חגיגה 16 — Soncino English Talmud

¹— By what Biblical exposition was he able to learn this? Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan said: And He came from the myriads holy — He is the Sign among His myriad. And R. Abbahu said: He is preeminent above ten thousand — He is the Example among His myriad. And Resh Lakish said: The Lord of hosts is His names — He is the Lord among His host. — And R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: But the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was ‘not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And behold, the Lord passed by. Our Rabbis taught: Six things are said concerning demons: in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels; and in regard to three, like human beings. ‘In regard to three they are like the ministering angels’: they have wings like the ministering angels; and they fly from one end of the world to the other like the ministering angels; and they know what will happen like the ministering angels. [You say], ‘They know’ — you cannot mean that! — Rather, they hear from behind the Veil like the ministering angels. ‘And in regard to three, they are like human beings’: they eat and drink like human beings; they propagate like human beings; and they die like human beings. Six things are said of human beings: in regard to three, they are like the ministering angels, and in regard to three, they are like beasts. ‘In regard to three, they are like the ministering angels’: they have understanding like the ministering angels; and they walk erect like the ministering angels; and they can talk in the holy tongue like the ministering angels. ‘In regard to three, they are like beasts’: they eat and drink like beasts; and they propagate like beasts, and they relieve themselves like beasts. WHOSOEVER SPECULATES UPON FOUR THINGS, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD etc. Granted as regards what is above, what is beneath, what [will be] after, that is well. But as regards what was before — what happened, happened! — Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish say: It is like a human king who said to his servants: Build for me a great palace upon the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It is not the king's wish [thenceforth] to have the name of the dunghill mentioned. WHOSOEVER TAKES NO THOUGHT FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS MAKER, IT WERE A MERCY IF HE HAD NOT COME INTO THE WORLD. What does this mean? R. Abba said: It refers to one who looks at the rainbow. R. Joseph said: It refers to one who commits transgression in secret. ‘One who looks at a rainbow’, for it is written: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. R. Joseph said: ‘It refers to one who commits a transgression in secret’, in accordance with R. Isaac's teaching. For R. Isaac said: When anyone commits a transgression in secret, it is as though he thrust aside the feet of the Divine Presence, for it is said: Thus saith the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. But is this so? For behold R. Elai the elder said: If a man sees that his [evil] inclination is prevailing upon him, let him go to a place where he is not known, and put on black garments, and wrap himself up in black garments, and let him do what his heart desires; but let him not profane the Name of Heaven publicly! — There is no contradiction. The one case speaks of one who is able to overcome his [evil] inclination; the other case of one who is not able to overcome his [evil] inclination. R. Judah b. R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: Anyone who looks at three things, his eyes become dim; at the rainbow, and at the Prince, and at the priests. At the rainbow, because 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 Prince, for it is written: And thou shalt put of thy honour upon him. One who looks at the priests — at the time when the Temple existed, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel with the Distinguished Name [of God]. R. Judah son of R. Nahmani, the speaker of Resh Lakish expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a familiar friend. If the evil inclination say to thee: Sin and the Holy One, blessed be He, will pardon, believe it not, for it is said: ‘Trust ye not in a friend’, and ‘friend’ [Rea’] means none other than one's evil inclination, for it is said: For the inclination of man's heart is evil [Ra’]. And ‘familiar friend’ means none other than the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said: Thou art the familiar friend of my youth. Perhaps thou wilt say: Who testifies against me? The stones of a man's home and the beams of his house testify against him, for it is said: For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. But the Sages say: A man's soul testifies against him, for it is said: Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. What is it that lies in a man's bosom? You must say, it is the soul. R. Zerika said: Two ministering angels that accompany him testify against him, for it is said: For He will give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. But the Sages say: A man's limbs testify against him, for it is said: Therefore ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God. MISHNAH. JOSE B. JO'EZER SAYS THAT [ON A FESTIVAL-DAY] THE LAYING ON OF HANDS [ON THE HEAD OF A SACRIFICE] MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; JOSEPH B. JOHANAN SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. JOSHUA B. PERAHIA SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT RE PERFORMED; NITTAI THE ARBELITE SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. JUDAH B. TARBAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; SIMEON A. SHETAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED. SHEMAIAH SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED; ABTALION SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED. HILLEL AND MENAHEM DID NOT DIFFER. MENAHEM WENT FORTH, SHAMMAI ENTERED. SHAMMAI SAYS THAT IT MAY NOT BE PERFORMED; HILLEL SAYS THAT IT MAY BE PERFORMED.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘what did he expound’? i.e., from which verse did R. Akiba learn to distinguish God's Presence so as to avoid Aher's error of dualism, or (according to another interpretation of Rashi) so as not to look in the direction of the Shechinah (Divine Presence)?
