Талмуд к Моэд катан 3:14

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place⁵That the husband had some information that his wife met the man forbidden to her.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place⁶If there is not even a single witness against her.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding⁷There is no difference of interpretation between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish; the latter only follows the opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 1:1.. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously⁸The opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana⁹R. Mana I.: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if¹⁰This is the reading of the Mishnah in the Babli, which can be read as meaning that if the wife is the talk of the town, even a rumor of unknown origin forces the husband to divorce his wife. she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There¹¹‘Orlah, Chapter 2, Note 30., Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so¹²If Mishnah 6:1 is stated anonymously, it would imply that in Mishnah 1:1 practice follows R. Eliezer. However, it is evident not only that general practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer but also that in the case of the suspected wife, two witnesses of her misbehavior are needed to prohibit her to her husband. Therefore, the argument that R. Joshua only makes an anonymous statement precise is invalid.?

Something happened⁷A close relative died. By rabbinic convention, the mourner cannot leave his house for the first seven days after burial; he does not shave for thirty days. R. Immi considered the 30 days’ period of the nazir as a paradigm for the 30 day period of the mourner. to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30^th day, and something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 31^st day⁸He was inconsistent in his actions.. Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rebbi Immi learned this from the Mishnah, as we have stated there⁹Mishnah 2.: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31^st day, for the second on the 61^st day¹⁰The argument is from the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “But if he shaved for the first on the 30^th day, he shaves for the second on the 60^th” (cf. Note 6)..” Rebbi Yose said, there when it happened, here from the start¹¹R. Yose criticizes R. Immi. The Mishnah requires the nazir to shave on his 31^st day; it only legitimizes shaving on the 30^th after the fact. But R. Immi shaved on the 30^th on his own initiative. R. Zeriqa seems to hold that what is acceptable after the fact in biblical rules is permitted from the start in rabbinic usage.. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Isaac Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30^th day, following the Mishnah¹²Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5. “If somebody buried his relative three days before a holiday, the seven-day rule is waived for him. Eight days, the 30 day rule is waived for him, as they said: Sabbath is counted but does not interrupt, holidays interrupt but do not count.” If somebody was mourning for three days before the holiday, he does not have to continue the intense mourning period after the holiday; he continues with the remainder of the 30-day period. Similarly, if he was keeping at least one day of mourning after the seven-day period, the holiday cancels the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. (The Babli, Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, reduces the 8 day period to 7 since “part of a day is like a whole day” and the 30-day period starts on the seventh.): “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30^th day¹³The argument here goes as follows: If the 8th day of mourning was holiday eve, the mourner can shave in the afternoon in preparation for the holiday. The time elapsed from dawn to the afternoon is counted as a full day for him. Therefore, the person who shaves on the 30^th day can nevertheless count the entire 30^th day as being part of his mourning period.. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his eighth day falls on the Sabbath, he shaves Sabbath eve. If you say that they did not permit in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30^th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve¹⁴Nobody allows the mourner to shave on the 29th day. (Quoted by Tosaphot Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, s. v. הלכה).. In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan had said¹⁵Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5 (82b 1. 10), 3:8 (83d 1. 23); Babli 22b.: “For all deceased¹⁶Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”? he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30^th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way¹⁶Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”?.

¹⁴There exists a copy of this paragraph in Horaiot 3:2 (ה). It is missing in the Yerushalmi reproduced in the editio princeps of the Babli. A different version is in Midrash Samuel 7(5). Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status¹³This is unknown to the Babli.. Rebbi Mana said, it is written⁵Lev. 21:12.: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity¹⁵The two other sources read: I in My Greatness, also Aaron in his greatness. R. Abun said (Lev. 21:8), holy he shall be to you, if one could compare it, as I Am in My Holiness, so Aaron is in his holiness.. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him¹⁶In the two other sources: by a court of three judges. The sequel requires this text.. If you would say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation¹⁷Since so many people would sit in judgment over him.. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses, if one would return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince¹⁸R. Jehudah II. heard this and became angry. He sent Goths¹⁹Following the reading of the other two sources. Krauss conjectures that the inserted נ indicates nasal pronunciation, but by the evidence of the other two sources גנתון instead of גותיין seems to be a scribal error. [Instead of Goths they might have been Gaetuli, a people from Northwestern Africa (E. G.).] to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim²⁰Magdala is on Lake Genezareth, Kefar Hittim in the hills overlooking Tiberias.. The next day, Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. said to him, why is the master not²²Translated following G. telling us words of instruction? He²³R. Johanan. started clapping with one hand. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. asked, does one clap with one? He²³R. Johanan. answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing²⁴Following the text of the other two sources. The text of the Leiden ms. is unintelligible.. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. told him, I shall free him. He²³R. Johanan. said to him, in Magdala. He²¹R. Jehudah the Prince. told him, tomorrow I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare²⁵Translated following G. The text of the other two sources, “get rich”, does not make much sense. for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt]²⁶Added from the other two sources., He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt²⁷Ex. 12:12., He and all His Court²⁸Translated following Eliahu Fulda and H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s Dictionary. A similar explanation of the verse is found in the Passover Haggadah (Mekhilta dR.Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 23; cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 298–299.)
Here ends the Geniza fragment. The text in Horaiot has additions both at this point and at the end of the paragraph which, while relevant, in the absence of a confirming Genizah text cannot be added here.. He asked him, why did you say these things²⁹About whipping the Patriarch.? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good³⁰1S. 2:24. The explanation of the verse is missing; it is given in Horaiot. The verse about the misdeeds of Eli’s sons ends, מַעֲבִיריִם עַם יי [the information]spread about by the Eternal’s people, which he interprets as being removed by the Eternal’s people, implying that the High Priest has to be removed if he sins..

