the second day.
  This agrees with he who says, All of the [days] can be [used as] "make up" from one to another [within the holiday. Meaning, if one didn't bring the sacrifice on the first day, he can make it up on the second, and if he missed it on the second, he can make it up on the third, etc.]; but according to him who says, All of them can be "made up" for the first day only, what does "all" include? It is to include one who is blind in one eye.
  But this is not in accordance with the following Baraita. For Yochanan ben Dahabai, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the "appearing", as it is said, (Exodus 23:17) "He shall be seen" or "He shall see." As he went to see, so he went to be seen; just as he went to be seen with both eyes, so too to see with both eyes.
  And, if you want I'll say It is really what they originally said [that it refers to a half-slave, half-free man]. And that which is difficult to you because of Ravina [who already says he is exempt],there is no difficulty. Here is according to the older Mishnah, here is according to the later Mishnah. For it was taught in the Mishnah, One who is half a slave and half free serves his master one day and himself the other day. These are the words of the house of Hillel.
  The house of Shammai said to them,
  
  Daf 2b
  
  You have corrected it for his master, but you have not corrected it for himself. To marry a slave woman, he cannot; a free woman, he cannot; to abstain [completely],
  was not the world created only being fruitful and multiplying? As it is said, (Isaiah 45:18) "He created it not for nothingness; he formed it to be inhabited." Rather, as a rectification of the world, they force his master and make him a free man, and he writes for him a bill on half his worth. The house of Hillel retracted, to teach according to the words of the house of Shammai.
  Except a deaf man, a mentally ill person, and a child etc.  It was taught in a Baraita, A deaf man is like a mentally ill person and a child. Just as a mentally ill person and a child are not considered capable of awareness [i.e responsible for their actions], so too a deaf man is not considered capable of awareness [i.e responsible for his actions]. And it is teaching us as we are taught by a Mishnah, The deaf man that the Sages referred to in every place, is one who does not hear and does not speak. Implying, he who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is obligated [to appear at the Temple during the holidays]?
  There is a Baraitha for this, for our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them.
  And from where do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, (Psalms 38:14) "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who opens not his mouth." And if you want, I'll say [alternatively], according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words.
  He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is obligated. But there is a Baraita, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt!
  Ravina, and some say Rava, said, There is missing text, and it was taught thusly: All are obligated in the "appearing", and in the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the "appearing".  And even though he is exempt from the "appearing", he is obligated in the rejoicing. But he who does not hear and does not speak, and a mentally ill person and a child, is exempt also from the rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the commandments which are said in the Torah.
  There is also a Baraita to this effect, All are obligated in the "appearing" and in the rejoicing except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, and he who hears and does not speak, are exempt from the "appearing". But although he is exempt from the "appearing",
  
  Daf 3a
  
  he is obligated in the rejoicing. But one who does not hear and does not speak, and a mentally ill person and a child, they are exempt even from the rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the commandments which are said in the Torah. What is the difference regarding the "appearing", that they are exempt, and regarding rejoicing, that they are obligated?
  Regarding the "appearing" there is an exegetical tradition, "appearing"/"appearing" from the Hakhel Assembly as it is written, (Deuteronomy 31:12) "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones," and it is written, (Deuteronomy 31:11) "When all Israel comes to appear."
  And there, how do we know [that those who are mute or deaf are exempt from the assembly]? Because it is written,(Deuteronomy 31:12) "that they may hear and that they may learn." And it was taught in a Baraita: "That they may hear" - excluding he who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn" - excluding he who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn?
  But there once was two mute men who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi, sons of R. Yochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter (and some say it was the sons of R. Yochanan's sister), that every time Rabbi went in to the house of study, they would enter and sit before him, and they would shake their heads, and move their lips,
  and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were healed, and it was ascertained that they were knowledgable of Halachah and Sifra and Sifre and all the Six Orders [of the Mishnah].
  Mar Zutra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Certainly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear,"
  but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."
  R. Tanchum said, He who is deaf in one ear is exempt from the "appearing", as it is said, (Deuteronomy 31:11) "in their ears."
  But "in their ears" is needed [for a different proof] -  in the ears of all Israel This this comes out of the words "before all Israel." If it were [learned out only] from "before all Israel", I would say even they could not all hear, the Merciful One wrote "in their ears", they must have heard.
  That is derived from "in order that they may hear"!
  R. Tanchum said, He that is lame in one foot is exempt from the "appearing", as it is said, "footgoing (regel) times."
  But this "footgoing times," is needed to exempt men with wooden legs! This comes out of "pe'amim" [which can be translated both as "times" and "steps"], for it is taught in a Baraita: "Pe'amim" refers not to "times" but "feet", and so it says, (Isaiah 26:6) "The foot shall tread it down, the feet of the poor, the feet ("pe'amei") of the needy," and it says, (Song of Songs 7:2) "How beautiful are your feet (pa'amech") in shoes, O prince's daughter!"
  Rava expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written, (Song of Songs 7:2) "How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter"? How comely are the feet of Israel at the time when they go up for the pilgrimage! "Prince's daughter" means the daughter of Abraham our father, who is called prince, as it is said, (Psalms 47:10) "The princes of the peoples are gathered together to be the people of the God of Abraham." "God of Abraham" - and not God of Isaac and Jacob?! Rather,  "God of Abraham " - for he was the first of the proselytes.
  R. Kahane said, R. Natan bar Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum: What is the meaning of that which is written: (Genesis 37:24) "And the pit was empty, there was no water in it." This is implied [once it says] "And the pit was empty". Do I not know that there was no water in it? Rather, there was no water in it, but there were serpents and scorpions in it.
  Our Rabbis have taught, It happened to R. Yochanan ben Beruka and R. Elazar ben Chisma, that they went to visit R. Yehoshua in Pekiin. He said to them, What innovation was there in the house of study today? They said to him, We are your students, and of your waters do we drink. He said to them, Even so, it is impossible for the house of study to be without something new. Whose week was it?
  It was R. Elazar ben Azariah's. And what was the discussion on today? They said to him, On the section of Hakhel ("Assembly"). And what was his exposition?
  (Deuteronomy 31:12) "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones". If the men come to learn, and if the women come to hear, why do the little ones come? In order to give reward for those that bring them. He said to them, There was a beautiful pearl in your hand, and you sought to deprive me of it!
  Further, he expounded: (Deuteronomy 26:17-18) "You have declared of God this day... and God has declared this day..." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel,
  You make Me a unique division in the world, and I will make you unique division in the world. "You make Me a unique division" - that it is written, (Deuteronomy 6:4) "Hear, O Israel the Lord is our God, the Lord is one," and I will make you a unique division in the world, for it is said,
  
  Daf 3b
  
  (I Chronicles 17:21) "Who is like your people Israel, a nation that is alone on the earth?"
  And he also opened his mouth and expounded: (Ecclesiastes 12:11) "The words of the wise are like staffs, and as nails planted are the words of the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd." Why are the words of the Torah likened to a staff? It is to tell you, Just as a staff is what direct the heifer in her furrows, so as to produce sustenance for the world, so too the words of the Torah direct the learners of them from paths of death to the paths of life. If you say, that just as a staff is what moves, so the words of the Torah will move; the text teaches "nails." 
  If you say, that just as a nail is a thing which diminishes and does not add, so too the words of the Torah diminish and do not add, the text teaches "planted." Just as planting is a thing which is fruitful and multiplies, so too the words of the Torah are fruitful and multiply. ‘The masters of assemblies’: these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold assemblies and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing unclean and others pronouncing clean, some prohibiting and others permitting, some disqualifying and others declaring fit. 
  Should a man say: How in these circumstances shall I learn Torah?  Therefore the text says:  ‘All of them are given from one Shepherd’. One God gave them; one leader uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, blessed be He; for it is written: (Exodus 20:1) ‘And God spoke all these words’.
  Also make your ear as the upper millstone, and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who declare unclean and the words of those who declare clean, the words of those who forbid and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who pronounce ceremonially pure. In this same way he said to them, It is not an orphan generation when R. Elazar ben Azariah lives in it.
  And why did they not tell him without hesitation? Because of that which happened, that it was taught: When R. Yosi ben Durmaskit came before R. Eliezer in Lod, [R. Eliezer] said to him,  What innovation was in the Beit HaMidrash today?
  [R. Yosi] replied,  They counted votes and concluded that Ammon and Moab must give the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical year.
  [R. Eliezer] said to him, Yosi, extend your hand and receive your eyes [for they will fall out for saying that this is a new thing]! He extended his hand and received his eyes [he realized that he had made a mistake]. R. Eliezer wept and proclaimed,  (Psalms 25:14) “God’s secret is for those that fear Him, and He has made his covenant known to them”;
  [R. Eliezer] said to him, Go and tell them, Do not be concerned about your tally, I have received a tradition from R. Yochanan ben Zakai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher until it was a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical year. What is the reason? Many cities were conquered by those who came up from Egypt, which were not conquered by those who came up from Babylon;
  since the first consecration held [only] for the time, but did not hold for the future [permanently], therefore they were left in order that the poor might be sustained upon them in the seventh year. 
  It is taught: When his mind was calmed, he said: May it be granted that Jose's sight be restored [i.e. may he see the errors of his understanding]. And it was restored [i.e. and he did and corrected it].
  Our Rabbis have taught, What is a "shoteh" [translated until now as a mentally ill person]? He who goes out alone at night, and he who sleeps in a cemetery, and he who tears his clothes. It is stated: R. Hunna said, So long as they all take place at one time. R. Yochanan said, Even [only] one of them.
  What is this case? If he have done them in the way of folly, even one [is enough to declare him a mentally ill person]. If he have not done them in the way of folly, even [doing] all of them are not [enough to declare him a mentally ill person].
  Really, [then] he had done them in the way of folly [and all three together]. [They can't be individually indicative of a mentally ill person, because they could have excuses for why they did it.] One who sleeps in a cemetery does so, it could be said, so that there may rest upon him a spirit of uncleanness. One who goes out alone at night does so, it could be said, so that that the Gandrippus has seized him. One who tears his clothes does so, it could be said, because he is a thinker [and he was lost in thought]. Once he does all of these
  
  Daf 4a
  
  they are like [the ox] that has gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, and has been made a precedent of warning to all. R. Papa said,  Had R. Hunna heard that which was taught in a Baraita: "What is the definition of a "shoteh"? One who destroys all that is given to him," he would have retracted.
  They asked [in the house of study]:  When [we say] he would have retracted, would he have retracted only regarding one who tears his clothes, because of its similarity [to the above description], or perhaps he would have retracted for all of them? Let it stand [unanswered, for we do not know].
  And one of doubtful gender and one of double gender etc. Our Rabbis have taught: "Male" is to exclude the women; "YOUR males" is to exclude the one of doubtful gender and the one double gender. "ALL your males" is to include the children.
  The master had said, "Male is to exclude the women." But why do I need this verse [to teach me something I know already]? Let's examine this: This is a positive commandment in which the time determines. And all positive commandments in which the time determines, women are exempt! [Thus, we don't need to learn this from the verse.]
  [The verse] is needed. You might have thought We should learn "appearing"/"appearing" [scriptural connection] from Hakhel: Just as in the latter case, women are obligated [to come to Hakhel], so too here, women [should be] obligated. We learn from this [verse that this is not so].
  The master had said,  "Your males" is to exclude the one of doubtful gender and the one of double gender. It makes sense for one of double gender that this was necessary, for you might have thought that since he has an aspect of masculinity, he should be obligated. We learn from this that he is a case unto himself. But one of doubtful gender, this is a doubt [on our part what the Torah considers him/her]. Is the verse needed to remove that doubt?
  Abaye said, [Yes,] when his testicles are on the outside [of his body and therefore he has an aspect of masculinity as well].
  The master had said, "All your males" is to include the children [in the obligation]. But doesn't it teach in a Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a mentally ill person and a child? Abaye said, There is no difficulty. One case is regarding a child who has reached the age for education, the other regarding a child who has not reached the age for education. [We learn this from a biblical verse?] A child who has reached the age for education is [only obligated] on a rabbinic level! Indeed this is so. The expression [therefore] is a mere supporting peg [to the rabbinic obligation].
  Then what does the verse come [to teach]? For like that of Acherim. For it was taught, Acherim say, The cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the appearance [at the Temple], because it is said (Exodus 23:17) "all your males," - he who is able to go up with all your males. To the exclusion of these who are not fit to go up with all your males.
  Women and slaves who are not freed etc. It makes sense regarding women, as we have said [from the verse], but slaves how do we know [they are exempt]? R. Hunna says, The verse says (Exodus 23:17) "before the Master, God" - he who has but one master. To the exlusion of this [slave] who has another master.
  But why do I need this verse [to teach me something I know already]? Let's see. Every commandment a woman is obligated in, a slave is obligated in, and every commandment a woman is not obligated in, a slave is not obligated in, for we learn [an exegetical connection] of "unto her"/"unto her" from the woman! [What purpose then is the verse above about "master"?]
  Ravina said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. One can be precise as well [and see it] in the Mishnah: "Women and slaves who are not freed..." What is the meaning of "who are not freed?" If one would say he is not freed at all, let it just teach plainly "slaves". Rather, no, It means those who are not freed completely. And who are those? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this
  And the lame man and the blind man and the sick man and the old man. Our Rabbis have taught, (Exodus 23:14) "footgoing times" excludes people with wooden legs. Another explanation is, "Footgoing times" excludes the lame man, and the sick man, and the blind man, and the old man, and the one who is not able to go up on his feet. And the one who is not able to go up on his feet, what does this include? Rava said, It is to include
  
  Daf 4b
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna reached this verse, which can be read as: “Will see” [yireh] and “shall appear” [yera’e], he cried. He said: Can it happen to a slave, (in other words Bnei Yisreal)  whose master (in other words god) expects to see him, that the master will eventually distance himself from him and not want him anymore? As it is written: “When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?” (Isaiah 1:12)
  
  Daf 5a
  
   and clearing out the stove. She took it and put it upon her foot and was burned, and her constellation moved, and I brought her.
  R. Bibi bar Abaye said to him, Do you have permission to do such a thing? He said to him, And is it not written, "There is that which is destroyed without judgement"? [R. Bibi] said to him, But it is [also] written, (Ecclesiastes 1:4) "One generation goes, and another generation comes" [- each in their own time]!
  [The angel] said, I shepherd them, till their generation is filled, and then I hand them over to Dumah. He said to him, But in the end, what have you done with the years [you took away from them]? He said, If there is a young rabbi, who forgives his treatment [at the hands of others], I add them to him, and it's an exchange.
  R. Yochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, (Job 2:3) "And you incite Me against him to ruin him without any reason." A slave, whose master is incited against him, and he allows it, is there any help for him? R. Yochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, (Job 15:15) "Behold, He doesn't trust His holy ones." If He doesn't trust His holy ones, in whom will He trust?
  One day, he was walking in the way. He saw a certain man, who was gathering figs. He was leaving what were ripe, and gathering what were not ripe.  He said to him, Aren't these [ripe ones] much better ? He said to him, I need them for a journey. These [unripe ones] will keep and the others will not keep. He said, This is what is written, "Behold, He doesn't trust His holy ones ."
  Is this so? Yet there once was a certain student who was in the neighborhood of R. Alexandre, and died while still young, and [R. Alexandre] said, "If this one of the rabbis had wanted [to lead a righteous life], he would have lived; or perhaps he was one of those "He doesn't trust His holy ones"; [However, he is not one of God's holy ones, for] he used to kick against his teachers."
  R. Yochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, (Malachi 3:5) "Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who defrauds the hired worker of his wages..." A slave whose master drags him to his judgment and hastens to testify against him, is there any help for him?
  R. Yochanan ben Zakkai said, Alas for us, for Scripture equates the light [commandments] like the heavy [commandments, for we see sorcerers and adulterers equated to those who withhold wages from employees].
  Resh Lakish said, All who turns aside justice for the sojourner is as though he turned aside justice for God; for it is said (Malachi 3:5) "turned aside the sojourner," written as "turned Me aside." R. Chanina bar Papa said, Anyone who does something and regrets it is forgiven immediately, as it is said, (Malachi 3:5) "and they do not fear Me." Implying, if they do "fear Me," they are forgiven immediately.
  R. Yochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, (Ecclesiastes 12:14) "For God shall bring every work into judgment concerning every hidden thing." A slave, whose master equates accidental sins with intentional sins, is there any help for him?
  What does "concerning every hidden thing" [refer to]? Rav said, This [refers to] the man who kills a louse in the presence of his fellow, and he is disgusted [at his fellow] through it. And Samuel said, This means the man who spits in the presence of his fellow, and he is disgusted.
  What "whether it is good or bad" [refer to, that even a good action will be judged harshly]? The house of R. Yannai say, This is someone that gives charity to a poor man publicly. Because of what [occurred to] R. Yannai. He saw a man who gave a coin to a poor man publicly. He said to him, It would have been better not to give it to him now, for you've given it to him and embarrassed him.
  The house of R. Shila say, This is someone that gives charity to a woman secretly, because he brings her into suspicion. Rava said, This someone that sends home to his wife meat that was not cut [properly to take out the fats and other non-kosher parts] on the eves of the Sabbaths.
  But Rava [himself] sent home [in this way]. The daughter of R. Chisda was different, for had established her as being an expert.
  R. Yochanan, when he came upon this passage, wept, (Deuteronomy 31:21) "And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles have come upon them." A slave, whose master brings upon him evils and troubles, is there any help for him?
  What does "evils and troubles" [refer to]? Rab said, Evils which become troubles this for that, as in the case of the wasp [during the cold season] and the scorpion [during the hot season].
  But Samuel said, This [verse above of good actions that are judged harshly refers to] someone who bestows money upon the poor man in the hour of his extreme distress [and not before that point]. Rava said, This is the proverb, Money [to buy] produce, it is not there. To [buy] produce [in a time of distress] that is hung, it is there. (Deuteronomy 31:17) "Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them." R. Bardala bar Tavyumi said in the name of Rav,
  Anyone who is not included in the "hiding of the face" is not of them [who are Jewish]; anyone who is not included in the words "and they shall be devoured"
  