^ᵇnote:Deut. XXXIII, 2.
^ᶜnote:v,tu (‘and He came’) is explained as v,tu (‘and His sign’). Jast. translates: ‘He is the ensign among his myriad’. Goldschmidt: ‘He is distinguished among his myriads’.
^ᵈnote:Cant. V, 10.
^ᵉnote:Heb. tndus. There is a play here on the text vccrn kuds (‘pre-eminent among the thousand’) from which tndus is derived. The expositions of the different Rabbis have the common object of showing that God's Presence could be distinguished from his myriad attendants; fine shades of difference are not necessarily to be sought. But for the thought underlying this particular homiletical play, cf. Lev. XIX, 2. Jast. translates: ‘He is exemplified by His myriad (of angels)’, i.e., the Divine nature is recognized indirectly from the nature of His ministering angels, v. Cant. Rab. to V, 9. But this seems hardly in keeping with the line of thought demanded by the context. Goldschmidt: ‘He is marked out among his myriads’.
^ᶠnote:Isa. XLVIII, 2.
^ᵍnote:1 Kings XIX, 11, 12. Thus the Divine Presence could be distinguished from the rest of the theophany.
^ʰnote:.Ibid. v. 11; in the Bible this clause precedes the previous quotation.
^ⁱnote:V. J.E. vol. IV, pp. 514f, and Nachmanides on Lev. XVII, 7.
^ʲnote:Prescience is a divine attribute,
^ᵏnote:V. p. 95, n. 10.
^ˡnote:The power of learning to speak the Hebrew language is common to all men.
^ᵐnote:The wording here is slightly different from the Mishnah text (s.v.), but does not alter the meaning.
^ⁿnote:Cf. p. 59, n. 7 and Deut. XXXIII, 27.
^ᵒnote:I.e., in the hereafter.
^ᵖnote:I.e., it is no longer a secret.
^ᵠnote:The dunghill here represents the primordial chaos; the palace, ordered creation.
^ʳnote:Ezek. I, 28. Since the rainbow was symbolic of the Divine Glory, it was irreverent to gaze at it.
^ˢnote:Isa. LXVI, 1. But he that sins in secret denies this, for he implies that God has no access to his hiding-place.
^ᵗnote:In the hope that exile and mourning clothes (cf. Shab. 114a, Jannai's request) would cool his passion and cause him to abandon his wicked intention.
^ᵘnote:To produce a serious frame of mind; cf p. 88, n. 9.
^ᵛnote:I.e., should his passion remain unmastered, let him at least commit the sin in secret. But R. Hananel deprecates the thought that the Talmud permits sin even in such circumstances and interprets our passage thus: certainly the effect of exile and dark garments will be to conquer the man's evil inclination, so that he will then be able to do what his heart truly desires, i.e., serve God.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘bend’.
^ˣnote:Methurgeman. Lit., ‘interpreter’, used here in the sense of Amora, ‘speaker’; v. J.E. vol. VIII, p. 521.
^ʸnote:Heb. Nasi; v. infra p. 105, n. 6.
^ᶻnote:Ezek. I, 28.
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. XXVII, 20. Moses’ face could not be gazed at; v. Ex. XXXIV, 29-35. A part of Moses’ honour belonged not merely to Joshua but to every Jewish leader.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. J.E. vol. V, p. 9 (s.v. Dukan).
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., pronounced the Shem ha-meforash, the Tetragrammaton (vuvh), instead of the usual substitute hbst when uttering the sacerdotal blessing. Num. VI, 24-26. cf. Sot. VII, 6; and Sanh. 90a (Sonc. ed., p. 602). The exact meaning of the term Shem ha-meforash is obscure: v. Levy and Jast and J.E. vol. XI, pp. 262f. Tosaf, (a.l.) points out that outside the Temple too, e.g., in the provinces, it was forbidden to look at the priests during the pronouncement of the sacerdotal blessing, the reason according to the J.T. being to prevent the distraction of the people's attention.
^ᵃᵈnote:Mic. VII, 5.