We do not rend the garments or bare the shoulder,¹⁸Cf. Rashi to M.Ḳ. 22b (Sonc. ed., p. 140). R. Meir of Rothenberg explains the word ḥoleẓin in the usual sense of ‘removing the shoes’. or deliver a memorial address, or bring the coffin into the house until he dies.¹⁹These things should be avoided so as not to frighten the dying person.

²⁴In addition to the Beṣah text (צ), this paragraph also is in Moˋed qaṭan 3:1 (81d line 27,ק). Babli 53a, Berakhot 19a, Beṣah23a. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights, the Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

“The Epicurean.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar, one said, like him who said “this book⁷⁵Speaking of the Torah.”, and one said, like him who said “these rabbis⁷⁶In a contemptuous way. In the Babli 100a, a person is defined as Epicurean who is not sufficiently respectful towards his teacher.”. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Naḥman, one said, [it⁷⁷The influence of an Epicurean. is comparable] to a stone cupola. If one stone is weakened, all are weakened. The other said, [it is comparable] to a house full of chaff. Even if one removes it from there one finds that it weakened the walls.

It was stated: From earlier times²⁴⁰Meaning that the text is traditional; its first author is unknown. The parallel in Moˋed qatan 3:5 (82a l. 48) does not have the introduction. [The text in Moˋed qatan is somewhat shortened in the Leiden ms. and editio princeps but the full text is in the Ashkenazic fragments published by J. Sussman, Kobez al Yad 12(1994) p.70.] A somewhat enlarged text in the Babli, Yebamot 39b. is ascribed to R. Jehudah., one was writing documents of ḥalîṣah²⁴¹Needed by the widow to be able to remarry in another jurisdiction.: Before X and V²⁴²There should be three names mentioned here since the court must have three members. did Z daughter of U perform ḥalîṣah for V son of W, by coming before us, removing his shoe from his right foot, spitting before us visible spittle on the ground, and saying: So shall be done to the man unwilling to build his brother’s house²⁴³Deut. 25:9..

MISHNAH: The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above¹⁹⁸Rending one’s garment is a required mourning rite for a close relative (as defined in Lev. 21:2–3). The High Priest is forbidden any mourning rites, including rending his garment (Mishnah 5). One allows him to make a tear at the bottom of his robe where nobody will notice it.. The High Priest sacrifices while in deep mourning but does not eat; the common priest neither sacrifices nor eats¹⁹⁹“Deep mourning” is the time between the death of a close relative and his burial (on the same day or the following night). Since the High Priest is forbidden to leave the Sanctuary (Lev. 21:12) he must be permitted to officiate. But eating sancta while in deep mourning is forbidden to everybody (Deut. 26:14), including the High Priest (Lev. 10:19–20). The common priest is required to defile himself for the burial of a close relative (Lev. 21:1–2); automatically he is excluded from the Sanctuary and all its service..