  Daf 5b
  
   is not of them [who are Jewish]. The rabbis said to Rava, Master [you] are not included in the "hiding of the face," and not included in the "devouring"! He said to them, How did you know how much I send out secretly to king Shabor? And the rabbis continued to put their eyes upon him. In the meanwhile, messengers from the house of king Shabor came and seized [his property from] him. He said, this is what the Baraita taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, Any place upon which wise men have put their eyes is either death or distress. 
  (Deuteronomy 31:18) "And I will surely hide my face in that day." Rava said, The Holy One, blessed be He, said, Even if I hide My face from them, I will speak by a dream. R. Yosef said, His hand is stretched out over us, as it is said, (Isaiah 51:16) "And I have covered you in the shadow of My hand."
  R. Yehoshua ben Chanania was in the house of the Caesar. A [Christian] heretic showed him [a hand signal symbolizing a quote from his Bible] "A people whose Master had turned His face from them." He [answered by] showing him [a hand signal symbolizing a quote from Scripture] "His hand stretched out over us." The Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua, What did he show you? He replied, "A people whose Master has turned away His face from them," and I showed him "His hand stretched out over us."
  They said to that [Christian] heretic, What did you show him? "A people whose Master had turned away His face from them." And what did he show you? I don't know. They said, A man who does not know what he is shown by a signal, shall he [interpret] signals before a king? They took him out and executed him.
  When the soul of R. Yehoshua ben Chanania was departing, the rabbis said to him, What will become of us [to protect us] from the [Christian] heretics? He said to them, (Jeremiah 49:7) "Has counsel been lost from the sons, has their wisdom vanished?" Once counsel has been lost from the sons [i.e. the Jews], wisdom will vanish from the nations of the world.
  Alternatively, [I will answer your question] from here, (Genesis 33:12) [Where Esau tells Jacob] "And he said, Let's travel and let's go, and I will go with you."
  R. Iyla was going up the ladder of the house of Rabbah bar Shela. He heard a child who was reading, (Amos 4:13) "For, behold, He that forms the mountains and creates the wind, and tells man what his discussion is." He said, A slave, whose master tells him his discussion, is there any help for him? What is, "what his discussion is"? Rav said, Even the superfluous talk between a husband and his wife is told to a man at the time of his death.
  Is that so? But Rav Kahane hid himself under Rav's bed and heard him talk and laugh and do his [sexual] needs. He said, The mouth of Rav is like that of one who has not tasted a cooked dish [and is overcome by desire for it]. He said to him, Kahane, get out! These are not good manners.
  [So if Rav did it, why is it bad?] There is no difficulty. Here [where Rav flirted with his wife], he needed to appease her. This case [where it's considered a bad thing], he did not need to appease her.
  (Jeremiah 13:17) "But if you will not hear it, My soul shall weep in secret places for the pride." R. Shmuel bar Inya in the name of Rav said, The Holy One, blessed be He, has a place, and its name is "secret places." What is "for the pride" [referring to]? R. Shmuel bar Yitzchak said, For the gloriousness of Israel, which was taken away from them and given to the non-Jews. R. Samuel bar Nachmani said, For the gloriousness of the kingdom of heaven.
  And is there [such a thing as] weeping before the Holy One, blessed be He [that He would weep]? But R. Papa said, There is no [such thing as] depression before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says, (I Chronicles 16:27) "Honor and majesty are before Him, strength and beauty are in His place." There is no difficulty. This one is in the inner area [where divine beings "weeps" in the secret place], this one is in the outer area [where divine beings do not "weep"].
  And [is there] no [weeping] in the outer area? But it is written, (Isaiah 22:12) "And on that day did God, the God of hosts, call for weeping and for mourning and for baldness and for girding with sackcloth." The destruction of the Temple is different, for for even the angels of peace wept, as it is said, (Isaiah 33:7) "Behold, their valiant ones cry without: the angels of peace weep bitterly."
  (Jeremiah 13:17) "Tears will tear and my eyes will run down with tears, because God's flock has been taken captive." R. Elazar said, Why these three tears? One for the first Temple, and one for the second Temple, and one for Israel, because they have been exiled from their place. And some say, One for the ceasing of Torah [learning].
  This is understandable for the one who holds that [a tear] refers to Israel that was exiled, which is what is written "God's flock has been taken captive," But for the one who holds [a tear] refers to the ceasing of Torah [learning], what does [he do with] "God's flock has been taken captive"? [The answer is that] ever since Israel was exiled from their place, there has been no bigger [cause] of ceasing of Torah [learning] than this!
  Our Rabbis have taught, There are three about whom the Holy One, blessed be He, weeps every day About one who can study the Torah and does not study it, and about one who cannot study the Torah, and does study it, and over a leader who holds himself superior than the community.
  Rebbi took the Book of Lamentations and was reading it. When he came upon this verse, (Lamentations 2:1) "He has cast down from heaven to earth [the splendor of Israel; he has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger]." [The book] fell from his hands. He said, From the highest roof to the deepest pit!
  Rebbi and R. Chiya were discussing and walking down a road. When they came to a certain place, they said, [If] there is a member of the rabbinate here, let us go and visit him. They said, There is a member of the rabbinate here, and he is blind. R. Chiya said to Rebbi, You should stay, and not dishonor your princely [stature]. I will go and visit him.
  But he grasped him and went with him. When they took their leave of him, he said to them, You have visited someone who is seen but cannot see. May you behold the One who sees and cannot be seen. [Rebbi] said to [R. Chiya], Now see, you would have deprived me of this blessing! They said to him, Where did you hear this [concept that one should be sure to visit rabbis]?
  I heard it from the sayings of R. Yaakov. For R. Yaakov, the leader of Kfar Chetyah, used to visit his teacher every day. When he was old, [the teacher] said to him, The master need not do this, for the master is not able.
  He responded, Is this a small thing that which is written regarding the rabbis? (Psalms 49:10) "And he shall live on for ever, he shall not see destruction, when he sees wise men die." If [this is] so, that one who sees wise men in their death shall live; how much more he who sees them in their life!
  R. Idi, the father of R. Yaakov bar Idi, was accustomed to spend three months on his journey and one day in the [study] house of Rav. The rabbis would call him "Of the house of Rav for a day". He became depressed. He read about himself, (Job 12:4) "I am one that is a laughing-stock to his fellow..." R. Yochanan said to him, In your prayers, do not [wish for] the punishment of the rabbis.
  R. Jochanan went into the house of study and expounded, (Isaiah 58:2) "Yet they seek Me every day and delight to know My ways..." Do they seek Him by day, and don't seek Him by night? Rather, it is to inform you that anyone who studies Torah even one day of the year, Scripture considers it, as if he studied the whole year.
  And so in doling out tribulations, as it is written, (Numbers 14:34) "After the number of the days that you spied out the land." Did they sin for forty years? Was it not for forty days that they sinned? Rather, it was to inform you, that anyone who commits a trangression even one day of the year, Scripture considers it as if he had transgressed all the year.
  "What is the definition of a child? Anyone who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders." Rabbi Zera objected logically to this,
  
  Daf 6a
  
  Who had brought him here until this point?
  Abaye said to him, Until this point, since his mother was obligated by the law of rejoicing, his mother brought him. From there on, if he can go up, holding his father's hand from Jerusalem to the mountain of the Temple, he is obligated. And if not, he is exempt.
  Rabbi replied responded according to the house of Hillel against the house of Shammai. (I Samuel 1:22) "But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him.'" But Samuel was able to ride upon his father's shoulders!
  His father said to him, And according to your reasoning, there is a difficulty for you. For Hannah herself, was she not obligated in the rejoicing? [Why didn't she go at all herself?] Rather, Hannah saw Samuel was exceedingly delicate, and was uneasy about Samuel about the fatigue of the journey.
  R. Shimon asked, A child that is lame, according to the words of the house of Shammai, [what would he hold then, since he can ride on his father's shoulders]? Or one that is blind, according to the words of both of them [for he can hold onto his father's hand]?
  What case is this? If you'll say it refers to a lame child who can not [ever be healed and] stretch out [his leg], or a blind person, who can not [ever be healed and] open [his eye], since [we know that] an adult is exempt [in these situations], must we even mention a child [is exempt]? [This is obvious!] No, it is necessary [because it is not so obvious] regarding a lame person who can [be healed and] stretch out [his leg], or a blind person who can [be healed and] open his eye, [for there are aspects that would make them obligated]. What is [the law regarding them]?
  Abaye said, Wherever an adult is obligated on a Torah level, we educate a child in it also on a rabbinic level. And wherever an adult is exempt on a Torah level, a child is also exempt on a rabbinic level.
  The house of Shammai say, the "appearing" involves two pieces of silver, etc.
  Our rabbis have taught: The house of Shammai say, The "appearing" involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver, for the "appearing" [sacrifice] is all-burnt to the Most High, which is not so regarding the Chagigah. Furthermore, We find that for Shevuot, Scripture increases the burnt-offerings more than peace-offerings.
  But the house of Hillel say, The "appearing" sacrifices involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the [command of sacrificing the] Chagigah precedes the Decalogue, which is not so regarding the "appearing" sacrifice. Furthermore, we find regarding "the princes", that Scripture increases peace-offerings for them more than burnt-offerings.
  And what is the reason that the house of Hillel do not say like the house of Shammai? For that which you are saying that the "appearing" [sacrifice] is better, for the burnt-offering goes to the Most High. On the contrary! The Chagigah is better, for there are in it two eatings. And for that which you are saying, that we should learn from Shavuot, we can compare individual sacrifices [only] to individual sacrifices, and not compare an individual sacrifice to a public sacrifice.
  And what is the reason that the house of Shammai do not say like the house of Hillel? For that which you are saying, that a Chagigah is better, because it precedes the Decalogue, an "appearing" [sacrifice] also precedes the Decalogue!
  And for that which you are saying, that we should learn from "the princes," we can compare something that will always apply to a thing that will always apply, and we can not compare a thing which will always apply to a thing which will not always apply.
  And [according to] the house of Hillel, what is the difference [that they differentiated the "appearing" sacrifice and the Chagigah]? The Chagigah precedes the Decalogue, for it is written (Exodus 24:5) "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings." But the "appearing" sacrifice also! Behold, it is written, (Exodus 24:5) "and they offered burnt-offerings."
  The house of Hillel is holding that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering. And the house of Shammai is holding that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was an "appearing" sacrifice.
  Abaye said, The house of Shammai and R. Elazar and R. Yishmael all hold that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was an "appearing" sacrifice. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiva and R. Yose the Galilean all hold that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering.
  [We know these positions from various sources.] The house of Shammai, as we have said. R. Yishmael, for it was taught in a Baraita: R. Yishmael says, General principles were told over at Sinai,
  
  Daf 6b
  
  and the details in the tent of meeting. But R. Akiva said, [Both the] general principles and details were told over at Sinai, and they were repeated in the tent of meeting, and given for the third time in the plains of Moav. And if you would imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the desert was the continual burnt-offering,
  is it something which at first does not need to be flayed and cut, and in the end did need to be flayed and cut? [The regular sacrifices need these details when they are first commanded! So the continual burnt-offering must have been commanded first at the tent of meeting, and not before the Decalogue at Sinai, because it needs the details along with the general principles. The "appearing" sacrifice did not need these details and surely was given before the Decalogue.]
  [We know the same position is held by] R. Elazar, for it was taught in a Baraita, (Numbers 28:6) "Continual burnt-offering, instituted at Mount Sinai." R. Elazar says, Its statutes were told over at Mount Sinai, but it was not itself offered. R. Akiva says,
  It was offered and never ceased. But how do I satisfy [the description in the verse that implies they did not sacrifice in the desert], (Amos 5:25) "Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?"
  [The explanation is that that verse refers to] the tribe of Levi, which had not served idols, they offered them.
  [The position held by] the house of Hillel is as we have said. [This same position is held by] R. Akiva, as we also have said. [This same position is held by] R. Yose the Galilean, as was taught in the Baraita: R. Yose the Galilean says, Three commandments are Israel commanded by when they make the pilgrimage on the festival: The "appearing", and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing.
  There is something about the "appearing" that is not so for the [other] two, and there something about the Chagigah that is not so for the [other] two, and there something about the rejoicing that is not so for the [other] two. There is something about the "appearing" that is not so for the [other] two, for the "appearing" is a wholly burnt up to the Most High, which is not so for the [other] two.
  There something about the rejoicing that is not so for the [other] two, for the Chagigah precedes the Decalogue, which is not so for the other two. There something about the rejoicing that is not so for the [other] two, for the rejoicing applies to women as well as men, which is not the case in the [other] two.
  And why are you establishing R. Yishmael like the [opinion of the] house of Shammai? And if you would imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the desert was the continual burnt-offering, is it something which at first does not need to be flayed and cut, and in the end did need to be flayed and cut?
  But R. Yose the Galilean said, The burnt- offering which Israel offered in the desert was the continual burnt-offering, which [indeed] at first did not need to be flayed and cut, but in the end did need to be flayed and cut.
  For it was taught in a Baraita, R. Yose the Galilean says, The burnt-offering which Israel offered in the desert did not require flaying or cutting, because flaying and dividing were only from [the time of] the tent of meeting and on! [R. Yishmael could hold like that position.] Erase R. Yishmael from here.
  R. Chisda asked, What does this verse mean? (Exodus 24:5) "And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings," - [referring to] lambs, "and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen to God." Or perhaps both of them were oxen?
  What is the practical import [from such a question]? Mar Zutra says, How the accents are determined [for how to read the Torah].
  R. Acha, the son of Rava, said, For [the case of] a man who says, Behold, I vow a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the desert. What was it? Were they oxen or lambs? Let the matter stand [for we do not know the answer].
  It was taught there: These are the things that have no limit,
  
  Daf 7a
  
  the corner of a field [left over for the poor], and the first-fruits, and the "appearing", and loving-kindness, and the study of Torah.
  R. Yochanan said, We used to think that the "appearing" had no maximum, but it had an minimum [of what could be brought], until R. Oshaya b'Rebbi came and taught: The "appearing" maximum nor minimum amount [i.e. one can bring however much they want]. But the sages say, The "appearing" involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver.
  What is the "appearing"? R. Yochanan said, The presenting of oneself [lit. the "seeing of faces"] in the courtyard [of the Temple]. And Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself [specifically] with a sacrifice.
  Everyone agrees that during the essential [days] of the festival [i.e. the first day], ["appearing" means] presenting oneself with a sacrifice. When they argue, is in regards to the rest of the days of the festival. Everyone agrees that any case where he came and brought [a sacrifice], that it would be accepted [as an offering]. When they argue, is in regards to someone who came and didn't bring [a sacrifice].
  For R. Yochanan holds that [the "appearing" is] the presenting of oneself in the courtyard, that he doesn't need to bring [a sacrifice] every time he comes. And Resh Lakish says, that [the "appearing" is] the presenting oneself with a sacrifice, that he needs to bring [a sacrifice] every time he comes.
  Resh Lakish rebutted R. Yochanan [using a higher source], (Exodus 23:15) "None shall appear before Me empty-handed." [This shows one must bring a sacrifice when he comes!] He said to him, [Yes, but only] on the essential [day] of the festival [i.e. the first day].
  He rebutted him [using a higher source]. "None shall appear before me empty-handed" refers to [coming with] Zevachim [animal sacrifices]. You may say, is it [truly] with Zevachim or only birds and meal-offerings? It is a logical argument [to determine it is zevachim]. The Chagigah is assigned to a regular person, but the "appearing" is assigned to the Most High. Just as the Chagigah, which is assigned to a regular person, is done with zevachim [animal sacrifices which are the superior sacrifice], so too the "appearing", which is assigned to the Most High, is done with zevachim.
  And what are these zevachim? They are burnt-offerings. You may say, is it [truly] burnt-offerings, or [only] peace-offerings? It is a logical argument [to determine it is burnt-offerings]. The Chagigah is assigned to a regular person, but the "appearing" is assigned to the Most High. Just as the Chagigah, which is assigned to a regular person, is done as appropriate for him [to eat from], so too the "appearing", which is assigned to the Most High, is done as appropriate for Him [to "eat" from].
  And it is also logical that your table should not be full while your master's table is empty. He said to him, [Yes, but only] on the essential [day] of the festival [i.e. the first day].
  He rebutted him [using a higher source]. R. Yose b'Rabbi Yehudah says, Israel was commanded to do a pilgrimage on the festival three times a year: The festival of Pesach, the Festival of Shavuot, and the festival of Sukkot. They may not appear "halved", as it is said, "all your males," and they may not appear empty-handed, as it is said, "none shall appear before Me empty-handed." [We see, therefore, that the obligation of making the pilgrimage involved bringing a sacrifice as well!] He said to him, [Yes, but only] on the essential [day] of the festival [i.e. the first day].
  R. Yochanan rebutted Resh Lakish [using a higher source]. "He shall see" - "He shall be seen" - Just like I [God come to see you] freely [without a sacrifice], so too you [come to be seen] freely [without a sacrifice].
  [This is a solid rebuttal, and therefore our distinctions previously set out are incorrect.] Rather, Everyone agrees that any case where he came and didn't bring [a sacrifice], that he may enter, be seen, and leave. When they argue, is in regards to someone who came and did bring [a sacrifice].
  R. Yochanan, who says that [the obligation of "appearing" is] presenting oneself in the courtyard [of the Temple] [holds that] presenting oneself is that which doesn't have a limit. But the sacrifice has a limit [to when it can be brought]. And Resh Lakish says, [that the obligation of "appearing" is] the presenting of oneself with a sacrifice [holds that] even the sacrifice also has no limit [to when it can be brought].
  He rebutted him [using a higher source]. (Proverbs 25:17) "Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house." [This refers to the "regel" as in festival, and means that one should lessen the amount of "appearing" sacrifices. So there is a limit!] There [that verse] refers to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings [that one should try to lessen]. Like that of R. Levi. That R. Levi raised a contradiction:
  It is written, "Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house." Yet it is written, (Psalms 66:13) "I will come into Your house with burnt offerings." [We see that increased amount of sacrifices is a good thing. There is no difficulty. Here [in Proverbs] it refers to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Here [in Psalms] it refers to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.
  It was taught similarly in a Baraita: "Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house." - Referring to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. Does Scripture refer [only] to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, or only to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings? When he says, "I will come into Your house with burnt offerings; I will fulfill my vows to You," behold, that is referring to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. But how do I fulfill, "Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house"? Scripture refers to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings
  And they may not appear "halved" etc. R. Yosef [originally] thought to say, A man has ten sons, they may not to go up five now and five tomorrow.
  
