[The Laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nought to rest on. The Laws concerning the Sabbath, festal-offerings, acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many laws. [The Laws concerning] civil cases and [temple] services, Levitical cleanness and uncleanness, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and it is they that are the essentials of the Torah.
t.Hag.1.8
A. R. Simeon b. Yohai [T4] says, ``They do not say, `Look over this camel, to see whether it`s blemished!` `Look over this pig, to see whether it`s blemished!`
B. ``They examine only those which are flawless.
C. ``And what is that?
D. ``It is a disciple of a sage who took his leave of the Torah`` [M.Hag.1.7D].
E. And concerning such a one it is said, That which is crooked cannot be made straight.
F. And it says, The wicked borrows and cannot pay back.
G. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, ``Concerning him, [Scripture] says, Like a bird that strays from its nest [is a man who strays from his home] (Prov.27.8).
H. ``And it says, What wrong did your fathers find in me [that they went far from me and went after worthlessness and became worthless] (Jer.2.5).``
MISHNAH: m.Hag.1.8[The Laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nought to rest on. The Laws concerning the Sabbath, festal-offerings, acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many laws. [The Laws concerning] civil cases and [temple] services, Levitical cleanness and uncleanness, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and it is they that are the essentials of the Torah.
GEMARA: It is taught: R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: When one shall clearly utter [a vow], when one shall clearly utter [a vow]: one [intimates] an utterance to bind, and the other an utterance to dissolve. R. Joshua [T2] said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Wherefore I swore in my wrath. [It means,] I swore in my wrath, but I retracted. R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Whosoever is of a willing heart. Hanania, son of the brother of R. Joshua [T2], said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances. Rab Judah [BA2] said that Samuel [BA1] said: Had I been there I should have said to them: My [Scriptural proof] is better than yours, for it is said: He shall not break his word. `He` may not break it, but others may dissolve it for him. Raba [BA4] said: To all these [proofs] objection can be made except to that of Samuel [BA1], against which no objection can be raised. For against R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], who said it in the name of R. Tarfon [T3]. For it is taught: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said in the name of R. Tarfon [T3]: Indeed, neither of them becomes a Nazirite, because Naziriteship can be assumed only by clear utterance. Against R. Joshua [T2] [it may be objected]: Perhaps this is the meaning of the verse: I swore in my wrath and did not retract`. Against R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse comes to] exclude the view of Samuel [BA1]. For Samuel [BA1] said: Though he determined in his heart, he must still utter it with his lips. And [the verse] teaches us that even though he did not utter it with his lips [it is binding]. Against Hanania, the son of the brother of R. Joshua [T2] [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab. For R. Giddal said that Rab [BA1] said: Whence [is it to be deduced] that one may take an oath to fulfil a precept? For it is said: `I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances`. But against Samuel`s [BA1] proof no objection can be raised. Raba, and some say, R. Nahman b. Isaac, said: This is the meaning of the popular saying: Better one grain of pungent pepper than a basketful of pumpkins. The Laws concerning the Sabbath. But they are written [in Scripture]! No, it is necessary [to state this] for the teaching of R. R. Abba [BA3 & PA3]. For R. R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] said: He who digs a hole on the Sabbath and requires it only for the sake of its earth is not liable for it. According to which authority [will this be]? According to R. Simeon [T4], who said: one is not liable for work [performed on the Sabbath] which is not required for itself. You may even say that it is according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]: there one is improving. here one is spoiling. But why does it say: as mountains hanging by a hair? b.Hag.10b Because the Torah prohibited [on the Sabbath] purposed work, yet purposed work is not mentioned in Scripture. [Laws concerning] festal-offerings. But they are written [in Scripture]! No, it is necessary in the light of what R. Papa [BA5] said to Abaye [BA4]: Whence [do we know] that [the verse]: And ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord signifies sacrifice? Perhaps the Divine Law means: Celebrate a Festival! If so, when it is written, That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness, would that also mean: Celebrate a festival! And should you say that it indeed means that, surely