“Even though there are [marks] on his body and his clothing.” Did one not state: From where that if your fellow man is lost, you return him both body and property⁵⁷The verse to which this refers is not indicated; it probably refers to Deut. 22:2 where the obligation to return a find is extended to include helping a person who is lost, since the end of the verse may be read “return him to himself.” The essence of the verse is interpreted to mean that the obligation to return property exists only after the person who claims to be the owner was examined as to the validity of this claim (Sifry Deut. 223; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7); in Midrash Tannaïm (Midrash Haggadol Deut, ed. S. Fisch, p. 486) the implication is that one is required the look after the medical needs of indigents and travelers.. These sources imply that examination of marks on bodies and property is accepted in biblical law. Then the question is how the Mishnah here can declare this kind of investigation as invalid. The answer given here (and in the Babli, 120b and Baba Meṣi‘a 27b) is that after death, bodily marks will rapidly change. The Babli in Baba Meṣi‘a adds that clothing or documents found on a corpse are no proofs of identity since they may belong to someone else.? There is a difference, because marks are apt to change.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.¹⁷⁹Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away¹⁸⁰The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate¹⁸¹The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead¹⁸²The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted¹⁸³Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []¹⁸⁴There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”¹⁸⁵Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving¹⁸⁶For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse¹⁸⁷Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined¹⁸⁸Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven¹⁸⁹While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..

Rebbi Berekhia, Rebbi Ḥelbo, Ulla from Bireh, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina⁶⁸This has no material connection with the preceding text; it is added because it is a tradition of Ulla from Bireh as is the preceding one. A parallel text is in Moed qatan 3:7 (in two texts, קר), shortened in the Babli, Ta`anit 31a, Midrash Ps., Ps. 48[5].: In the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will lead a circular dance for the Just ones. What is the reason? Put your hearts to its walls⁶⁹Ps. 48:14., it is written “to its circular dance.⁷⁰This reading is not found in masoretic texts.” And the Just one will point with their finger and say, Truly, He is GOD, our Power, Forever; He will lead us beyond death⁷¹Ps. 48:15.! Almut, in strength, [in agility.]⁷²Corrector’s addition from Megillah. Almut, like these girls. Akilas translated ’αθανασία, a world without death. And the Just one will point with their finger and say, Truly, He is GOD, our Power, Forever; He will lead us beyond death! He will lead us in this world, He well lead us in the future⁷³“Lead us in worlds” is the translation of LXX..

What does it help²⁴⁵How does the fact that his father was as learned as his teacher change the argument of the Mishnah?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if half of his learning was from one and half of his learning from the other. His father’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence²⁴⁶As long as his mother was married to his father, his father has precedence since his wife also is bound to honor him (Mishnah Keritut 6:9). But the divorced mother in all respects is equal to the father (Babli Qiddušin 31a). If the father was also the teacher then he had precedence as teacher. But if he was only a partial teacher, is his claim strong enough or does the son still have the choice whom to help first?? Does his father’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His teacher’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence²⁴⁸Is the teacher who taught him half his learning the teacher in the sense of the Mishnah or not?? Does his teacher’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His lost property, and his father’s lost property, and his mother’s lost property, and his teacher’s lost property. His own precedes his father’s, his father’s his mother’s, and his mother’s his teacher’s. Is that not a Mishnah, “the man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to return his lost property”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there²⁴⁹The language implies that the statements in question are tannaitic, similar to the first part of Tosephta Horaiot 2:5.. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there. He, and his mother, and his teacher, and his father, were in captivity. He precedes his mother, his mother his teacher, and his teacher his father²⁵⁰Babli 13a.. Is that not a Mishnah, “but the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there.

“Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will make them stumble in the future.” Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated²⁷⁹Cf. Mo`ed qatan 3:1, Ta`aniot3:12.. Rebbi Jehudah the baker²⁸⁰This attribution seems to be correct and the quote in the Babli 22a has to be corrected accordingly. said, Heaven forbid that Rebbi Aqiba was excommunicated; but it was the head of Gader²⁸¹This name was introduced into the text by the corrector from the Babli. In the ms. ג()ר was written by the scribe; the middle letter was erased by the corrector and replaced by ד. Therefore the name certainly is incorrect, also because talmudic Gadara is on the East side of Lake Genezareth, far from the road to Jabneh. Therefore most likely the name is Gezer, a district capital on the road from Lydda to Jabneh. In the Babli one has to read גֶדֶֿר, with dh indistinguishable in sound from z. (Places Haggedera, Gederotaim, Gederot mentioned Jos. 15:37.41.); Rabban Gamliel sent and removed him from his headship.

There¹²⁶In Babylonia. In the Babli, 39b, the text of the ḥalîṣah document given to the widow is ascribed to Rav Jehudah. In the Tosephta, 12:15, it is quoted as “old text”., they say: “She came before us, stripped his shoe from his right foot, spat before us spittle that was visible on the ground, and said: ‘So should be done to a man who would not build his brother’s house.’ ” Rebbi Abbahu said, since the spittle was visible when it left her mouth it is valid, even if the wind dissipated it¹²⁷He disapproves of the formulation that the spittle has to be seen on the ground.. If she spat blood? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turned to it, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Abba bar Abba¹²⁸He probably is Samuel’s father., Rebbi Ze‘ira turned to it in the name of Samuel: If it contains some liquid spittle, it is valid¹²⁹In the Babli, 105a, no spittle is required since the verse simply says “she shall spit”, not “she shall spit spittle”.. How does the handless [woman] perform ḥalîṣah? With her teeth¹³⁰Agreed to in the Babli, 105a, since the verse requires only that the shoe be stripped off but does not prescribe the way it should be done..