  Daf 7b
  
  Abaye said to him, Obviously! Which ones would you consider sinners and which ones would you consider devout? [If some sons travel the day before, the others will be considered less religiously impassioned.]
  Rather for what [lesson] is the verse coming [to teach]? Like that of Acherim. For Acherim say, The cordwainer, and the smelter in bronze and  the tanner are exempt from the "appearing", for it is said, "all your males " - one who can go up with all your males. These are excluded, for they cannot go up with all your males.
  MISHNAH. Burnt-offerings during the intermediary days of the festival come from unconsecrated funds, but the peace-offerings [even] from the [second] tithe. The first day of Pesach: The house of Shammai say [the sacrifices come] from unconsecrated funds. And the house of Hillel say that they come [even] from the [second] tithe.
  Israelites fulfill their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the kohanim with the sin-offerings, and with the guilt-offerings, and with the firstborn [sacrifices], and with the breast and thigh, but not by the birds or of meal-offerings.
  GEMARA. But [the Mishnah stated] that it is the intermediate days of the festival that come from unconsecrated funds; implying that the [first and last] festival days come from the tithe! [But] why? It is an obligatory [sacrifice], and any obligatory [sacrifice] only comes from unconsecrated funds!
  And if you'll claim, this comes to teach us [something completely different], that burnt-offerings [of the "appearing"] are brought on the intermediary days of the festival, but not brought on the [first and last] festival days, who does that accord with? The house of Shammai.
  That it was taught in a Mishnah: The house of Shammai say, They bring peace-offerings and do not lean on them, but not burnt-offerings. And the house of Hillel say, They bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lean on them. [Our Mishnah would not have its plain statements to be in accordance with the house of Shammai, who we have decided against in most matters!]
  There is [text] missing, and this is how it should be taught: Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on intermediary days of the festival, but not on the [first and last] festival days. And the "appearing" sacrifice is brough even on the [first and last] festival days. And when it is brought, it is only brought from unconsecrated funds. And peace-offerings for the rejoicing are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of the first festival day: The house of Shammai say, From unconsecrated funds, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe.
  It was taught in a Baraita similarly: Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on the intermediary days of the festival. On the [first and last] festival days, they are not brought, but the "appearing" sacrifice is brought even on the [first and last] festival days. And when it is brought, it is only brought from unconsecrated funds. And peace-offerings for the rejoicing are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of the first festival day: The house of Shammai say, From unconsecrated funds, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe.
  What is different about the Chagigah for the first festival day of Pesach [that it should be mentioned separately]? R. Ashi said, This is coming to teach us that this is true for the Chagigah of the fifteenth day [that you can take from unconsecrated funds]. This is not true for the Chagigah of the fourteenth.
  
  Daf 8a
  
  We see he is holding that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is not a Torah law.
  The master had said, The house of Hillel say, [The first and last festival day sacrifices come] from the tithe. [But] why? It is an obligatory [sacrifice], and any obligatory [sacrifice] only comes from unconsecrated funds! Ulla said, [It can come from the tithe] in the case of supplementing [the unconsecrated funds]. 
  Chizkiya said, They may supplement animals with an animals, but they may not supplement money with money.  And R. Yochanan said, They may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement animals with animals.
  It was taught in a Baraita like R. Hezekiah, and it was taught in a Baraita like R. Yochanan. It was taught in a Baraita like R. Yochanan: (Deuteronomy 16:10) "The tribute [of the freewill-offering]." - teaches that one must bring his duty offering from unconsecrated funds. How do we know that if he wants to mix, he can mix [specifically referring to money]? It teaches us (Deuteronomy 16:10) "As God your God blesses you." [All of God's blessings to you, and "blessing" refers to money.]
  It was taught in a Baraita like R. Chizkiya: (Deuteronomy 16:10) "The tribute [of the freewill-offering]." - teaches - The word "tribute" teaches that one must bring his duty offering from unconsecrated funds. The house of Shammai say, The first [festival] day, from unconsecrated funds. From then and on, from the tithe. And the house of Hillel say, The first meal, from unconsecrated funds. From then and on from the tithe.
  And all the rest of the days of Pesach a man fulfills his obligation with the animal tithe. Why not on the [first and last days of the] festival?
  R. Ashi said, Perhaps he will come to tithe on the [first and last days of the] festival, and it is not possible to tithe on [the first and last days of] the festival because of red paint [that one might use and forget it is a violation of the festival].
  How does "tribute" imply a connotation of unconsecrated funds [that one can learn out that we can use unconsecrated funds]? As it is written, (Esther 10:1) "And King Achashverosh put a tribute upon the land."
  "Israelites fulfill their obligations with vows and freewill- offerings." The rabbis have taught in a Baraita: (Deuteronomy 16:14) "And you shall rejoice in your festival." To include all types of joy for rejoicing. From here the sages have said, Israelites fulfill their obligations with vows and freewill- offerings and with animal tithes, and the kohanim with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and with the firstborn sacrifice, and with the breast and thigh.
  One might [think] also with birds and meal-offerings, the Torah teaches, "And you shall rejoice in your festival"
  
  Daf 8b
  
  ["b'chagecha" indicates] things that the Chagigah can be brought from, excluding these, that the Chagigah can't be brought from.
  R. Ashi said, It is derived from "and you shall rejoice," excluding these, that do not have rejoicing in them [because they are not true meat].
  And what does R. Ashi do with "in your festival" ["b'chagecha"]? That is to accord with that of R. Daniel bar Katina. For R. Daniel bar Katina said in the name of Rav, How do we know that we don't marry women during the intermediary days of the festival? Because it is said, (Deuteronomy 16:14) "and you shall rejoice in your festival," - and not in your wife [so stay away from creating this happiness at this time which is for happiness in the festival].
  MISHNAH. One who has many dependents and few assets, should bring many peace offerings and few burnt offerings. [One who has] many assets and few dependents, should bring many burnt offerings and few peace offerings.
  [If one has] few of both, of him it is stated: A <em>ma'ah</em> of silver and two pieces of silver. [If one has] many of both, of him it is stated: "Each man as he is able, according to the Lord your God's blessing that He gave you" [Deuteronomy 16:17].
  GEMARA. Where will he bring "many peace offerings"? But [the case states that] he doesn't have [to pay for full animal peace offerings]! R. Chisda said, He supplements [and mixes his tithe funds and his unconsecrated funds together], and brings a large bullock. R. Sheshet said to him, Behold, they say, They may [only] supplement animals with animals!
  What was [R. Sheshet] saying to him [with this objection]? If you'll say he meant this: "Behold, they say, They may [only] supplement animals with animals, but not money with money," then he should have said to him, "They do not supplement money with money." Rather this is what he said to him: Behold, they say, They may even supplement animals with animals! [The objection being is that you, R. Chisda, implied that one may only mix monies, but you can even mix animal funds!]
  Who is this like? For it is not like Chizkiya, and it is not like R. Yochanan.
  And if you'll say, it is an argument among Amoraim [i.e. R. Sheshet and R. Chisda], but the Mishnaic teachers do not argue, but it is taught, "The first meal shall come from unconsecrated funds."
  What is "the first meal"? The money equivalent of the first meal shall come from unconsecrated funds.
  Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish, If one sets apart ten animals for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first day of the festival, and may again bring five on the last day of the festival. R. Yochanan said, Once he stops [after five], he cannot bring again [another five later because he fulfilled the Chagigah already].
  R. Abba said, And they aren't arguing. Here is with inexplicit [separating them for sacrifices, and one may not sacrifice the last half later], here is explicitly [separating them, and one may sacrifice the last half later].
  Inexplicit [separation], what is that case [that he left half of them over for later]? If you'll say [the reason he didn't bring half of them is because] there was not enough time in the day to bring them, that means they weren't brought because there was not enough time in the day [and he ostensibly separated them for the first day].
  If you'll say [the reason he didn't bring half of them is because] there were no more dependents [to eat his food], that means that they weren't brought because he didn't have dependants [and he did separate them for the first day].
  No, it is necessary for the case where there was enough time during the day, and he had enough dependents, he [just] did not bring them at the earlier time. Learn from this that he left them behind [intentionally].
  And this also makes sense, for when Rabbin came he said in R. Yochanan's name, If one sets apart ten animals for his Chagigah, he may bring five on the first day of the festival, and may again bring five on the last day of the festival. These [traditions of what R. Yochanan held] contradict each other!
  Rather, do we not learn from this that here [this statement of R. Yochanan where one may not bring half at one time and half at another] refers to inexplicit [separation] and here [this statement of R. Yochanan where he may] is explicit separation? Learn from it.
  It is also stated: R. Shemen bar Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan:
  
  Daf 9a
  
  They taught this only if he had not "finished". But if he had finished, he should go back and sacrifice.
  What does "finished" mean? If you'll say, that he has finished sacrificing, what is he [going back and] sacrificing? Rather, that the day hadn't finished. But if the day had finished, he should go back and sacrifice [later].
  MISHNAH. If one failed to celebrate [by bringing the burnt and peace offerings] during the first festival day [of Sukkot], one may celebrate during the entire festival and during the last festival day [of Sukkot].
  If the festival passed and one failed to celebrate, one is not obligated to compensate. About this it is stated: "A crooked thing that cannot be fixed, and a loss cannot be reckoned" [Ecclesiastes 1:15]....
  Rabbi Shimon ben Menassia says:  What is "a crooked thing that cannot be fixed"? This applies to one who had relations with a forbidden woman and fathers a <em>mamzer</em> through her. If you would say [the verse refers to] a thief or a robber, he can return it and make amends.
  Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: One is only called "crooked" if he was proper at first and became crooked; and who is that? A Torah scholar who separates from Torah.
  GEMARA. What is the source for these words [that one can make up for a missed sacrifice til the last day of the festival of Sukkot]?  R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Yishmael, "Atzeret" is used [in the Torah] regarding the seventh day of Pesach, and "atzeret" is used [in the Torah] regarding the eighth day of Sukkot. Just like the former has a "make up" period [of seven days], so too the latter has a "make up" period [of seven days].
  ["Atzeret" must be] free [as a redundant word in the verse to make it a true incontrovertible gezeira shava]. For if it were not free, one could confute [this interpretation by pointing out a difference between the cases that would not allow a connection based off a simple similarity of words]: The [particular characteristic of] the seventh day of Pesach,that it is not separated [halachically] from [the days] preceding it, you're going to say that about the eighth day of Sukkot [i.e. Shemini Atzeret], that is separated from [the days] preceding it [halachically]? Truly, it is definitely free [to be considered an incontrovertible gezeira shava].
  Let's see [how it is redundant]. What does "atzeret" - "restraint" mean? Restraint from doing [halachically forbidden] work. But isn't it [already] written, (Deuteronomy 16:8) "You shall not do work"? Why does Scripture say that it [is a day of] "atzeret"? Learn out from this that it is free [for a gezeira shava through its redundancy].
  And a Baraita derives it from here, that it was taught: (Leviticus 23:41) "You shall celebrate it as a festival to God for seven days." One might have thought that one should continually celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah] continually all seven [days], Scripture teaches us "it" - on it [the first day] shall you celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah], and you should not celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah] all seven days. If so, why does it say "seven" [if the verse teaches something about the first day only]? For the "make up" period.
  And how do we know that if he did not celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah] on the first day of the festival, he may go and celebrate  [by bringing the Chagigah] any [day] of the festival and the last day of the festival? Scripture teaches us, (Leviticus 23:41) "In the seventh month you shall celebrate it." Just from "in the seventh month", one might have thought that one could go and celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah] the entire month. Scripture teaches us "It." On it you shall celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah] and you are not to celebrate outside it['s designated days].
  What is the [case of] "make up" [sacrifice]? R. Yochanan says, "Make ups" are for the first day [if one missed bringing the sacrifice on the first day]. And R. Oshaya says, "Make ups" are on any [one day] for another.
  What [practical difference] is there between them? R. Zera said, If a man is lame on the first day and cured on the second day, that's a difference between them. R. Yochanan said, "Make ups" are for the first day. Once he was not fit [to bring the sacrifice] on the first day, he is not [considered] fit on the second. And R. Oshaya said, "Make ups" are on any [one day] for another. Even though he was not fit on the first day, he was fit on the second [and is now obligated to make up for what he missed].
  Did R. Yochanan say this?
  But Chizkiya said, [A Nazirite,] if [further] made ritually impure on the [eighth] day, brings an [additional offering], but [if he became ritually impure] in the [previous] night, does not bring it.
  And R. Yochanan said, Even [if he became ritually impure] in the [previous] night, he brings it. [We see that if hew could not bring a sacrifice because he was unfit, he can bring it later to make up for it!]
  R. Yirmiyah said, Ritual impurity is different, as there is a "make up" period on Second Pesach [for those who were ritually impure on Pesach itself. We see that everyone agrees that ritual impurity allows for a "make up" later].
  R. Pappa attacks logically: This makes sense according to the one who says that
  