^ᵃᵉnote:E.V. ‘imagination’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Gen. VIII, 21, Only the vowels differentiate gr(friend) from gr(evil).
^ᵃᵍnote:Jer. III, 4.
^ᵃʰnote:Hab. II, 11.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ps. XCI, 11.
^ᵃʲnote:In Ta'an. the reading is, ‘Some say’ = R. Nathan (v. Hor. 13b; cf. p. 14, n. 5).
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., ye yourselves (sc. your very bodies) testify to your own sins.
^ᵃˡnote:Isa. XLIII, 12.
^ᵃᵐnote:In Tem. 16a: Joseph b. Jo'ezer. For the successive generations of scholars mentioned here v. Aboth I, 4-12 (Sonc. ed., pp. 3-8 and nn. a.l.).
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Lev, 1, 4.
^ᵃᵒnote:The same restrictions regarding work applied to Festival-days as to the Sabbath, except in respect of work essential to the preparation of food, which was permitted on the Festivals (v. Bez. V, 2). Now the ‘laying on of the hands’ had to be performed with all one's strength, so that the weight of the person was supported by the animal; and this was considered an infringement of the Sabbath rule not ‘to make use’ of an animal. The point of the controversy, therefore, is this: Had the laying on of the hands to be done immediately prior to the slaughter, and consequently could be regarded as essential to the preparation of food, i.e., the sacrificial meal; or could this be done on the preceding day, so that the profanation of the holyday by this act became unnecessary, although the slaughtering took place on the Festival day? V. Bez. II, 4 and Bertinoro a.l.
^ᵃᵖnote:In the J. Hag. II, 2 we are told: At first there was no controversy in Israel except over the laying on of the hands alone. But Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four (in Bab. Shab. 14b, only three points of dispute are mentioned; cf. Tosaf. to our passage). When the disciples of the School of Hillel increased, and they did not study sufficiently under their masters (lit., ‘did not sufficiently minister to their masters’), the controversies in Israel increased, and they became divided into two companies, the one declaring unclean, the other declaring clean. And (the Torah) will not again return to its (uncontroversial) place until the son of David (i.e., the Messiah) will come. For the meaning and importance of this controversy v. further Weiss, Dor I, 103f; Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam pp. 43-44; Jacob Levi, in Ozar Nehmod III, Vienna 1860. [The controversy has also been ingeniously interpreted as referring to the question of ‘acceptance of authority’ and not the laying on of hands. V. Zeitlin, JQR, (N.S.) VII, pp. 499ff; Sidon A, Gedenkbuck Kaufmann, pp. 355ff and Bornstein, A. Hatekufah IV, p. 396.]
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., of Arbel, on the borders of Lake Galilee. V. Ab. I, 6 (Sonc. ed., p. 5, n. 3.).
^ᵃʳnote:This pair is exceptional in so far as the first Sage permits and the second prohibits.
^ᵃˢnote:V. p. 108.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., in the former's place as Head of the Court.

²THE FORMER [OF EACH] PAIR WERE PRINCES AND THE LATTER WERE HEADS OF THE COURT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The three of the former pairs who said that the laying on of the hands may not be performed, and the two of the latter pairs who said that it may be performed, were Princes, and the others were Heads of the Court — this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court, and Simeon b. Shetah was Prince. Who taught the following teaching of our Rabbis? R. Judah b. Tabbai said: May I see consolation, if I did not have a Zomem -witness put to death as a demonstration against the Sadducees who said that Zomemim-witnesses were not to be put to death unless [through their false evidence] the accused had [already] been put to death. Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: May I see consolation, if thou didst not shed innocent blood. For the Sages said: Zomemim-witnesses are not put to death until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not flogged until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not ordered to pay money [as damages] until both of them have been proved Zomemim. Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to give a decision except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah. All his days Judah b. Tabbai prostrated himself on the grave of the executed man, and his voice used to be heard. The people believed that it was the voice of the executed man; [but] he said to them: ‘It is my voice. Ye shall know this [by the fact that] on the morrow [when] I die my voice will not be heard’. