Chullin

what would be the law according to the view of R. Hanina b. Papa?1 Since ‘after its kind’ is not expressly stated with regard to plants one should not be liable; or, seeing that the Lord approved of their action, it is regarded as if ‘after its kind’ were expressly stated [and one would be liable]. The question remains undecided. R. Simeon b. Pazzi pointed out a contradiction [between verses]. One verse says: And God made the two great lights,2 and immediately the verse continues: The greater light . . . and the lesser light. The moon said unto the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown’? He answered: ‘Go then and make thyself smaller’. ‘Sovereign of the Universe’! cried the moon, ‘Because I have suggested that which is proper must I then make myself smaller’? He replied: ‘Go and thou wilt rule by day and by night’. ‘But what is the value of this’? cried the moon; ‘Of what use is a lamp in broad daylight’? He replied: ‘Go. Israel shall reckon by thee the days and the years’. ‘But it is impossible’, said the moon, ‘to do without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons, as it is written: And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years’.3 ‘Go. The righteous shall be named after thee4 as we find, Jacob the Small,5 Samuel the Small,6 David the Small’,7 On seeing that it would not be consoled the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Bring an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller’. This is what was meant by R. Simeon b. Lakish when he declared: Why is it that the he-goat offered on the new moon is distinguished in that there is written concerning it unto the Lord?8 Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let this he-goat be an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller. R. Assi pointed out a contradiction [between verses]. One verse says: And the earth brought forth grass,9 referring to the third day, whereas another verse when speaking of the sixth day says: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth.10 This teaches us that the plants commenced to grow but stopped just as they were about to break through the soil, until Adam came and prayed for rain for them; and when rain fell they sprouted forth. This teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, longs for the prayers of the righteous. R. Nahman b. Papa had a garden and he sowed in it seeds but they did not grow. He prayed; immediately rain came and they began to grow. That, he exclaimed, is what R. Assi had taught. R. Hanan b. Raba said: The shesu'ah11 is a specific creature that has two backs and two spinal columns. Was Moses a hunter or an archer? This refutes those who maintain that the Torah was not divinely revealed.12 R. Hisda said to R. Tahlifa b. Abina, ‘Go, write down the words for "hunter"13 and "archer"14 in your homiletic note-book and explain them so’. It is written: The five lords of the Philistines: the Gazite and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite and the Ekronite; also the Avvim.15 The verse says five but enumerates six! — R. Jonathan said: Their overlords16 were five in number. R. Hisda said to R. Tahlifa b. Abina, ‘Write down the word for "overlord"16 in your homiletic notebook and explain it so’. This interpretation differs from Rab's view, for Rab had declared that the Avvim originally came from Teman.17 There is also a Baraitha in support of this, viz., The Avvim originally came from Teman, and were named Avvim because they laid waste [‘iwwethu]18 their home. Another interpretation: They were named Avvim because they longed for [‘iwwu]19 many gods. A further interpretation: They were named Avvim because whosoever looked at them was seized with trembling [‘awwith].20 R. Joseph said: Every one of them had sixteen rows of teeth. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: There are many verses which to all appearances ought to be burnt21 but are really essential elements in the Torah. [E.g.] It is written: And the Avvim that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza.22 In what way does this concern us? Inasmuch as Abimelech adjured Abraham saying: Thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son,23 the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let the Kaphtorim come and take away the land from the Avvim, who are philistines, and then Israel may come and take it away from the Kaphtorim.24 Similarly you must explain the verse: For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the King of the Amorites, who had fought against the former King of Moab.25 In what way does this concern us? Inasmuch as the Holy One, blessed be He, had commanded Israel: Be not at enmity with Moab,26 He therefore said: Let Sihon come and take away the land from Moab and then Israel may come and take it from Sihon. This, indeed, explains the saying of R. Papa, ‘Ammon and Moab were rendered clean [unto Israel] through Sihon’.27 Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion and the Amorites call it Senir.28 A Tanna taught: Senir and Sirion are mountains in the land of Israel; this verse, however, teaches us that every one of the nations of the world went and built for itself a large city naming it after a mountain of the land of Israel, thus teaching you that even the mountains of the land of Israel are dear to the nations of the world. In another instance it is written: And as for the people, he removed them city by city.29 In what way does this concern us? — In order that his brothers be not called strangers. 30 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BIRDS ARE NOT STATED. Are they not? But it has been taught: [It is written,] The eagle,31 another. Since, however, this is not expressly stated with reference to plants, but they acted so merely of their own accord, it is doubtful therefore whether there is with regard to plants an implied prohibition against grafting. connection with sacrifices on other festive seasons. is the name of a specific creature with the Peculiarities here stated. he have known so well the nature of them all. words as foreign words. overlords. The etymology of the word is doubtful, v. Jast. and Aruch. Philistines. destroyed or laid waste. obviously struck out by the censor from the Present editions. As to ‘Miram’, v. Jastrow Dict. s.v. orhnv, p. 355. possession of their land by dispossessing the Kaphtorim who had vanquished the Philistines. settled them. probably intended. It must be observed that the identification of the various birds dealt with in this chapter is extremely doubtful and the suggestions made are merely tentative; v. Tosaf. infra 63a, s.v. .b. For the most part the identifications of Lewysohn, discussed in his work, Die Zoologie des Talmuds, have been adopted.