  Daf 9b
  
  Second Pesach is a "make up" period of the first day [of the real Pesach]. But according to the one who says, The second [Pesach] is an independent of its own [and is not a "make up" period for the first], what is there to say [for him about the seemingly contradictory opinions of R. Yochanan]?
  Rather, R. Papa said, R. Yochanana is holding that night is not [considered] missing time [and therefore he is not required to "make up" for being unfit at one time, because its not considered having been late over a night].  And does R. Yochanan say this?
  But R. Yochanan says, If he saw [an emission] at night and two in the day, he must bring [an additional offering]. But two at night and one in the day, he doesn't bring it. [This shows that he considers the night a time that he missed out on, and he can't make it up!]
  And if you'll imagine that R. Yochanan is holding that the night is not [considered] missing time, then even if there were two at night and one in the day, he should bring!
  [The answer is] when R. Yochanan was saying this within the opinion of the one who says "night is missing time". According to the one who says [that]? That is obvious [to that opinion that that would be the law]! [The case of] two in the day and one at night is needed for him who holds [night is missing time, and therefore can't bring an offering to make up for it, because we might have thought something erroneous.]
  You may have thought, that [the law] is like R. Shisha son of R. Idi's objection (Keritot 8a). It comes to teach us that it is like R. Yosef.
  "If the festival passed and he did not celebrate [by bringing the Chagigah], he is not obligated in responsibility [to make it up]. And with regard to this it is said, (Ecclesiastes 1:15) 'That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is deficient cannot be counted.'"
  Bar Hey Hey said to Hillel, "To be counted"? It should have said, "to be filled" [when we are discussing something deficient]! Rather, his fellows counted him for doing a commandment [when they tell him, "Come with us to do a commandment!"] and he would not be counted among them [i.e. he refuses to go].
  It was taught like this is a Baraita: "That which is crooked cannot be made straight." This is one who missed the reading of the Shema of the morning, or the reading of the Shema of the evening, or who has missed the morning prayer or the evening prayer. [He cannot make it up, cannot "make it straight".] "And that which is deficient cannot be counted." Thishis fellows counted him for doing a commandment [when they tell him, "Come with us to do a commandment!"] and he would not be counted among them [i.e. he refuses to go].
  Bar Hey Hey said to Hillel, What is it that's written, (Malachi 3:18) "Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous one and the wicked one, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him"? The "righteous one" and "the one who serves God" are the same, and "the wicked one" and "the one who does not serve God", are the same! [What is the purpose of this repetition?] He said to him, "The one who serves God" and "the one who does not serve God" are both [descriptions of] the  completely righteous. But he who reviews his lessons a hundred times is not like him who reviews his lessons a hundred and one times.
  He said to him, Because one time he is called "one who does not serve God"?! He said to him, Indeed! Go and learn from the mule-drivers market [how they say,] "Ten parasangs for one zuz, eleven parasangs for two zuz!"
  Eliyahu said to Bar Hey Hey, and some say to R. Eliezer, What is it that's written, (Isaiah 48:10) "Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of poverty"? It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, searched out all good qualities to give to Israel, and found only poverty. Shmuel, and some say R. Yosef, said, This is proverbial saying, Poverty befits a Jew as red leather to a white horse.
  "R. Shimon ben Manassea says, Who is this, that is "crooked and that cannot be made straight"? This is one who has relations with someone forbidden to him and fathers a <i>mamzer</i> through her." If he fathers a child, yes [he is considered in this category. If does not father a child, no?
  But it was taught in a Baraita: R. Shimon ben Manassea says, A thief can return his stolen objects, and he can make it straight. A robber can return his robbed objects, and he can make it straight. But he that lies with a married woman, and makes her forbidden to her husband, is barred from the world, and goes away.
  R. Shimon ben Yochai says, One does not say, "Investigate a camel, investigate a pig." Rather, "Investigate a lamb" [if it is fit for sacrifice]. And who is this? This is the scholar who has separated himself from the Torah.
  R. Yehudah ben Lakish said, Any scholar who has separated himself from the Torah, about him does Scripture refer, (Proverbs 27:8) "Like a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his place." and it says, (Jeremiah 2:5) "What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me?"
  There is no difficulty [in the words of R. Shimon ben Manassea above]. Here [in our Mishnah] is with his unmarried sister [which causes a mamzer but still permitted to her future husband], the other with a married woman [who causes her to be forbidden from her husband even without causing a mamzer]. Alternatively, Both cases are with a married woman, and there is no difficulty. Here [in our Mishnah]
  
  Daf 10a
  
  with rape [where she is not forbidden to her husband afterward], here it's willingly. Alternatively, Both are with rape [of a married woman] and there is no difficulty. Here [the one not in our Mishnah], it is the wife of a kohen [who is forbidden to him even in a case of rape], here [where we are concerned only if it produces a mamzer] is the wife of an ordinary Israelite.
  (Zachariah 8:10) "To he who was leaving, abnd he who was coming, there was no peace." Rav says, Once a person leaves the [study of] law for the [study of] Scripture, he has no more peace.
  And Shmuel said, This is he who deserts the Talmud for Mishnah. And R. Yochanan said, Even if he go from one order of Talmud to the other.
  MISHNAH. [The laws of] permitting [i.e. dissolving] vows are flying in the air, and there is nothing they can lean on.
  The laws of the Sabbath, Chagigot [offerings], and misappropriation [of Temple property], behold, they are like mountains suspended by a hair, for the verses are few and the laws many. Civil law and [Temple] services, the ritually pure and impure, and cases of unlawful unions, they have something to lean on, and these are the body of the Torah.
  GEMARA. R. Eliezer says, [Laws of permitting vows] have something to lean on! For it is said, (Leviticus 27:2) "When he shall make a separating vow," (Numbers 6:2) "When he shall make a separating vow," twice. One is a separation to forbid, and one is to permit.
  R. Yehoshua says, [Laws of permitting vows] have something to lean on! For it is said, (Psalms 95:11) "Which I swore in My wrath." In my wrath I swore, and [after I "calmed down"] I relented. [Implying He swore in wrath, and regretted it and undid the vow.]
  R. Yitzchak says, [Laws of permitting vows] have something to lean on! For it is said, (Exodus 35:5) "Whoever is of a willing heart." [Implying if he becomes unwilling, he may undo his vow].  Chananiah, nephew of R. Yehoshua, says, [Laws of permitting vows] have something to lean on! For it is said, (Psalms 119:106) "I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules." [Implying had He not upheld it, He could have undid the vow.]
  R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Shmuel, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, (Numbers 30:3) "He shall not break his word." He cannot break it, but others can break it for him." Rava said, There is an objection to all of them except Shmuel's, which has no objection to it.
  For if [the source for permitting vows is] R. Eliezer's, perhaps the [verse are to be read] like that of R. Yehudah, who said in the name of R. Tarfon, For it was taught in a Baraita, R. Yehudah says in the name of R. Tarfon, [In a case where two people make a bet where the loser must become a Nazir] really neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is only given to one who makes a separating vow [clearly, without conditions. And he interprets the repititious verses thusly].
  If [the source for permitting vows is] R. Yehoshua's, perhaps the meaning is this, "I swore in my wrath," and I will not relent [even when I "calm down." Thus, this is not a proof for the permitting of vows]. If [the source for permitting vows is] R. Yitzchak's, perhaps [that verse is] to exclude that of Shmuel, for Shmuel said, One who decides in his heart, he must utter it with his lips. And [this verse] is coming to teach us that even if he had not uttered it with his lips [it would take effect. This this is not a proof for the permitting of vows.].
  If [the source for permitting vows is] Chananiah, nephew of R. Yehoshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel said in the name of Rav. For R. Gidel said in the name of Rav, What is the source that it is a mitzvah to fulfill an oath? As it is said, (Psalms 119:106) "I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules." [Thus this is not a source for permitting vows.]
  But Shmuel's [source] has no [opening for] objection. Rava, and some say R. Nachman bar Yitzchak said, This is what people say, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.
  "Laws of Sabbath."  But they are surely written [i.e. the laws of the Sabbath are in Scripture]! No, it is necessary for that of R. Abba  for R. Abba said, One who digs a hole on the Sabbath, and he only needs the dirt [but he is not digging for the purpose of the hole itself], he is exempt.
  Who is this like? It is like that of R. Shimon, who said, A work which is not necessary for its own sake is exempt.
  You could even say this within R. Yehudah['s opinion that you have transgressed the Sabbath for doing an action not for its own sake], there he is fixing [when he does an action not for its own sake and has transgressed], here he is destroying [and therefore he is exempt].
  What is "as mountains suspended by a hair"?
  
  Daf 10b
  
  The Torah forbade work [on the Sabbath] of intention, and [the concept of work of intention] is not written.
  Chagigot: But they are surely written [about in Scripture]! No, it is necessary according to that which R. Papa said to Abaye Where do we know that "And you shall celebrate it as a festival for God" refers to sacrifices? Perhaps the Torah meant [simply] celebrate a festival [without a sacrifice]!
  Really now? [We know celebration refers to sacrificing] for it is written (Exodus 5:1) "That they may celebrate unto Me in the wilderness"! Indeed, that refers to celebrating as a festival. But you'll say it does indeed [mean that], but it is written (Exodus 10:25) "But Moses said, 'You must also let us have sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to God our God.'" [Obviously, the "celebration was the sacrifices indicated here!]
  Maybe Scripture is saying, Eat, drink, and be merry first [and then bring sacrifices, for tomorrow they die]? Don't imagine that, for it is written (Exodus 23:18) "And do not leave the fat from the celebration until the next morning." And if you would imagine that it refers [merely] to the celebration, does a celebration have fat?
  Maybe Scripture is saying, Fat that is brought during the celebration should not be left over?
  Really now? [Then that would imply] that the fat which comes at the time of a festival cannot be left over. Implying that all that which comes all the rest of the year can be left over?  It is written, (Leviticus 6:2) "All the night til the morning"! [We already know that!]
  Maybe if [we learned this law only] from that one, I would have thought Scripture wrote this one as a positive command, and that one is a prohibition.
  But Scripture wrote one as a prohibition in a different verse. (Deuteronomy 16:4) "Do not let any of the meat you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain until morning." And maybe that [teaches] that one violates two prohibitions and a postive command?
  Rather, it is a scriptural connection of "desert"/"desert". It is written here, "And they shall have a festival for Me in the desert," and it is written there (Amos 5:25) "Did you bring sacrifices (zevachim) and offerings (mincha) to Me in the desert?" Just like the latter refers to zevachim, so too the former refers to zevachim. What does it mean, "mountains hanging by a thread"? For we cannot derive the words of the Torah from the words of the prophets [normally].
  
  "Misappropriation [of Temple property]: But they are surely written [about in Scripture]! Rami bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to accord with that which was taught in a Mishnah: [If one sends someone to misappropriate Temple property on his behalf,] if the messenger does his mission, the master [is considered to have] misappropriated. If he does not do his mission, the messenger [is considered to have] misappropriated.
  And if he did his mission, why is [the sender considered to have] transgressed? Can it be that one is the sinner [the messenger] and the other one [the sender] is guilty? That is like a mountain hanging by a thread!
  Rava said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps misappropriation is different, for "sin"/"sin" is derived from Terumah tithing. Just like there, the messenger is is like the person himself [who sent him, in that as long as the person sending is the owner and allowed to separate terumah tithes, so can his messenger], so too here [for misappropriation], a messenger is like the person himself [who sent him]. [Thus, our Mishna isn't needed to teach this non-innovative teaching.]
  Rather, Rava said, It was only necessary in order to accord with that which was taught in a Baraita: [If one sends someone to misappropriate Temple property on his behalf, and after sending him] the master remembers and the messenger does not remember, the messenger is guilty of misappropriation. What had the poor messenger done? That is like a mountain hanging by a thread!
  Rav Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is something of a case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses [where, even by mistake, still makes the mistaken party guilty of misappropriation].
  Rather, Rav Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to accord with that which was taught in a Mishnah: One who takes a stone or a beam of the Temple, behold, he is not guilty of misappropriation. If he hands it to his fellow, he has misappropriated, but his fellow has not misappropriated. Let's see. Surely has taken it, what do I care if it was him or his fellow? That is like a mountain hanging by a thread!
  And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is like Shmuel, for Samuel said, Here
  
  Daf 11a
  
  we are dealing with the [Temple] treasurer who was given stones of the building, that anywhere he puts it down is in his possession. [So it can only be misappropriation if he actually gives it to his fellow.]
  Rather, from the latter clause [of that Mishnah]. "If he builds it into his house, behold, he has not trespassed until he has lived under it to the value of a perutah." Let's see. He changes the stone! What does it matter if he lives [in the house] or if he doesn't live [in the house]? That is like a mountain hanging by a thread!
  And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is like Rav, for Rav said, For example, if one places [the stone] upon [the opening of] a roof-window, then, if he lives in it, indeed [he is guilty of misappropriation]. If he does not live in it, [he is] not [guilty of misappropriation].
  Rather, really it is like Rava [who said it is the case of the sender remembers and the messenger does not remember], and your difficulty that it should be something akin to the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses [where, even by mistake, still makes the mistaken party guilty of misappropriation], there he knew there was a zuz of Temple property, and he should have investigated [to find out if he was being sent to misappropriate it]. Here [in Rava's case], does he know? [Yet he is guilty!] That is like a mountain hanging by a thread!
  The verses are few and the laws many: It was taught in a Baraita, [Laws related to] leperousness and [laws of impurity related to] tents, the verses are few and the laws many. [Laws related to] leperousness, the verses are few? [Laws related to] leperousness, the verses are many! R. Papa said, This is what it is saying, [Laws related to] leperousness, the verses are many and the laws few. [Laws of impurity related to] tents, the verses are few and the laws many.
  What is the practical import [of this statement]? If you are in doubt about [laws related to] leperousness, look in Scripture. If you are in doubt on [laws of impurity related to] tents, look in the Mishnah.
  Civil law: But they are surely written! It was only necessary for that of Rebbi.
  For it was taught in a Baraita, Rebbi says, (Exodus 21:23) "Life for a life" [meaning] money. You'll say, money? Or truly "a life" literally? "Giving" [which refers to recompense] is said below [in our verse], and "giving" is said above (Exodus 21:22). Just as there it is money, so too here is money.
  Temple Services: But they are surely written! It was only necessary for bringing the blood [to the Mizbe'ach]. For it was taught in a Baraita, (Leviticus 1:5) "and they shall bring..." That is the receiving of the blood.
  And Scripture expressed it by a word which denotes "bringing," as it is written, (Leviticus 1:13) "And the kohen shall bring all of it and burn it on the altar." But the Master said, That is to the bringing of limbs to the ramp [of the Mizbe'ach], to say that the "bringing" did not take it out of "receiving."
  
  [Ritually] clean. ... But they are surely written! It was only necessary [to teach this] for the size of a ritual purity bath, which isn't written. For it was taught in a Baraita, (Leviticus 15:6) "And he shall wash his flesh in water" - ["he shall wash" refers to] the waters of a ritual purity bath "all his flesh," - [refers to] water into which his whole body can enter. And how much is that? Cubit upon cubit to the height of three cubits. The sages have calculated the waters of a ritual purity bath as forty seahs.
  Ritually impure: But they are surely written! It was only necessary that a creeping thing is [the size of] a lentil, which is not written. For it was taught in a Baraita, (Leviticus 11:32) "In them." One might think "all of them" [can effect impurity], Scripture teaches, "of them".
  One might think "part of them" [by only touching a part can effect impurity], Scripture teaches "in them." What's the case?
  [He is impure] only when he touches a part [that is big enough] it is like the entirety. The sages have calculated that that [is the size of] a lentil, for a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Yose in the name of R. Yehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.
  Unlawful unions: But they are surely written! It was only necessary
  
  Daf 11b
  
  for [the forbidden sexual union of] the daughter of his rape [that not only is he forbidden to her, but he incurs the death penalty], which is not written [explicitly].
  For Rava said, R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi said to me, There is [a scriptural connection between a case of a legitimate daughter and a daughter of rape] "they"/"they" (Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 18:10),
  and there is [a scriptural connection between the description of the former as fully liable and the latter as fully liable] "harlotry"/"harlotry" (Leviticus 20:14).
  "And these are the body of the Torah": These are, those [i.e. the other items listed in the Mishnah] are not? Rather say, These <i>and</i> those are the body of the Torah. 
  We shall return to you, [chapter of] "All of obligated..."
  Mishnah: One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions before three people, nor the account of Creation before two, nor the [Divine] Chariot before one, unless he is wise and understanding from his own knowledge.
  Anyone who peers into four things would be better off if he had not come into this world: What is above, what is below, what is before, and what is after. And anyone who has no mercy for the honor of his Maker would be better off if he had not come into the world.
  Gemara: In the first clause you say, "nor the [Divine] Chariot before one," [which implies the only person who can learn this topic is one who already knows on his own] and after your say, "unless he is wise and understanding from his own knowledge." [That's the same thing!]
  This is what it's saying: "One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions <i>to</i> three people, nor the account of Creation <i>to</i> two, nor the [Divine] Chariot <i>to</i> one unless he is wise and understanding from his own knowledge. [If so, he may be taught]."
  One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions before three people: What is the reason? If you'll say, because it is written, (Leviticus 18:6) "each man [lit. man man] to any that is near of kin", "man man" is two, "that is near of kin" is one, and Scripture said, "You shall not approach to reveal the nakedness..." [teaching us that it cannot be approached pedagogically less than three].
  Really now [that "man man" means you can't teach in front of at least two]? But it is written "each man [lit. man man] that curses his God," (Leviticus 20:9) "each man [lit. man man] that gives of his offspring unto Molech," so too [should not be discussed]!
  Rather, these ["man man" verses] are needed to include gentiles, who are forbidden to curse God and idolatry, like the Jews,...
  this [verse] too is needed to include gentiles, who are forbidden from illicit unions, like the Jews.
  [So what is the reason one may not teach this before three?] Rather, From that which is written, (Leviticus 18:30) "You shall observe My charge." "You (plural) shall observe" is two, "My charge" is one, and Scripture said, "That you don't do any of these abominable laws" [referring to illicit unions].
  Really now [that "you shall observe" implies two"]? But it is written, (Exodus 31:14) "You shall observe the Sabbath," (Exodus 12:17) "You shall observe the Unleavened Bread," (Numbers 18:5) "You shall observe the charge of the Temple," so too [should not be discussed]!
  Rather, R. Ashi said, What is [meant by] "One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions before three people"? One may not expound the secrets of [i.e the inferences of] forbidden sexual unions in front of three.
  What is the reason? It is logical. When two sit before their rabbi, one is having a give and take with his rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to the learning. With three, one is having a give and take with his rabbi, and the other two are having a give and take with each other, and know not what their rabbi is saying, and they come to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions.
  If so [that we are concerned for this possibility], the whole Torah should also [be taught in such a manner]!
  Unlawful unions are different, for the Master had said, Robbery and unlawful unions, his soul lusts and desires for them.
  If so, robbery also [should be included in the rule of how many to teach].  Unlawful unions, whether [the situation] is in front of him or not, his temptation is strong [to commit the sin]. Robbery, his temptation is strong when it's in front of him. When it is not in front of him, his temptation is not strong.
  "Nor the account of Creation before two": What is the source for these words? Our Rabbis have taught, (Deuteronomy 4:32) "Ask (singular) now of the days that are past." One may ask, and two may not ask.
  One might think that a person should ask about things that were before the creation of the world. Scripture teaches, (Deuteronomy 4:32) "Since the day that God created man upon the earth."
  One might think that a person should not ask about the six days of creation. Scripture teaches, "Of the days that are past which were before you."
  One might think that a person should ask about what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. Scripture teaches, (Deuteronomy 4:32) "and from the one end of heaven unto the other." From the one end of heaven unto the other you may ask, but you may not ask about what is above, what is below, what is before, what is after.
  