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: But perhaps he appeased him, or [the deceased] summoned him to judgment! — According to whom will this be? Granted, if you say [it is according to] R. Meir, who said that Simeon b. Shetah was Head of the Court [and] R. Judah b. Tabbai was Prince, that is why he decided points of law in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah; but if you say [it is according to] the Rabbis, who say that Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court [and] Simeon b. Shetah was Prince, how may the Head of the Court decide points of law in the presence of the Prince! — No,’he undertook’ is to be understood with reference to association. [He said]: I will not even join [with other judges to give a decision, unless Simeon b. Shetah is present]. MENAHEM WENT FORTH AND SHAMMAI ENTERED etc. Whither did he go forth? Abaye said: He went forth into evil courses. Raba said: He went forth to the King's service. Thus it is also taught: Menahem went forth to the King's service, and there went forth with him eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk. R. Shimon b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: Never let [the principle] of Shebuth [Rest] be unimportant in thy eyes. For the laying on of the hands [on a Festival-day] is [prohibited] only on account of Shebuth, yet the great men of the age differed thereon. But is this not already quite clear! — It is required on account of a precept [the fulfilment of which is prohibited] as Shebuth. But is not that too quite clear! — [It is required] to contradict the view that they differ regarding the laying on of the hands itself: thus he teaches us that it is in regard to Shebuth that they differ. Rami b. Hama said: You can deduce from this that the laying on of hands must be done with all one's strength; for if you suppose that one's whole strength is not required, what [work] does one do by laying on the hands? An objection was raised: [It is written]: Speak unto the sons of Israel . . . and he shall lay his hands. The sons of Israel lay on the hands but the daughters of Israel do not lay on the hands. R. Jose and R. Simeon say: The daughters of Israel lay on the hands optionally. R. Jose said: Abba Eleazar told me: Once we had a calf which was a peace-sacrifice, and we brought it to the Women's Court, and women laid the hands on it — not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women, but in order to gratify the women. Now if you suppose that we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, would we, for the sake of gratifying the women, permit work to be done with holy sacrifices! Is it to be inferred, therefore, that we do not require all one's strength? — Actually, I can answer you that we do require [it to be] with all one's strength, [but the women] were told to hold their hands lightly. If so, [what need was there to say], ‘not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women’? He could [more simply] have pointed out that it was no laying on of the hands at all! R. Ammi said: His argument runs: Firstly and secondly. Firstly, it was no laying on of the hands at all, and secondly, it was [done] In order to gratify the women. R. Papa said: One may conclude from this that it is forbidden [on a holy day to make use of] the sides [of an animal]. For if you suppose that it is permitted [to make use of] the sides, let the hands be laid on the side. It must be concluded, therefore, that it is forbidden to make use of the sides.38^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ

^ᵃᵘnote:Heb. Nasi, i.e., President of the Sanhedrin. V. J.E. vol. IX, pp. 171-2; and Strack's Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, p. 1072, n. 3.
^ᵃᵛnote:Heb. Ab beth din, Father of the Court; i.e., Vice-president of the Sanhedrin; cf. p. 75, n. 5.
^ᵃʷnote:Heb. ,uduz (Zugoth), Grk. **. The term is applied only to the five pairs of leading teachers mentioned in our Mishnah (cf. Pe'ah II, 6); they were followed by the period of the Tannaim (v. Glos.). V. Ab. I, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 3. n. 8); and supra p. 105, n. 6.
^ᵃˣnote:[Var. lec. rightly omit: ‘R’].
^ᵃʸnote:A euphemistic form of oath, meaning, ‘may I not live to see the consolation of Zion’. According to this explanation (given by Tosaf. and Jast.), Judah b. Tabbai and his colleague looked forward to fuller restoration of Israel's glory than was achieved in their day, v. Mak., Sonc. ed., p. 27, n. 7. Levy, however, trans: ‘May I not behold the eternal salvation (ewige Heil) etc.’; and Rashi (Mak. 5b, the alternative explanation), interprets thus: He swore by the life of his children; might he receive condolences on their passing (if etc.).
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘planning (evil)’. with reference to Deut. XIX, 19; hence the technical name for false witnesses whose evidence has been refuted by other witnesses testifying that the former were with them at another place at the time of the crime, v. Mak. 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 19f). If the Zomemim secure by their false testimony the conviction (but not the punishment) of an innocent person, the Rabbis held them to be amenable to the law of retaliation; v. Deut. XIX, 21 and Mak. 5b (Sonc. ed., p. 25).
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘in order to remove (the false opinion) from their heart’.
^ᵇᵇnote:V. the usual works of reference, and R. Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaer.
^ᵇᶜnote:V. Deut. XXV, 2-3 and Mak. 22af(Sonc. ed., p. 155f, and notes a.l).