HALAKHAH: Who²⁷⁷This entire discussion belongs to the third chapter of tractate Moëd Qaṭan (Halakhah 5, fol. 62d). There are some textual differences between the two texts, an occurrence rare in the Yerushalmi. But in fact the deviations of the text here from its original in Moëd Qaṭan are all scribal or printer’s errors, as is shown from the Rome ms. and the Genizah fragments. Therefore, the text here follows the Moëd Qaṭan text wherever there is manuscript evidence from Berakhot to support that version. stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan²⁷⁸Usually known as Nathan the Babylonian, a Babylonian from the Davidic family, second in the Synhedrion under Rabban Simeon ben Gamliël.. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi²⁷⁹A close relative of Rebbi Ammi died, for whom he had to mourn for seven days., he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose²⁸⁰The fourth generation Amora. It seems that Rebbi Yose felt uncomfortable with the prohibition of bathing; he sent one of his students to ask Rebbi Aḥa, the greatest authority in Lydda, in Judea. In the next section, it will be seen that in the South, in Judea, one did not follow Rebbi Nathan and allowed bathing for the mourner. Nevertheless, Rebbi Aḥa did not want to interfere with the prohibition accepted in Galilee and answered not with his own opinion but with a note that Rebbi Yose himself had taught about two cases where the question had come up in Galilee and was answered in the sense of Rebbi Nathan.; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish²⁸¹Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; the abbreviation “Resh Laqish” is standard in the Babli but very infrequent in the Yerushalmi. The abbreviation probably is that of a lazy copyist. who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him²⁸²Rebbi Yose to Rebbi Aḥa, that maybe this was only one occasion reported under two different names and, therefore, represents only the opinion of one teacher and not a generally accepted rule that would need at least two supporting authorities., maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following²⁸³This is Rebbi Aḥa’s answer: Even if you do not agree that Rebbi Ammi asked twice, for two different cases of mourning, and was given the same answer by two different authorities, I have a completely independent occurrence in which Galilean rabbis gave the same ruling and, therefore, you have to accept it.: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama²⁸⁴He is the third generation Amora, father of Rebbi Oshaya the second., father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

Does one rend his garment nowadays²³³Since the pronunciation of the Name is unknown, an obligation to rend one’s garments would imply that it applies to substitutes of the Name. The paragraph has a parallel in Mo`ed qatan 3:6, 83b l. 38.? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending²³⁴The same statement in the Babli 60a in the name of R. Hiyya (bar Abba). The implication is that the status of substitute names is the same as that of the Name.. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies²³⁵The scribe wrote הדא אמרה “this implies”. The corrector added מילתיה but then forgot to cross out הדא. One should read either “his word” or “this”. that one rends for substitute names²³⁶Disagreeing with R. Joḥanan and the latter’s student R. Hiyya bar Abba. and rends his garments at the present time.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah¹⁰⁶When the decision about rainfall was delegated by God to Elijah (1K. 17:1; cf. Sanhedrin 10:2, Notes 147ff.)., would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public¹⁰⁷If the decision had been given into the hands of another holy man, his prayer would have been ineffective and people would conclude that prayer is ineffective and stop praying.? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.]¹⁰⁸Corrector’s addition; totally garbled copy from Roš Haššanah 1:5, Note 279. He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person¹⁰⁹This is the standard interpretation of Ps. 145:19, the pleasure of those who fear Him He will do and similar verses as explained in the next paragraph. Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 16b.? He said to him, [yes]¹¹⁰Corrector’s addition, unnecessary.. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague¹¹¹This is the essence of the reference to Elijah..

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not answer ‘Amen’ in the Temple. What did they say? ‘Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.’ And from where that one does not answer ‘Amen’ in the Temple? The verse says¹⁷⁹Neh. 9:5., Arise, praise the Eternal, your God, forever and ever. From where for every single benediction? The verse says, and exalted over all praise and glory.¹⁸⁰Tosephta 1:11. Babli 16b, Berakhot 63a, Soṭa40b; Yerushalmi Berakhot9:7 (Notes 278–280).”