  Daf 12a
  
  Now that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," what do I need "since the day that God created man upon the earth" for?
  Like that of R. Elazar. For R. Elazar said, Adam the First was from the earth to the firmament, as it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth," and once he became rotten [by sinning], the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, (Psalms 139:5) "You have fashioned me after and before, and laid Your hand upon me."
  R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav, Adam the First was from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven unto the other." Once he became rotten [by sinning], the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid You hand upon me."
  If so, these verses contradict each other! [One part of the verse says he was from earth and the firmament, and the other part says from one end of the heaven to the other!] These and those are of the same dimensions.
  And R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav, Ten things were created on the first day, and they are these: Heaven and earth, chaos and desolation, light and darkness, wind and waters, the measure of the day and the measure of the night.
  "Heaven and earth", as it is written, (Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Chaos and desolation, as it is written, (Genesis 1:2) "And the earth was chaos and desolation." Light and darkness, darkness as it is written, (Genesis 1:2) "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," light as it is written, (Genesis 1:2) "And God said, Let there be light." Wind and water, as it is written, (Genesis 1:3) "and the wind of God floated upon the face of the waters." The measure of the day and the measure of the night, as it is written, (Genesis 1:5) "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."
  It was taught in a Baraita, Chaos is a green line encompassing all the world, and from it darkness springs, as it is said, (Psalms 18:12) "He made darkness His hiding place round about Him." Desolation, these are smooth stones sunk in the deep, from which waters come forth, as it is said, (Isaiah 34:11) "and He shall stretch upon it the line of chaos and the stones of desolation."
  And was light created on the first day? But it is written, (Genesis 1:17) "and God set them in the firmament of the heaven," and it is written, (Genesis 1:19) "and there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." 
  It is like R. Elazar. For R. Elazar said, The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam saw through it from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One, blessed be He, peered at the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, and saw that their actions were destructive, He stood up and hid it from them, as it is said, (Job 38:15) "And from the wicked their light is withheld."
  And for whom did He take it away? For the righteous of the time to come, as it is said, (Genesis 1:4) "And God saw the light, that it was good," and "good" only refers to the righteous, as it is said, (Isaiah 3:10) " Say of the righteous, that he is good."
  Once He saw the light He hid away for the righteous, He rejoiced, as it is said, (Proverbs 13:9) "He rejoices at the light of the righteous."
  Like [the following] Tannaic argument: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam observed and peered through it from one end of the world to the other. These are the words of R. Yaakov. And the sages say, These are the lights which were created on the first day, but were not hung up until the fourth day.
  R. Zutra bar Tuvya said in the name of Rav, With ten things the world was created: With wisdom and with understanding and with knowledge and with strength and with rebuke and with might and with righteousness and with judgment and with mercy and with compassion.
  With wisdom and with understanding, as it is written, (Proverbs 3:19) "The Lord with wisdom founded the earth; with understanding He established the heavens." With knowledge, as it is written, (Proverbs 3:20) "With His knowledge the depths were broken up." With strength and might, as it is written, (Psalms 65:7) "With His strength He establishes the mountains, being girded about with might." With rebuke, as it is written, (Job 26:11) "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at His rebuke." With righteousness and judgment, as it is written, (Psalms 89:15) "Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of Your throne." With mercy and compassion, as it is written, (Psalms 25:6) "Remember Your compassion, O Lord, and Your mercies, for they are eternal." And R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav,
  At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went expanding on like two weaves of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, (Job 26:11) "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke." And this is what Resh Lakish said, What is it that is written, (Genesis 35:11), "I am God Shaddai"? I am He Who said to the world, Enough ("dai"). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went expanding on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, as it is said, (Nahum 1:4) "He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and dries up all the rivers."
  Our Rabbis have taught, The house of Shammai say, The heavens were created first, and afterwards the earth was created, as it is said, (Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But the house of Hillel say, The earth was created first, and afterwards the heavens, as it is said, (Genesis 2:4) "In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
  The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, According to you, [does] a person builds an upper story, and afterwards builds the house? [The heavens are called an upper story,] as it is said, (Amos 9:6) "He builds his upper story in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth." The house of Shammai said to the house of Hillel, According to you, [does] a person makes a footstool and afterwards makes a throne? [The heavens are called a throne,] as it is said, (Isaiah 66:1) "So says the Lord, The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool." But the sages say, This and that were created at once, as it is said, (Isaiah 48:13) "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together."
  And the other [opinions of Shammai and Hillel], what is "together"? That they cannot be separated the one from the other [once created]. The verses contradicts each other! Resh Lakish said, When they were created, He created the heavens, and afterwards created the earth, but when He stretched them out, He stretched out the earth, and afterwards stretched out the heavens.
  What is heaven? R. Yose bar Chanina said, That there is water. It was taught in a Mishnah, fire and water. Teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mingled them one with the other, and made from them the firmament.
  R. Yishmael asked R. Akiva, while they were walking on the road. He said to him, You are one who served Nachum Ish Gamzu for twenty-two years, who expounded the meaning of all the particles "et" in the Torah. What was his exposition of "the heaven and earth" - "et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz"? He said to him, If it had said "shamayim va'aretz," I would have said, "Shamayim" is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. Now that the words are "et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz," "shamayim" means the heaven, literally, and aretz means the earth, literally.
  
  Daf 12b
  
  [If the purpose of "et hashamayim" is to show that it is not God's name,] why do I need "et ha'aretz"? To show precedence of heaven to earth. (Genesis 1:2) "And the earth was chaos and desolation." Let's see. He began with heaven first. What changed that it is [now] considering the account of the earth? The house of R. Ishmael taught, It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood, who says to his servants, Rise up early [and come] to my door. He himself rises early, and finds women and men. Whom does he praise? Those whose way is not to rise early, yet did rise early. [Thus, earth, mentioned second in order in verse 1, was created at the same time as the heaven, and is "praised" by being described first in verse 2.]
  It was taught in a Baraita: R. Yose says, Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars, as it is said, (Job 9:6) "Who shakes the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble." The pillars stand upon the waters, as it is said, (Psalms 136:6) "To him that spread forth the earth upon the waters." The waters upon the mountains, as it is said, (Psalms 104:6) "The waters stood upon the mountains." The mountains upon the wind, as it is said, (Amos 4:13) "For lo he that forms the mountains and creats wind." The wind upon the storm, as it is said, (Psalms 148:8) "Stormy winds do His bidding." The storm is hung upon the arm of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 33:27) "Underneath are the everlasting arms."
  And the sages say, It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 32:8) "He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel." And some say, Seven pillars, as it is said, (Proverbs 9:1) "She has hewn out her seven pillars." R. Elazar ben Shamua says, Upon one pillar, and its name is "The Righteous", as it is said, (Proverbs 10:25) "And the righteous is the foundation of the world."
  R. Yehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 10:14) "Behold, unto the Lord your God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens."
  Resh Lakish said, There are seven, and these are them: Vilon, Rakia, Sh'chakim, Z'vul, Ma'on, Machon, Aravot. Vilon has no purpose at all except for the entering of morning the leaving of evening, and renewing every day the work of Creation, as it is said, (Isaiah 40:22) "That stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." Rakia, within it are set the sun and moon, stars and constellations, as it is said, (Genesis 1:17) "And God set them in the Rakia of the heaven." Sh'chakim, within it stand the millstones and grind manna for the righteous, as it is said, (Psalms 78:23) "And he commanded the Sh'chakim above and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down manna upon them to eat..."
  Z'vul, within it is [the heavenly] Jerusalem and the Temple, and the built altar, and Michael the High Officer stands and offers upon it an offering, as it is said, (I Kings 8:13) "I have surely built a house of Z'vul, an institute for You to dwell in forever." And where is it called heaven? As it is written, (Isaiah 63:15) "Look down from heaven and behold from Z'vul your holiness and your glory."
  Ma'on, within it are the classes of the ministering angels, who utter His song at night and are silent in the day for the honor of Israel, as it is said, (Psalms 42:9) "By day the Lord commands His kindness, and by night His song is with me."
  Resh Lakish said, Anyone who delves into Torah by night, the Holy One, blessed be He, extends over him the thread of kindness by day, as it is said, (Psalms 42:9) "By day the Lord commands His kindness." And what is the reason that "By day the Lord commands His kindness"? Because "by night His song is with me." And some say, Resh Lakish said, Anyone who delves into Torah in this world, which is likened to the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, extends over him the thread of kindness for the world to come, which is likened to the day, as it is said, (Psalms 42:9) "By day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me."
  R. Levi said, Anyone who desists from words of Torah, and delves into words of [idle] talk, coals of broom-wood devour him, as it is said, (Job 30:4) "Who cut up mallows over idle talk, and the root of the broom devours them." And where is it called heaven? As it is said, (Deuteronomy 26:15) "Look down from your holy Ma'on from heaven."
  Machon, within it are the storehouses of snow and the storehouses of hail, and the high place of harmful dews, and the high place of raindrops, and the room of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the cave of vapor, and their doors are made of fire, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 28:12) "God shall open unto you His good storehouse."
  These exist in the firmament! [So how can they be in Machon?] These exist in the earth, as it is written, (Psalms 148:7) "Praise God from the earth, you sea-monsters and all depths, fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy winds doing his bidding." R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav, David sought mercy for them, and He sent them down to the earth. He said before Him, Master of the world, (Psalms 5:5) "You are not a God that desires wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with You." You are righteous, O Lord; evil shall not sojourn in your dwelling. And where is it called heaven? As it is written, (I Kings 8:39) "And hear in heaven, the Machon of Your dwelling."
  Aravot, within it is righteousness and judgment and charity, the cache of life and the cache of peace and the cache of blessing, and the souls of the righteous, and the spirits and souls which will be created in the future, and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead. Righteousness and judgment, for it is written, (Psalms 89:15) "Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of Your throne." Grace, for it is written, (Isaiah 59:17) "And he dressed in charity as a coat of mail." The cache of life, for it is written, (Psalms 36:10) "For with You is the source of life." And the cache of peace, for it is written, (Judges 6:24) "And called it, God-peace." And the cache of blessing, for it is written, (Psalms 24:5) "He shall receive a blessing from the LORD." The souls of the righteous, for it is written, (I Smauel 25:29) "Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD your God." The spirits and souls which will be created in the future, for it is written, (Isaiah 57:16) "For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made."
  And the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead, for it is written, (Psalms 68:10) "Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad; you restored your inheritance as it languished."
  There are the divine wheels and seraphs and holy beings and ministering angels, and the throne of glory, and the King, the Living God, high and lifted up, dwelling over them in Aravot, as it is said, (Psalms 68:5) "Cast up a highway for him that rides upon the Aravot, his name is Yah." And where is it called heaven? [An exegetical connection] comes "riding"/"riding". It is written, (Psalms 68:5) "Cast up a highway for him that rides upon Aravot," and it is written, (Deuteronomy 33:26)  "who rides upon the heaven for Your help."
  And darkness and clouds and thick darkness surround Him, as it is said, (Psalms 18:12) "He made darkness his hiding place, his pavilion round about him, darkness of waters, thick clouds." And is there darkness before the Heavenly? But it is written, (Daniel 2:22) "He reveals the deep and secret things; he knows what is in the darkness and the light dwells with him." There is no difficulty. The one
  
  Daf 13a
  
  This one refers to that which is within, and this one refers to that which is outside. And Rabbi Acha the son of Ya'akov said, "There is another firmament above the heads of the <em>chayot</em>, as it is written, 'And a figure on top of the head of the <em>chaya</em>; a firmament, like the appearance of the great snow (Ezekiel 1:22).'
  Until this point, you have the permission to speak [about]; from here further, you do not have permission to speak [about], for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira, 'In what is too wondrous for you, do not request; and in what it covered from you, do not investigate.' What you have been permitted to, understand; and you have no business with the hidden things. It was taught: Rabbi Yochanan the son of Zakai said, "What is the answer that the heavenly voice answered to the same evildoer when he said, "I shall ascend on the heights of dense ground to the One Above (Isaiah 14:14)"? A heavenly voice went out and said to him, 'Evildoer the son of an evildoer the grandson of Nimrod the evildoer, who made the whole earth rebel against His rule.'"
  How many are the [average] days of a man? Seventy years, as it is said, "The days of our life in it are seventy years, and if with strength, eighty years (Psalms 90:10)." Behold! The distance from the earth to the firmament a five-hundred years' walk! And the thickness of every firmament is a five-hundred years' walk, and so too between every firmament!
  Above them are the holy <em>chayot</em>. The feet of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The lower legs of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The upper legs of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The thighs of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The bodies of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The necks of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The heads of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. The horns of the <em>chayot</em> are equal to them all. Above them is the Throne of Glory. The legs of the Throne of Glory are equal to them all. The Throne of Glory [itself] is equal to them all. The king, living and existing G-d, [who is] high and uplifted dwells upon them. And you said, "'I shall ascend on the heights of dense earth to the High One! Rather, to the netherworld you shall be brought down, to the farthest parts of the pit (Isaiah 14:14-15).'"
  (Mishnah:) And [one may not teach] regarding the [divine] chariot alone (ie. to one student). Rabbi Chiyya taught [a Tannaitic comment]: "But we do give him the summary of the chapters." Rabbi Zira said,  "We only teach the summary of the chapters to the head of the court and to anyone whose heart is scared within him." There are those who say [that the real version of Rabbi Zira's words are as follows]: ["We only teach the summary of the chapters to the head of the court,] and this is because his heart is scared within him."
  Rabbi Ami said, "We only teach the secrets of Torah to one who has five qualities: 'A leader (alt. a captain) of fifty, favored, advice-giving, wise of the deaf, and clever of secrets [these last two may mean someone who can infer things without being told].'" And Rabbi Ami said, "We don't teach Torah to idol-worshipers, as it is said, 'He did not do such to all nations, and laws He did not cause them to know (Psalms 147:20).'"
  Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Elazar, "Come, I will teach you the deed of the chariot." He said to him, "I am not old enough." When he grew old enough, Rabbi Yochanan passed on. Rabbi Assi said to him,  "Come, and I will teach you the deed of the chariot." He said to him, "If I was worthy, I would have learned from Rabbi Yochanan your teacher."
  Rabbi Yosef was learning the deed of the chariot. The elders of Pumbedita were teaching the deed of creation. They said to him, "Master, teach us the deed of the chariot." He said to them, "Teach me the deed of creation." After they taught him, they said to him, "Master, teach us the deed of the chariot." He said to them, "It is taught regarding this, 'Honey and milk are beneath your tongue (Song of Songs 4:11)-' Things sweeter than honey and milk shall be under you tongue."
  Rabbi Abahu says from here: "'Sheep (kevasim) for your garment (Proverbs 27:26)-' Words that are the furnace (kivshono) of the world (ie. Torah) shall be under your garments." They said to him, "Teach us until, 'And He said to me, 'Son of man...' (Ezekiel 2:1)'". He said to them, "This is the deed of the chariot."
  Question: Until when is 'The deed of the chariot'? Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says, "Until the later, 'And I saw (Ezekiel 1:27).'" Rabbi Yitzchak says, "Until, 'The Chashmal (Ezekiel 1:27).'" We teach until "And I saw (Ezekiel 1:4)," and from there onward we give the general details. There are those who say: "Until, 'And I saw (Ezekiel 1:4)', we give the general details, and from here forward, if he is smart, he understands from his own knowledge; if [is] not [smart], then if he cannot [understand on his own], he cannot [understand it]."
  And we teach regarding the Chashmal [in Ezekiel 1:28]? But wasn't there a child who learned regarding the Chashmal, and a fire came out and devoured him? The child is different, for his time had not come [to learn about the Chashmal].
  Rabbi Yehudah said, "Generally, remember this man for good, and Chananiah the son of Chizkiyah is his name; if not for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden, for its words [seemingly] contradict the words of the Torah. What did he do? They raised for him 300 barrels of oil [to the attic], and he sat in the attic and expounded [the Book of Ezekiel, to explain how it fit with Torah law."
  The Rabbis taught: There once was a child who was reading from the Book of Ezekiel in the house of his teacher, and he understood the [verses regarding] the Chashmal, and fire came out from a Chashmal and burned him, And they wanted to hide the Book of Ezekiel.  Chananiah the son of Chizkiyah said to them, "If this [child] is smart, are they all smart?"
  What [is the meaning of the word] Chashmal? Rav Yehudah said:
  