^ᵇᵈnote:Each of the three punishments referred to is retaliatory, i.e., the Zomemim-witness had intended to secure a false conviction involving the said penalty. The flogging of Zomemim-witnesses, however, may not always represent the carrying out of the lex talionis: lashes were sometimes inflicted as a substitute penalty; cf. Mak. I, If.
^ᵇᵉnote:Who would correct him, if necessary.
^ᵇᶠnote:The text is idiomatically in the third person.
^ᵇᵍnote:I.e., Judah b. Tabbai.
^ᵇʰnote:R. Aha's point is that the cessation of the voice on Judah b. Tabbai's death is no proof that it was his. For the phenomenon might be explained in this way: whilst Judah was alive, the wrongfully executed man cried out his protest from the grave; but when Judah b. Tabbai died he ceased to call either because he had been appeased by him, or because he had now been able to summon him before the Heavenly Tribunal.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., the Baraitha about Judah b. Tabbai.
^ᵇʲnote:Cf. the principle invoked against the youthful Samuel in Ber. 31b (Whoever decides a point of law in the presence of his teacher deserves death). Cf. also J. Hag. II, 2 ed. 77d, where historical evidence is cited in favour of the view that Judah b. Tammai was Prince, and also in support of the opposite opinion (Tosaf.).
^ᵇᵏnote:So Rashi; but Tosaf. explains that he undertook never to join in voting against R. Simeon b. Shetah's opinion. According to either interpretation, the purpose of the answer is to show that Judah b. Tabbai could have been the Head of the Court, for his vow did not imply that he ever gave or proposed to give a decision in the presence of his superior, the Nasi.
^ᵇˡnote:V. p. 94 n. 3
^ᵇᵐnote:,uca, lit., ‘rest, abstention from secular occupation’, hence, ‘an occupation, on the Sabbath and Festivals, forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebrations of the day’ (Jast.) Cf. Ex. X, 3, 15.
^ᵇⁿnote:V. Bez. V, 2. By laying on the hands on an animal with pressure, one ‘makes use of it’, and therefore infringes the principle of Shebuth, just as much, as by riding on it, which is prohibited in the above Mishnah.
^ᵇᵒnote:I.e., Shebuth is clearly mentioned in the Mishnah; v. n. 3.
^ᵇᵖnote:Otherwise one might have thought that the importance of the religious act would override the prohibition of Shebuth.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e., from the Mishnah; v. n.3
^ᵇʳnote:V. Bez. 20a, where the opinion of R. Jose b. R. Judah is mentioned, viz., that the point of difference between Shammai and Hillel is whether obligatory peace-offerings require laying on of hands, the view of Shammai being that only freewill-offerings require it.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘hear from it!’, i.e., from R. Johanan's statement, which makes Shebuth the ultimate point of dispute in the Mishnah.
^ᵇᵗnote:All should agree, therefore, to permit it on the holy day.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lev. I, 2-4.
^ᵇᵛnote:This, and not ‘R. Ishmael’, is the correct reading; cf. ‘Er. 96b, and R.H. 33a, etc.
^ᵇʷnote:I.e., it is neither an obligatory precept (vcuj) nor a meritorious religious act (vumn), but a religiously indifferent act which women are permitted to perform for their own gratification.
^ᵇˣnote:V. Mid. II,5.
^ᵇʸnote:So that they should feel that they have had a share, like men, in the sacrificial rites of their offering.
^ᵇᶻnote:Laying on the hands with all one's strength is work (cf. p. 108, n. 3), which must not be performed with animals once they have been dedicated to the Temple. (Cf. Deut. XV, 19 and Bek. II, 2-3).
^ᶜᵃnote:Lit., ‘cause to float’.
^ᶜᵇnote:[MS. M.: ‘Thus he says not that the laying on of hands by women is deemed valid, since there was no laying on of hands at all, but (the object was) to gratify the women’. A reading which is preferable to that of cur. edd. V. D.S.]
^ᶜᶜnote:V. p. 108, n. 8.
^ᶜᵈnote:Similarly of the sides of a tree etc.; v. Shab. 154b-155a, and p. 108, n. 3.
^ᶜᵉnote:[Rashi reads simply: ‘Let the hands be laid on’, i.e., since the head on which the laying on of the hands is done is like the sides of the animal.]
^ᶜᶠnote:Actually, the laying on of the hands had to be performed on the side, i.e., of the head.