  Daf 13b
  
  "Chayot (CHA) who are fire (SH) speaking (MAL)." In the Mishnayot, it is taught: "Sometimes, they are silent (CHASH); sometimes, they speak (MAL). At the time that words are coming from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, they are silent; and at the time that words are not coming from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, they speak."
  "(Ezekiel 1:14) And the Chayot [were] running and returning, like the appearance of a flash." What is "running and returning"? Rav Yehudah said: "Like the light that goes out of the mouth of the furnace." What is "Like the appearance of a flash"? Rabbi Yossi the son of Chanina said, "Like the light that goes out from between the potsherds."
  "And I saw, and behold, a storm wind came from the north, a large cloud and gathered-up fire, and brightness encompassed it, and inside there was the figure of a Chashmal inside the fire." To where did [the cloud] go? Rav Yehudah said, "Rav said,  'It went to capture the entire world under Nevuchadnetzer the evildoer. And all this for what? So that the nations of the world would not say, 'In the hand of a lowly nation did the Holy One, be He, give his children.' The Holy One, Blessed be He, said, 'Who caused me to be a servant to worshippers of idols? The sins of Israel caused me [to do such].'"
  "(Ezekiel 1:15) And I saw the Chayot, and behold, an Ofan was on the ground next to the Chayot-" Rabbi Elazar said, "One angel who was standing and the ground, and his head reached the Chayot. In the Mishnayot it is taught, "Sandalfon is his name- the one higher than his friends a [distance of] five hundred days' walk, and he stands behind the chariot and attaches crowns to his Master. Is it so? But isn't it written, "Blessed is the name of God from his place (Ezekiel, 3:12)", implying that no one knows his place [and so how can Sandalfon put the crowns on G-d's head]? He says the [divine] name on a crown, and it goes and sits on His head.
  Rava said, "Everything that Ezekiel saw, Isaiah saw. To what is Ezekiel comparable to? To a villager who saw the king. To what is Isaiah comparable to? To a city dweller who saw the king. Reish Lakish said, "What is the [meaning of] the verse, 'I shall sing to G-d for he has truly glorified himself (heb. Ga'oh Ga'ah, Exodus 15:1)'? A song to the One who is glorified above the glorified." As a master said, "The king from between the beasts is the lion. The king from between the livestock is the ox. The king from between the birds is the eagle, and man is glorified above them, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, is glorified above all of them and above the whole entire world."
  One verse says, "And the appearance of their faces: the face of a man and the face of a lion on the right of the four, and the face of an ox on the left of the four, etc. (Ezekiel 1:10)," and it is written, "And four faces were to one: the first face was a the face of a cherub, the second face was the face of a man, the third was the face of a lion, and the fourth was the face of an eagle (Ezekiel 10:14)." And he didn't take into account the ox? Reish Lakish said, "Ezekiel requested upon himself mercy, and [G-d] changed it to a Cherub." He said before Him, "Master of the Universe! [May a] prosecutor be made [into] a defender."
  What is a cherub (heb. K'ruv)? Rabbi Abahu said, "'Like a child (heb. K'ravya)', for so in Babylon, they call a child 'Ravya'." Rav Pappa said to Abaye, "Rather now, as is written, "The first face was the face of a cherub; the second face was the face of a man; the third was the face of a lion; the face was the face an eagle (Ezekiel 10:14)-" The face of a cherub [which looks like a child) is the face of a man! This one is an adult, and this one is a small child.
  One verse says, "Six wings to the one, six wings to the one (Isaiah 6:2)," and  one verse says "And four faces to the one, and four wings to the one (Ezekiel 1:6)." This is not a contradiction. This is during the time when the Temple was standing, and this is when the Temple was not standing (even though it technically was, it was already doomed), and as it were, the wings of the Chayot were lessened.
  Which [wings] were subtracted? Rav Chananel said, Rav said,  "The ones that they say praises with. It is written here, 'And with two he would fly (heb. Ye'ofeif), and this one called to that one and said (Isaiah 6:2),' and it is written, 'Shall you place (heb. HaSa'if) your eye upon it and it is gone (Proverbs 23:5).'"
  And the Rabbis say, "The ones that they would cover their legs with, as it is said, 'And their legs were one straight leg (Ezekiel 1:7),' and if the [wings covering the legs, as described in Isaiah 6:2] were not subtracted, how would he know? Maybe they were uncovered and he saw them. For if you don't say like this, [then regarding the verse], "And the likeness of their face [which was also covered by wings in Isaiah 6:2]: a man's face... (Ezekiel 1:10)," how [do you explain it]? Were they also subtracted? Rather, if they were uncovered and he saw them, here too, they [could have been] uncovered and he saw them.
  How can you compare [the two]? It makes sense[for the angel to uncover] his face, [for] it is the way of the land to uncover [one's face] in front of his master; [but to uncover] his legs, it not the way of the land to uncover [one's legs] in front of his master [and thus, the wings that covered the legs were missing, for otherwise Ezekiel would not have seen them].
  One verse says, "Thousands of thousands serve him, and a myriad myriads get up before him (Daniel 7:10)," and one verse says, "Is there a number of his forces (Job 25:3) [and so, are the angels numbered or infinite]?" This is no contradiction. This is in the time when the Temple stood, and this is in the time when the Temple was not standing- as it were, the heavenly household decreased.
  It was taught: Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says in the name of Abba Yose the son of Dosai, "'Thousands of thousands serve him-' the number of one troop. And the troops are infinite." Rav Yirmiyah the son of Abba said, "Thousands of thousands serve him at the stream of fire, as it is said, "A stream of fire went out and came before Him; Thousands of thousands served him, and myriads of myriads in front of him get up."
  From where did it come out? From the sweat of the chayot. And where was it poured out to? Rav Zutra the son of Toviah said, "Rav said, 'Onto the heads of the wicked in Gehinnom, as it is said, 'Behold, the storm of Hashem has gone out in a fury, and a whirling storm; on the heads of the wicked (Jeremiah 23:19).''" And Rav Acha the son of Ya'akov said, "Upon the ones who were taken away [from being created], as it is said, "Those that were taken away before their time, a river is poured [on] their foundation. It was taught [in a Baraita]: Rabbi Shimon the Pious said, "These are the 974 generations that were taken away from being created.
  
  Daf 14a
  
  Before the world was created, and the [ones who were taken away] were not yet created, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stood and planted them in every generation [and thus, the people of the 974 generations were instead scattered throughout other generations], and they are the stubborn/arrogant ones in [every] generation."
  And Rav Nachman the son of Yitzchak said, "'Those that were taken away'- for a blessing it is written: these are the wise students, who take themselves away [from the crowd] through matters of Torah in this world, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, uncovers for them [the] secret[s of Torah] in the World to Come, as it is said, "[Like] a poured river is their secret (with the change of heb. 'Ye'sodam' to 'Sodam') (Job, 22:15).'"
  Shmuel said to Chiya the son of Abba: "Son of Torah, Come and I will say to you words from the great words that your father would say. Every single day, the servicing angels are created from the stream of fire, and they say praise, and [then] they are destroyed, as it is said, 'They are new in the morning; great is your trustworthiness (Lamentations 3:23).'" And he argues with Rabbi Shmuel the son of Nachmani, for Rabbi Shmuel the son of Nachmani says, "Rabbi Yochanan says, 'Every utterance that leaves the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created from it, as it is said, 'In the word of Hashem, the heavens were created; and with the breath of his mouth, all their legions (Psalms 33:6).''"
  One verse says, "His garment was as bright snow, and the hair [of His head] was as pure wool (Daniel 7:9)," and it is written, "His locks are curls, black as a raven (Song of Songs 5:11)." [Is His hair white or black?] This is not a contradiction. This one (ie. the white hair) is in the assembly, and this one (ie. the black hair) is in battle.  For Master said, "There is none better in the assembly than an elder, and there is none better than a young man in battle."
  One verse says, "A throne of fiery flames (Daniel 7:9)," and one verse says, "Until thrones were placed, and He of ancient days sat (Daniel 7:9)." [Is there one throne, or are there multiple thrones?  This is not a contradiction. One is for Him and one is for David. As it is taught, "One for Him and one for David, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said to him, 'Akiva! Until when will you make the [Divine] Presence profaned [by being at the same level as a human]? Rather, One for justice and one for charity (ie. mercy).'"
  Did he accept it from him, or did he not accept it from him? Come and listen: "One for justice and one for charity, the words of Rabbi Akiva [which shows that he accepted Rabbi Yose the Galilean's words]. Rabbi Elazar the son of Azariah said to him, 'Akiva! What business do you have with <em>aggadah</em>? Take your words (ie. adjust your focus) to [tractates] <em>Nega'im</em> and <em>Oholot</em>! Rather, One for a throne and one for a footstool- the throne to sit upon, the footstool for a foot-rest, as it is said, "The heavens are My throne and the earth is My foot-rest (Isaiah 66:1)."
  When Rav Dimi came [from Israel to Babylonia], he said, "[With] eighteen curses, Isaiah cursed Bnei Yisrael, and he was not satisfied until he said to them this verse: 'They shall be insolent, the child to the elder and the shamed to the respected (Isaiah 3:5).'"
  What are the eighteen curses? As it is written, "For behold, the Lord G-d of Hosts is removing from Jerusalem and from Judah stay (1) and staff (2), every stay of bread (3), and every stay of water (4), The mighty man (5) and the warrior (6), judge (7), and prophet (8), and sorcerer (9), and elder (10), Captain of fifty (11), and man of rank (12), and adviser (13), and skillful (14) charmer (15), and clever (16) enchanter (17), And I shall place youths as their princes, and children shall rule them (18)... (Isaiah 3:1-5).
  "Stay"-- these are the masters of Scripture. "Staff"-- these are the masters of Mishnah, like Rabbi Yehudah the son of Teima and his colleagues. Rav Pappa and the Rabbis argue regarding [Mishnah]. One says, "There are six hundred orders of Mishnah." And one said, "There are seven hundred orders of Mishnah."
  "Every stay of bread"-- these are the masters of Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled (Proverbs 9:5)." "And every stay of water"-- these are the masters of Aggadah, who draw the heart of a man like water through Aggadah. "The mighty man"-- this is a master of oral tradition. "And warrior"-- this is one who knows how to converse in the battle (ie. fierce discussion) of Torah. "Judge"-- this is one who judges a truthful judgement. "Prophet"-- its plain meaning. "Sorcerer"-- this is a king, as it is said, "There is charm on the lips of a king (Proverbs 16:10)." "Elder"-- this is one who is worthy to sit in judgement. "Captain of fifty"-- do not read 'Captain of fifty', but rather 'Captain of the five', [and so] this is one who knows how to converse in the five books of Torah.
  Another opinion: "Captain of fifty" [is to be explained] according to Rabbi Abahu, As Rabbi Abahu said, "From here [we learn] that we do appoint a translator over the community who is less than fifty years old." "And man of rank"-- this is one whose generation attains favor because of him; above (ie. before G-d), like Rabbi Chaninah the son of Dosa, [or] below, like Rabbi Abbahu [before] the House of the Caesar.
  "Adviser"-- [this is one] who knows [how to] intercalate years and to establish months. "And skillful"-- this is a student who enlightens his teachers. "Charmer (heb. charashim)"-- when he opens in words of Torah, everyone becomes like a deaf person (heb. cheirshin). "And clever"-- this is one who infers from one thing to another. "Enchanter"-- this is one who is worthy to have related to him words of Torah that are given in whispers [due to the inability of others to understand properly].
  "And I shall place youths (heb. ne'arim) as their princes"-- what [is the meaning of] 'And I shall place youths as their princes'? Rabbi Elazar said, "These are people who are empty (heb. m'nuarin) of commandments."
  "And children (heb. ta'alulim shall rule them"-- Rav the son of Ya'akov said,  "[This refers to people who are like] foxes (aramaic: ta'alei) the sons of foxes." And [Isaiah] was not satisfied until he said to them, "The child (heb. na'ar) shall behave insolently against the aged--" these are people who are empty (heb. m'nuarin) of commandments; they will behave insolently against one is full of commandments like a pomegranate [is full of seeds]. "And the base against the honored--" let those to whom heavy (ie. important) things are like light (ie. minor) things,  and they will behave insolently against he to whom light (ie. minor) things are like heavy (ie. important) things.
  Rav Katina said, "Even in Jerusalem's fall, men of integrity never ceased from [the population], as it is said, 'For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father: 'You have a cloak, be our chief' (Isaiah 3:6)--'
   
    
  Is this really so? But didn't Rava say, "Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased from her, as it is said, 'Run back and forth through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in her broad places; if you can find a man, if there is anyone who does justly, who seeks truth; and [if such a person is found,] I will pardon her (Jeremiah 5:1).' [And this contradicts Rav Katina!]" There is no contradiction.
  
  Daf 14b
  
  This is regarding matters of Torah, and this is regarding matters of business. Regarding matters of Torah, they were; and with business, they were not."
  The Rabbis taught: It once happened that Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai was riding on a donkey and going on the road, and Rabbi Elazar the son of Arach was  He said to him, "Master, Teach me one chapter of the deed of the chariot." He said to him, "Have I not taught you such, 'And not regarding the chariot with one [student], except for if he is smart and understands on his own [when given the summary]. He said to him, "Rabbi, Allow me to say before you one thing that you have taught me." He said to him, "Say."
  Immediately, Rabban Yochanan descended from upon the donkey, wrapped himself up, and sat on a rock under an olive tree. He said to him, "Rabbi, for what reason did you descend from upon the donkey?" He said, "Is it possible that you are expounding the deed of the chariot, and the [Divine] presence is with us, and the servicing angels are accompanying us, and I should ride on a donkey?" Immediately, Rabbi Elazar the son of Arach started with the deed of the chariot and expounded [it], and fire came down from the heavens and surrounded all of the trees in the field. The [angels] all opened [their mouths] and said praise.
  What praise did they say? "Praise Hashem from the land, sea monsters and all depths... fruit trees and all cedars... Praise Hashem (Psalms 148:7-14)." One angel spoke up from the fire and said, "This (what they were learning) is the deed of the chariot." Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai stood and kissed him on the head, and said, "Blessed is Hashem, the G-d of Israel, who gave a son to Abraham our father who knows how to understand, to investigate, and to expound the deed of the chariot. There is one who expounds well but does not uphold well  [and there is one who] upholds well but does not expound well. You expound well and uphold well. Praiseworthy are you, Abraham our forefather, for Elazar the son of Arakh has exited from your loins."
  And when [these] things were said before Rabbi Yehoshua, he and Rabbi Yose the Priest were walking on the road. They said, "We, too, shall expound in the deed of the chariot." Rabbi Yehoshua opened and expounded. And that very day was the summer solstice [when the sky is not normally cloudy]. The skies were covered in clouds and the form of a bow was seen in the clouds, and the servicing angels were gathering to hear like people who gather to see the amusement of the bride and groom.
  Rabbi Yose the Priest went and told [these] things before Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai, and he said, "Praiseworthy are you and praiseworthy are those who bore you. Praiseworthy are my eyes, that have seen such. "And both you and I were, in my dreams, seated on Har Sinai, and a heavenly voice from the skies was given upon us: "Ascend here! Ascend here! A large banquet hall and pleasant couches are spread out for you. You, your students, and the students of your students are invited into the third group."
  Is this really so? But isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Yehudah says:  'There were three lectures [of Ma'aseh Merkavah]. Rabbi Yehoshua lectured on these things before Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai; Rabbi Akiva lectured before Rabbi Yehoshua; Chananiah the son of Chachinai lectured before Rabbi Akiva.'" And Rabbi Elazar the son of Arach wasn't taken into account?  Someone who lectured and was lectured before is taken into account; [someone] who lectured, but they did not lecture before him, is not taken into account. But Chananiah the son of Chachinai, who they did not lecture before, is taken into account? His lecture, still, was before someone who lectured.
  The Rabbis taught:  There were four who entered the Orchard (a reference to the Garden of Eden), and they are - Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher (Elisha Ben Avuya) and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them:  "When you reach near the pure marble stones, do not say 'Water, water'," Because it is said, "A speaker of lies shall not abide before my eyes (Psalms 101:7)."
  Ben Azzai glanced and died, and upon him the verse says, "It is precious in the eyes of Hashem, the death to his pious (Psalms 116:15)." Ben Zoma glanced and was hurt (mentally; he went insane), and upon him the verse says, "Honey you have found- eat [only] your fill, lest you become satisfied of it and regurgitate it (Proverbs 25:16)." Acher chopped down saplings [ie. he became a heretic].  Rabbi Akiva emerged in peace.
  They asked Ben Zoma: "What is [the halacha regarding] castrating a dog?" He said to them, "'And in your land, you shall not do [castration] (Leviticus 22:24)-' Anything in your land, do not do [castration upon, including a dog]." They asked Ben Zoma: "A virgin who has become pregnant, what is her [permissibility] to [marry] a Kohen Gadol [who may only marry a virgin?" Do we consider the opinion of Shmuel, for Shmuel said,
  
  Daf 15a
  
  "I can have intercourse multiple times without [causing] bleeding." Or maybe [the case] of Shmuel is uncommon [and thus she would be forbidden]? He said to them: "[The case] of Shmuel is uncommon, but we consider that maybe in the baths, she was impregnated [by leftover semen]."
  But didn't Shmuel say, "Any semen that was not shot like an arrow, does not impregnate [in the halachic sense]?" Originally, this [leftover semen] was also shot like an arrow.
  The Rabbis taught: It happened that Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Chananiah was standing on top of a step on the Temple Mount, and Ben Zoma saw him but did not stand before him [because he was lost in thought]. He said to him, "What are you thinking about (lit. From where to where), Ben Zoma? He said to him, "I was looking between the upper waters and the lower waters, and there is only three finger-breadths between this one and that one, as it is said, 'And the spirit of G-d was hovering on the face of the water (Genesis 1:2),' like a dove that is hovering over her children without touching them [at a distance of about three finger-breadths away]. Rabbi Yehoshua said to his students, "Ben Zoma is still outside (ie. He still has not regained his former self)."
  See, "And the spirit of G-d was hovering on the face of the water (Genesis 1:2)," when was [this]? On the first day. The separation [of the upper and lower waters] was on the second day, about which it is written, "And there was a separation between water and water (Genesis 1:6)." And how much [is the separation]? Rabbi Acha the son of Ya'akov said, "The size of a hair." And the Rabbis say, "Like the space between the boards of a bridge." Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Assi, said, "Like the space between two cloaks spread out on top of each other," and some say [that he said], "Like the space between two cups that are tilted on top of each other."
  Acher chopped the saplings, and about him the verse says, "Do not let your mouth cause your body to sin (Ecclesiastes 5:5)." What is this? He saw [the angel] Mitatron, who had permission to sit and write the merits of Israel. He said, "There is a tradition: Above (ie. in heaven), there is no sitting, no copying, no turning one's back, and no tiredness [among the angels, yet Mitatron was sitting]. Maybe-- Heaven Forbid!-- there are two powers."
  They took Mitatron out, and gave him sixty lashes of fire. They said to him, "What is your reason, that when you saw him, you did not stand before him?" He had permission to erase the merits of Acher. A heavenly voice went out and said, "'Return, rebellious children (Jeremiah 3:14)-' except for Acher."
  He said, "Seeing as that man (ie. himself) was banished from the World [to Come], he should go and enjoy himself in this world." Acher became ill-cultured. He went and found a harlot, and asked [to have intercourse with] her. She said to him, "And are you not Elisha the son of Avuyah?" He uprooted a radish from a patch on Shabbat and gave it to her. She said, "He is another (heb. Acher)."
  Acher asked Rabbi Meir after he had went out to an ill culture[d lifestyle]. He said to him, "What is the meaning of the verse, 'Also this opposite that, G-d created (Ecclesiastes 7:14)'? He said to him, "Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He created, He created something opposite it. He created mountains; He created valleys. He created seas; He created rivers." He said to him,
  "Rabbi Akiva, your teacher, did not say like that. Rather [he said], 'He created righteous; He created wicked. He created the Garden of Eden; He created Gehinnom. Everyone has two parts: One in the Garden of Eden, and one in Gehinnom. If he merited [to be judged] righteous, he takes his share and his fellow's share in the Garden of Eden. If he was found guilty [of being] wicked, he takes his share and his fellow's share in Gehinnom.'"
  Rav Mishrashya said, "What is the [meaning of the] verse?  About the righteous it is written, 'Therefore, in their land they shall inherit double (Isaiah 61:7),' [And] about the wicked it is written, 'And their destruction shall be two-fold (Jeremiah 17:18).'"
  Acher asked Rabbi Meir after he had went out to an ill culture[d lifestyle]: "What is the [meaning of the] verse: 'Gold and glass cannot equal it, and its value is not fine gold (Job 28:17)?'" He said to him, "These are the words of Torah, which are hard to acquire like vessels of gold and easy to lose like vessels of glass." He said to him, "Rabbi Akiva, your teacher, did not say such. Rather [he said], 'Just like gold and glass vessels, although they are broken, have a way to be fixed, so too a scholar, even though he has rotted [with sin], he has a way to be fixed.'" He said to him, "You too, return [and repent]." He said to him, "I have already heard from behind the [divine] curtain: 'Return, rebellious sons- except for Acher.'"
  The Rabbis taught: It once happened that Acher was riding on a horse on Shabbat, and Rabbi Meir was walking behind him to learn Torah from his mouth. He said to him, "Meir, turn around. I have calculated with my horse's steps [that] until here is the <em>Techum Shabbat</em> (area in which it is permissible to walk on Shabbat). He said to him, "You, too, return [and repent]." He said to him, "Have not I already told you? I have already heard from behind the [divine] curtain: 'Return, rebellious sons- except for Acher.'"
  He brought him to a house of study. He said to a child, "Tell me your verse [that you learned today]." He said to him, "There is no peace, G-d has said, for the wicked (Isaiah 48:22)." He brought him to another house of prayer. He said to a child, "Tell me your verse [that you learned today]." He said to him, "Even if you wash with natron, and you use much soap, your sin is stained before me (Jeremiah 2:22)." He brought him to another house of prayer. He said
  
  Daf 15b
  
  To a child, "Tell me your verse." He said to him, "And you, brazen one, what do you do when you wear scarlet and adorn golden jewelry, when you enlarge your eyes in kohl? In vain you beautify yourself... (Jeremiah 4:30)."
  He brought him to another house of worship, until he had brought him to thirteen houses of worship; all of them told him [verses] like this. To the final one, he said, "Tell me your verse." He said, "And to the wicked (heb. La'Rasha), G-d has said, 'What [use is it] to you to tell my laws... (Psalms 50:16).'" That very child had a stutter in his tongue. It sounded as if he had said to him, "And to Elisha (heb. La'elisha), G-d has said...". There are those who say,  "He had a knife with him, and he tore the child [into thirteen pieces] and sent him to the thirteen houses of worship. And there are those who say, "He said, 'If I had a knife in my hand, I would have torn him.'"
  When Acher died, they said, "We cannot judge him to punishment [in Gehinnom], but we cannot enter him into the World to Come. We cannot judge him to punishment, because he toiled in Torah; we cannot enter him into the World to Come, because he sinned." Rabbi Meir said, "It is better that they sentence him [so as to purge him of his sins], and he should go to the World to Come [afterwards]. When I die, I will raise smoke from his grave." When Rabbi Meir passed away, smoke came out from the grave of Acher.
  Rabbi Yochanan said, "Is it a feat to burn one's teacher!? There was one between us [Torah scholars]; can we not save him? If I took him in the hand [and lead him out of Gehinnom], who would stop me?" He said, "When I die, I will douse the smoke from his grave." When Rabbi Yochanan passed away, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. A eulogizer opened [his remarks] upon him, "Even the entrance guard [of Gehinnom] did not stand in front of you, our Master."
  The daughter of Acher came before Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi]. She said to him, "Rabbi, support me." He said to her, "Whose daughter are you?" She said to him, "I am the daughter of Acher." He said to her, "There is still of his seed in the world? But isn't it written, "Not a great-grandson, and not a grandson, among his people, and there is no remainder in his dwelling (Job 18:19)." She said to him, "Remember his Torah, and do not remember his deeds." Immediately, fire came down from heaven and singed the bench of Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi]. He wept. And Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] said, "And for those who revile [Torah], such; how much more so for those who praise it!"
  But Rabbi Meir- how did he learn Torah from the mouth of Acher? But didn't Rabba the son of the son of Chana say, "Rabbi Yochanan said,  'What is [the meaning of] the verse, 'For my lips, a priest shall guard; knowledge and instruction they shall ask from his mouth, for he is an angel of Hashem of Legions (Malachi 2:7)'? If the teacher is like an angel of Hashem of Legions, they should ask instruction from his mouth; And if not, they should not ask instruction from his mouth.'"
  Reish Lakish said, "Rabbi Meir found a verse and expounded it: 'Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise ones; and put your heart to my knowledge (Proverbs 22:17).' 'To their knowledge' was not said, but rather 'to my knowledge'."
  Rav Chanina said from here: "Listen, daughter, and see, and incline your ear and forget your nation and your father's house... (Psalms 45:11)."
  The verses contradict each other! There is no contradiction. This one (ie. when there is no need for a teacher like an angel) is with an adult, and this one (ie. when there is a need for a teacher like an angel) is with a child.
  When Rav Dimi came [from Israel], he said, "They say in the west (ie. Israel): 'Rabbi Meir ate a date and threw away the kernel.'" Rava expounded: "What is [the meaning of] the verse, 'To the garden of almonds I went down, to see the streams of water... (Song of Songs 6:11)-' why are scholars compared to almonds? To say to you, Just like an almond, even though it is dirty with mud and manure, what is inside it is not spoiled, so too a scholar, even though he has rotted, his Torah is not spoiled."
  Rabba the son of Shila came upon Elijah. He said to him, "What does the Holy One, Blessed be He, do?" He said to him, "He says, 'I have heard [this teaching] from the mouth of all the rabbis (ie. this from this rabbi, that from that rabbi, etc.)', and 'from the mouth of Rabbi Meir', He does not say." He said to him, "Why?" Because he learned teachings from the mouth of Acher. He said to him, "Why [is this a disqualification]? Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate; he ate the inside and threw away the peel!" He said to him, "Now He says, 'Meir, my son [instead of 'Rabbi Meir'] says, 'When a person is punished, what does the [Divine] presence articulate? 'I am burdened by my head [which breathed life into the person], I am burdened by my arm [which created the person].' If so, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is pained over the blood of the wicked; logically, <em>a fortiori</em>, [He is pained] over the spilled blood of the righteous.'"
  Shmuel came upon Rav Yehudah, who was leaning on the bolt of a door and crying. He said to him, "Sharp one, why are you crying?" He said to him, "Is it little, what is written about these rabbis, 'Where is the scribe, where is the weigher, where is the counter of the towers (Isaiah 33:18)?' 'Where is the scribe (alt. person who counts)'- that they would count all the letters in the Torah [to make sure future copies did not miss or add letters]. 'Where is the weigher'- that they would weigh out the logical <em>a fortiori</em> arguments in the Torah. 'Where is the counter (alt. person who tells) of the towers'- that they would learn three hundred laws about a tower/closet flying in the air. 
  And Rabbi Ami said, 'Doeg and Achitophel asked three hundred questions about a tower/closet flying in the air [and thus the verse is talking about them].' And it is taught, 'Three kings and four commoners have no share in the World to Come [and two of the commoners are Doeg and Achitophel].' Us, what will happen to us [who know less Torah and are more susceptible to sin]?" He said to him, "Sharp one, they had evil in their hearts."
  Acher, what [led him astray]? A greek song never ceased from his mouth. They said about Acher, that when he would stand up in the house of study, many heretical books would fall from his lap.
  Nimos the weaver asked Rabbi Meir, "[Does] all the wool that goes into the dyeing pot come out [colored]?"  He said to him, "All that were clean by their mother come out [colored]; all that were not clear by their mother do not come out [colored]."
  Rabbi Akiva ascended in peace and descended in peace, and upon him the verse says, "Draw me after you; let us run (Song of Songs 1:4)." And even Rabbi Akiva, the servicing angels wanted to push him [away]. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "Leave this elder alone, for he is worthy to use my honor."
  
  Daf 16a
  
  What did he expound [to not think of Metatron as divine]? Rabba the son of the son of Chana said, "Rabbi Yochanan said,  ''[And you (heb. v'ata)] from the holy myriads (Deuteronomy 33:2)-' he (ie. Metatron) is a symbol (heb. ot) in His myriad.'"
  And Rabbi Abahu said, "'Outstanding (heb. dagul) out of a myriad (Song of Songs 5:10)-' he (ie. Metatron) is an example (heb. dugma) in His myriad."
  And Reish Lakish said, "'Hashem of hosts is his name (Isaiah 48:2)-' he [ie. Metatron] is [merely] a general in his force."
  And Rabbi Chiya the son of Abba [said], "Rabbi Yochanan said, ''Not in the wind was Hashem-- and after the wind was an earthquake-- not in the earthquake was Hashem-- and after the earthquake was a fire-- not in the fire was Hashem-- and after the fire was a still small voice, and behold Hashem passed by (I Kings 19:11).' [Meaning, the impressive sights are not always indicators of the Divine.]'"
  The Rabbis taught: Six things were said about demons: three like the servicing angels, and three like people. Three like the servicing angels: They have wings like the servicing angels, they fly from one end of the world to its [other] end like the servicing angels, and they know what will happen in the future like the servicing angels.
  They know [on their own], you might have thought; Rather, They hear from behind the curtain like the servicing angels.
  And three like humans: They eat and drink like humans, they are fruitful and multiply [ie. they have children] like humans, and they die like humans.
  Six things were said about humans: three like the servicing angels, and three like an animal. Three like the servicing angels: They have knowledge like the servicing angels, the walk upright like the servicing angels, and the speak in the Holy Tongue [ie. hebrew] like the servicing angels. Three like an animal: They eat and drink like an animal, they are fruitful and multiply like an animal, and they relieve themselves like an animal.
  (Mishnah:) Anyone who investigates these four things, it would be better for him not to have been born... (what is above [the edge of the universe], what is below, what is before [creation], and what is after [during the end of days].) (Gemara:) It makes sense [regarding] what is above, what is below, and what is after, but [regarding what happened] before, whatever happened, happened!
  Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer both say, "[It can be explained through an] allegory to a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, 'Build for me great palaces on this garbage heap.' They went and built it for him. It is not the king's will that they mention [that there was] garbage there."
  (Mishnah:) Anyone who does not care about the honor of his Owner, it would have been better for him to not have entered the world. (Gemara:) What is this [referring to]? Rav Abba said, "This is one who stares at a rainbow." Rav Yosef said, "This is one who transgresses a sin in private." One who stares at a rainbow, as it is written, "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD (Ezekiel 1:28)."
  Rav Yosef said, "This is one who transgresses a sin in private;" this is like [a statement of] Rabbi Yitzchak, As Rabbi Yitzchak said, "Anyone who transgresses a sin in private, is as if he is pushing the legs of the [Divine] Presence, as it is said, "Thus said Hashem: the heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool."
  Is that really so? But didn't Rav Ila'a the Elder say, "If a person sees that his [evil] inclination is overpowering him, he should go to a place where they do not recognize him, wear black [clothing] and wrap himself in black [clothing, so as to go unnoticed], and he should do what his heart wants, but he should not profane the Name of Heaven [ie. G-d] in public [whereas he can commit transgressions in private]"? This is not a contradiction. This is where his heart forces him [to commit the sin] and this is where his heart does not force him.
  Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Nachmani, the translator of Reish Lakish, expounded: "All who stare at three things, his eyes are dimmed: At the rainbow, at the Nasi (prince), and at the priests. At the rainbow, as it is written, 'As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain... this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.' At the Nasi, as it is written, 'And you shall put from your honor upon him (Numbers 27:2).' One who looks at the priests [his eyes would dim], at the time that the Temple was standing, for they would stand on their platform and bless Israel with the Tetragrammaton.
  Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Nachmani, the translator of Reish Lakish, expounded: "What is [the meaning] of the verse, 'Do not trust in a friend, do not put confidence in a familiar friend (Micah 7:5)'? If the evil inclination tells you, 'Sin, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, will forgive,' do not trust [him, as it is said], 'do not trust in a friend (heb. Rei'a)'. And there is no [term] 'friend' except for the evil inclination, as it is said, 'For the inclination of the heart of the man is evil (heb. Ra, with same letters as Rei'a) (Genesis 8:21).'
  And there is no [term] 'familiar friend' except for the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is said, "You are the friend of my youth (Jeremiah 3:4).' Maybe you will say, 'Who will testify against me?' The stones and beams of a man's house, they testify against him, as it is said, 'For a stone from the wall will cry out, and a beam from the wood will answer it (Habakkuk 2:11).'"
  And the sages say, "The soul of a person testifies against him, as it is said, 'From that which sleeps in your bosom, guard your mouth (Micah 7:5).' What is the thing that sleeps in the bosom of a man? You should say, this is the soul." R' Zerikah said, "The two accompanying angels, which escort him, they testify against him, as it is said, 'For he shall command his angels to guard you through all your ways (Psalms 91:11).'" [And the sages say,] The limbs of a man testify against him, as it is said, 'And you are My witnesses, Hashem declares, And I am G-d (Isaiah 43:12).'"
  Mishnah: [Yossi] the son of Yoezer says not to lean [on the <em>chagigah</em> offering]; Yosef the son of Yochanan says to lean. Yehoshua the son of Perachia says not to lean; Nitai the Arbelite says to lean. Yehudah the son of Tabbai says not to lean; Shimon the son of Shetach says to lean. Shemai'ah says to lean; Avtaliyon says not to lean. Hillel and Menachem did not argue. Menachem exited, Shammai entered. Shammai says not to lean, Hillel says to lean.
  
  Daf 16b
  
  The first ones [mentioned of the pair] were Princes and their seconds were heads of the court.
  Gemara: The Rabbis taught: The three of the first sets who said not to lean and the two of the final sets who said to lean were Princes, and their seconds were the Heads of the Court; the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, "Yehudah the son of Tabbai was Head of the Court, and Shimon the son of Shetach was Prince."
  What is the source of the [argument over Rabbi Yehudah the son of Tabbai in the] Rabbis' teaching? Rabbi Yehudah the son of Tabbai said, "[May] I [not] see the comfort [of the redemption] if I did not kill a conspiring witness [who was conspiring on his own, without his partner doing so], to refute the Sadducees, who would say, 'Conspiring witnesses are not killed unless the accused is killed.'"
  Rabbi Shimon the son of Shetach said to him, "[May] I [not] see the comfort [of the redemption] if you have not spilled innocent blood, for behold, the Rabbis said, 'Conspiring witnesses are not killed unless they both conspire, and they are not lashed unless they both conspire, and they do not pay money unless they both conspire.'"
  Immediately, Yehudah the son of Tabbai accepted upon himself that he would not issue rulings in law except before Rabbi Shimon the son of Shetach.
  All of his days, Yehudah the son of Tabbai would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed [person], and his voice was heard. The people thought to say that it was the voice of that executed [person]. He said to them, "It is my voice. [You can] know [this from the fact] that tomorrow, he (ie. himself) will die, and his voice will not be heard." 
  Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi, "Or perhaps [the voice stopped because] he had appeased him, or [the dead] took him to the [Heavenly] Court."
  Who does this [story accord with]? If you said [that it accords with] Rabbi Meir, it makes sense, as he said, "Shimon the son of Shetach was the Head of the Court, Rabbi Yehudah the son of Tabbai was the Prince-" this is that he could give a ruling beforef Shimon the son of Shetach [and had only now prohibited himself from this]. Rather, if you said [that it accords with] the Rabbis, who say, "Yehudah the son of Tabbai was the Head of the Court, Shimon the son of Shetach was the Prince-" does the Head of the Court give a ruling before the Prince [and thus, would Rabbi Yehudah the son of Tabbai's undertaking mean anything]?
  No (ie. our assumption is incorrect). What did he accept upon himself? He meant it for [the purpose] of joining [a group that disagreed with Rabbi Shimon the son of Shetach in a vote of the judges], that would not even join a group [that disagreed with Rabbi Shimon the son of Shetach].
  (Mishnah:) Menachem exited, and Shammai entered. (Gemara:) To where did he exit? Abaye said, "He exited to evil culture." Rava said, "He exited to the service of the King." It was also taught like this: Menachem exited to the service of the King, and eighty pairs of students, wearing <em>Sirikon</em> (Royal Robes), exited with him.
  Rav Shemen the son of Abba said, "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'A [Rabbinical law regarding] rest should never be light in your eyes, for [the prohibition of] leaning [on the chagigah-offering] is only because of rest, and the greatest of the generation argued about it.'"
  It is obvious [that one should not violate the principle of rest]! [Rather,] regarding rest that precludes [the performance of] a commandment, [this statement] is necessary.
  This too is obvious! [It is necessary] to refute the one who says, "The [Rabbis] argued regarding leaning itself." It comes and teaches us, that regarding [the priority between a commandment and] rest, they argue.
  Rami the son of Chama said, "Learn from here, that we require leaning with all his strength [for only then would leaning be a violation of a principle of rest]. For if you were to think, 'We do not require all his strength,' what [that is prohibited] is he doing When he leans?
  An objection was raised: "Speak to the sons of Israel ... and he shall lay his hands" - The sons of Israel lay their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not! Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon say: The daughters of Israel may optionally lay their hands.
  Rabbi Yosi said:  Abba Elazar told me, "Once, we had a calf to be brought as a peace offering, and we brought it [the calf] to the Women's Court and the women laid their hands on it. Not because the laying of the hands applies to women, but rather to gratify the women." And if  you would think that the act of laying the hands requires all of one's strength, is the gratification of women sufficient reason to perform work with holy sacrifices? Rather it is not so. We learn from this that we do not require all of one's strength [in the laying of the hands].
  [The Talmud responds:] Actually, I would tell you that all of one's strength is required [to perform the laying of the hands correctly, however the tale of Abba Elazar was describing a case] where he told the women: "Hold your hands lightly!"  If this is true [ie. that the women were told to hold their hands lightly], [what need was there for Abba Elazar to say] "not because the laying of the hands applies to women" Let him simply have said that these women weren't performing the laying of the hands [because they were not pressing down with all of their strength]!
  Rabbi Ammi said, His argument is saying: Firstly and secondly: Firstly, this was not considered leaning of the hands at all. And secondly, [it was done] in order to gratify the women.
  
  Daf 17a
  
  Rav Ashi said, "Even if you say the sides are permissible [for leaning], all that is on the level of the back is like the back."
  Mishnah: The House of Shammai say,  "We may bring peace-offerings but we do not lean on them (on Yom Tov), but not elevation-offerings." And the House of Hillel say, "We may bring peace-offerings and elevation-offerings, and we may lean on them.
  [Regarding] Shavuot falls out on a Friday, the House of Shammai say, "The day of slaughtering [the extra pilgrimage-offerings which could not be offered on that day] is after the Shabbat." And Beit Hillel say, "The day of slaughtering is not after the Shabbat." And they admit that if [Shavuot] fell out on Shabbat, that the day of slaughtering is after Shabbat.
  The High Priest does not wear his vestments, and we may eulogize and fast [on the day of slaughtering that falls out on Sunday], so as to uphold the words of [the Sadducees] who say, "Shavuot is after Shabbat."
  Gemara: Rabbi Elazar said, "Rabbi Oshaiya said, 'From where [do we know] that [Shavuot] has make-up [days] for all seven [days afterwards]? As it is said, 'On the Holiday of Matzot (Pesach), the Holiday of Weeks (Shavuot), and the Holiday of Booths (Sukkot)(Deuteronomy 16:16).' It links Shavuot to Pesach. Just like Pesach has make-up [days] for all seven [days afterwards], so to Shavuot has make-up [days] for all seven [days afterwards].'"
  But I might say, It links [Shavuot] to Sukkot-- Just like Sukkot has make-up [days] for all eight [days afterwards], so to Shavuot has make-up [days] for all eight [days afterwards]? Shmini Atzeret (lit. the eighth [day]) is a holiday in its own right. When do we say that Shmini Atzeret is a holiday in its own right? These words [only apply] regarding <em>PAZA"R KASHA"V</em> (acronym for <em>Payis, Zeman, Regel, Korban, Shir, Beracha</em>, meaning the lots [for the bringing of the offerings], the time-[blessing, ie. <em>She'hechiyanu</em>], the holiday['s consideration as a separate holiday], the offering [of the day], the song [of the holiday], [and] the blessing [of the king]). But regarding make-up [days], it is the make-up [day] of the first [festival, ie. Sukkot]!
  As it is taught [in a Mishnah], "Someone who has not celebrated [with a <em>chagigah</em>-offering] on the first day of the holiday, he may celebrate during the whole festival, and the final day of the holiday."
  If you [try to] catch a large amount, you have not caught it; if you [try to] catch a small amount, you have caught it. [Thus, one should settle with a day for make-up offerings instead of a week.]
  Rather, to what [do we owe] the law? When the Merciful wrote of Sukkot, [It was] to link it to Pesach; just like Pesach requires [staying] overnight [in Jerusalem], so too Sukkot requires [staying] overnight [in Jerusalem].
  And there (ie. regarding Pesach's requirement of staying overnight in Jerusalem), From where [do] we [derive it]?
  
  Daf 17b
  
  As it is written, "And you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents [after having stayed the night] (Deuteronomy 16:7)."
  It is taught [in a Mishnah]: [If] Shavuot falls out on Friday, the House of Shammai say, "The day of slaughtering [the excess pilgrimage-offerings] is after Shabbat. The House of Hillel say, "It does not have a day of slaughtering." What [does that mean]? It doesn't have a day of slaughtering at all? No (ie. it does not), because it does not need a day of slaughtering.
  And what does this teach us? That we bring the offerings on the very day [of the festival]? They have already argued about it once, As it is taught [in a Mishnah], "The House of Shammai say, 'We bring peace-offerings, though we do not lean on them, but not elevation-offerings.' And the House of Hillel say, 'We bring peace-offerings and elevation-offerings, and we lean on them.'"
  We need this statement [that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether there is a make-up slaughtering day], because if [the Mishnah] only taught us this [second statement regarding the permissibility of bringing certain offering on the festival, we would think that] in this case, the House of Shammai say [that you may not bring elevation offerings], because it is possible to bring them the next day; but here [in the case where the next day is Shabbat], they would agree with the House of Hillel.
  And if [the Mishnah] only taught us this [first statement regarding the possibility of a make-up slaughtering day, we would think that] in this case, the House of Hillel say [that there is no slaughtering day], because it is impossible to bring them the next day; but here [in a normal case], they would agree with the House of Shammai [that one may not bring the offerings on Yom Tov].
  
  Daf 18a
  
  
  
  Daf 18b
  
  
  
  Daf 19a
  
  
  
  Daf 19b
  
  
  
  Daf 20a
  
  
  
  Daf 20b
  
  
  
  Daf 21a
  
  
  
  Daf 21b
  
  
  
  Daf 22a
  
  
  
  Daf 22b
  
  
  
  Daf 23a
  
  
  
  Daf 23b
  
  
  
  Daf 24a
  
  
  
  Daf 24b
  
  
  
  Daf 25a
  
  
  
  Daf 25b
  
  
  
  Daf 26a
  
  
        
       
        
  Mishnah: Tax collectors who entered the house, and so too thieves who returned the vessels [they had stolen], they are trusted [when the say], "We did not touch [the items];" and in Jerusalem, they are trusted regarding holy things [despite their stringency]; and during the festival, [they are trusted] even regarding <i>Terumah</i>.
  Gemara: But this [statement] is contradicted [by a baraita]: "Tax collectors who entered the house, the entire house is impure!" It is not a contradiction. This [ruling that the entire house is impure] is when there is a non-Jew among them; this [ruling that they are trusted to say it is pure] is when there is not a non-Jew among them, as it is taught: "If there is a non-Jew among them, they are trusted to say, 'We did not enter,' but they are not trusted to say, 'We entered but did not touch [anything].'"
       
  (Mishnah:) And so too the thieves who returned the vessels: (Gemara:) And it is contradicted [by the following Baraita]: "The thieves who entered inside the house, only the area in which the thieves walked is impure." Rav Pinchas said in the name of Rabba: "When they repent [they are believed]." This can also be inferred, as it is taught [in the Mishnah], 'Who returned the vessels.' [This can be] learned from here.
  (Mishnah:) And in Jerusalem they are trusted regarding holy things: (Gemara:) It was taught [in a Baraita]: "They are trusted regarding [even] large clay vessels with regard to holy things. And all this, why? Because they would not make furnaces in Jerusalem [with which to make vessels, forcing them to trust the <i>Amei Ha'Aretz</i>.
  (Mishnah:) And during the festival, [they are trusted] even regarding <i>Terumah</i>: (Gemara:) From where [is the source of] these words? Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said, "As the verse says, 'And all of the men of Israel gathered to the city as one man, colleagues (Judges 20:11)--' Scripture makes them all [considered] colleagues [who are trusted regarding matters of purity]."
  Mishnah: [Regarding] one who opens [a new] barrel [of wine], and one who begins [selling] his baked goods during the festival, Rabbi Yehudah says: "He may finish [the food after the festival; even though an <i>Am Ha'aretz</i>, who would transmit impurity to the substance when the festival passes, is likely to touch it, it is a necessary concession to be sure that there be food and drink for all the gathered in Jerusalem]." And the Sages say, "He may not finish."
  Gemara: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzchak Napcha sat in the anteroom of Rabbi Yitzchak Napcha. One opened and said, "What is [the law]? That he must leave it for another festival?"
  The other one said to him, "Everyone is touching it with their hand, and you say that he should leave it for another festival?" He said to him, "Until this point, were the hands of everyone not touching it? [And yet it is still considered pure for the holiday's duration!]" He said to him, Is there a comparison (lit. this now)? Until this point, it makes sense-- the impurity of an <i>Am Ha'aretz</i>on a festival, the Merciful One purifies. Rather, now [after the festival is over and before the start of the next festival], it is impure!
  Let us say it is like the [argument of] the Tannaim [in the following baraita], For one teaches,  "He may leave it for another festival." And the other one teaches, "He may not leave it for another festival." What-- is [our argument in the Gemara] not the Tannaitic argument?
  No. This that teaches, 'He may leave it', is [the opinion of the] Rabbi Yehudah, and this that teaches, 'He may not leave it', is [the opinion of] the Sages. But is this logical? Didn't Rabbi Yehudah say, "He may finish [without waiting for the next festival]?" Rather, This [statement] that is taught, "He may not leave it [for the next festival," [is of] Rabbi Yehudah, and this [statement] that is taught, "He may leave it [for the next festival," [is of] the Sages. And what is [the meaning of] 'he may not leave it'? That there is no need to leave it [as he can finish it this festival].
  Mishnah: Once the festival passes, we re-purify the sanctuary. If the festival passes into Friday, they would not re-purify [on that day], due to the honor of the Sabbath [which requires the priests' attention]. Rabbi Yehudah says, Even not on Thursday, because the priests are not available [since they are already preparing for the Sabbath].
  Gemara: It was taught: For the priests are not available to remove the ashes [which had piled up over the festival].
  Mishnah: How do we re-purify the sanctuary? We immerse the utensils that were in the Temple, and we say to [those who are immersing them]: "Be careful
  
  Daf 26b
  
  That you not touch the table."
  All of the vessels which were in the Temple, there are secondary and tertiary [vessels], so that if the first ones become impure, they will bring the secondary [vessels] in their place. All of the vessels which were in the Temple require immersion, except for the golden altar and the copper altar, because they are [considered] as land-- the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: "[They do not require immersion] because they are coated."
  Gemara: It was taught: [They were told,] 'Be careful that you not touch the table or the candelabrum.' And our teacher [in the Mishnah], why did he not teach [regarding the] candelabrum? [Regarding] the table, it is written about it [that it must perform its function] 'constantly (Exodus 25:30)'; [whereas regarding] the candelabrum, it is not written about it 'constantly'.
  And the other one [holds this reasoning]: Since it is written, "And the candelabrum opposite the table (Exodus 26:35)," it is considered like something about whom it is written, 'constantly'. And the other one [explains the verse like so]: That [phrase] is brought to establish [the candelabrum's] location.
  But it should be derived [from the following law], as it is a wooden vessel made to be stationary, and any wooden vessel made to be stationary cannot become impure. What is his reasoning [that he did not cite this law]? We require it to be similar to a sack. Just like a sack can be moved full or empty [and can become impure], so too everything which can be moved full or empty [can become impure].
  This [table] too can be moved full or empty, in accordance with [the statement of] Reish Lakish. For Reish Lakish said, "What is the meaning of the verse, 'Upon the pure table, (Leviticus 24:6)' implying an original assumption that it is [susceptible to becoming] impure.
  And why? It is a wooden vessel made to be stationary, and it cannot become impure! Rather, it teaches that they would raise it and show through it the showbread to pilgrims, and they would say to them, "See how beloved you are before the Omnipresent-- its [freshness at] removal is [the same] as [its freshness at] placement." As Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said, "A great miracle was done with the showbread; like its [freshness at] removal, so [its freshness at] placement, as it is said, "To put bread-- hot on the day of its removal (I Samuel 21:7)."
  But it should be derived from the coating [that the table can become impure]! For isn't it taught, "The table and the side table which were reduced in size, or that he covered them in marble, yet [there was] enough space left to place cups, [the table can become] impure [but when it is completely covered, non-susceptible to impurity]. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Enough space to place slices [of meat].
  And if you say, "Acacia wood is different, for it is important, and not nullified [by the covering],
  
  Daf 27a
  
  For G-d called it wood, as it is written, "The altar-- wood, three cubits high, and its width was two [cubits]; and its corners, width, and walls of wood; and he said to me, 'This is the table that is before G-d (Ezekiel 41:22).'"
  He opened with the altar and closed with the table. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both said: At the time that the Temple stood the altar atoned for a man, now his table atones for him.
  (Mishnah:)  All of the vessels that were in the Temple had second sets, etc. (and third sets, so that if the first vessels were rendered impure, they would bring the second in their place. All the vessels in the Temple required immersion, except for the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they were like [i.e., affixed to] the ground [and thus not susceptible to impurity]; the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer). (Gemara:) The copper altar, as it is written, "Make for me an altar of earth (and the copper altar, being the main one, is thus compared to earth) (Exodus 20:24)." The golden altar, as it is written, "The Menorah and the altars (Numbers 3:31)-" the altars are compared to each other.
  (Mishnah:) And the sages say, "Because they are coated [they do not receive impurity." (Gemara:) The opposite! Since they are coated, they [being metal] can receive impurity! I might say [that the Mishnah means], "And the sages [declare them] impure, because the are coated."
  And if you asked, I could say, The Sages (as if) say to Rabbi Eliezer: What is your opinion? [They are imperceptible to impurity] because they are coated?
  Their plating is nullified with regard to them!
  Rabbi Avahu quoted Rabbi Elazar as having said: The fire of hell does not rule of the scholars, as can be proven by logically extrapolating from a salamander, For just as a salamander, which is the product of fire [rather than fire itself], and one who anoints himself with [the salamander's] blood cannot be harmed by fire, certainly the scholars who's entire bodies are fire [cannot be harmed by fire of hell], as it is written "Is it not that my words are like fire, says God".
  Reish Lakish said: The fire of hell does not rule over the sinners of Israel, as can be proven by logically extrapolating from the golden alter. Just as the golden alter which only the width of a coin's gold, and for all its years fire did not burn it down, certainly the sinners of Israel who are full of [fulfilled] commandments like a pomegranate [cannot be harmed by fire of hell], as it is written, "Your temples are like a split pomegranate (Song of Songs 4:3)." Do not read "Your temples", rather the "empty among you".