it is written: And Moses said: `Thou must also give into our hand beasts of killing and burnt-offerings`! Perhaps the Divine Law means this: Eat ye and drink and celebrate a festival before Me! Do not think of this; for it is written: Neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning. If now you suppose that it means a festival [only], has a festival fat? But perhaps the Divine Law means this: the fat that is offered during the course of the festival should not remain overnight! If so, then [it would imply] that only during the festival the fat may not remain overnight, but throughout the year it may remain overnight; [but behold] it is written: All night unto the morning! [But] perhaps from this [verse alone] one would know it merely as a positive precept, therefore Scripture wrote the other [verse to enjoin it] as a prohibition! [To enjoin it] as a prohibition there is another verse: Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning [But] perhaps [this was required] in order to impose upon him two prohibitions and one positive precept! Rather, it can be deduced from [the word] `wilderness` which occurs in two passages. Here it is written: That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And elsewhere it is written: Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness? Just as in the latter verse [it means] sacrifices, so in the former [it means] sacrifices. Why then does it say: as mountains hanging by a hair? [Because] no inference may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the Prophets. Acts of sacrilege. But they are written [in Scripture]! Rami b. Hama [BA4] said: It is required only for that which we have learnt. If the agent did his errand [committing thereby an act of sacrilege], the householder is guilty of sacrilege; if he did not do his errand, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. But why should he be guilty if he did his errand? Shall one man sin and another become liable! That is why [the Mishnah says]: as mountains hanging by a hair. Raba [BA4] said: But what is the objection? Perhaps sacrilege is different, since we compare it with Terumah through the analogous expressions for `sin` [which occur in connection with both laws]: just as there the agent of a person is like himself, so here the agent of a person is like himself. Rather, said Raba, it must be required for the [following] teaching; If the householder remembered, but the agent did not remember, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. What has the poor agent done! That is why [the Mishnah says]: as mountains hanging by a hair. R. Ashi [BA6] said: What is the objection? Perhaps it is like [every other] case where one spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes! Rather, said R. Ashi [BA6], it must be required for that which we have learnt. If a man took away a stone or a beam from Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege; but if he gave it to his fellow, he himself is guilty, but his fellow is not guilty. See now, he has taken it, what difference does it make whether he or his fellow [keeps it]! Therefore it says: like mountains hanging by a hair. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Samuel [BA1]. For Samuel [BA1] said: Here b.Hag.11a it refers to the treasurer [of the Sanctuary] to whom the building stones had been entrusted, so that wherever it is, it is in his possession! Rather [it can be explained] from the latter part [of the Mishnah]. If he built it into his house, he is not guilty of sacrilege until he dwells under it to the value of a perutah. See now, he has effected a change therein, what difference does it make whether he dwells [under it] or does not dwell [under it]! Therefore it says: like mountains hanging by a hair. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Rab. For Rab [BA1] said: It refers to a case where he placed it over a roof-aperture, [in which case] if he dwells in [the house] he is [guilty of sacrilege]. If he does not dwell in [the house] he is not [guilty]! Therefore, it must be after all as Raba [BA4] said: and as for your objection that the same applies to any person who spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes, [one may answer]: There he knew full well that he had sacred money, he should therefore have taken care; but here, how could he know? Therefore [the Mishnah says]: as mountains hanging by a hair scant scriptural basis but many laws. A Tanna taught: [The laws concerning defilement through] leprosy-signs and tent-covering have scant Scriptural basis and many laws. [You say] leprosy-signs have scant Scriptural basis? [On the contrary] leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis! R. Papa [BA5] said: It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws, [defilement through] tent-covering has scant Scriptural basis and many laws. But what practical difference does it make? If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs search the Bible, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning [defilement through] tent-covering search the Mishnah. civil cases. But they are written [in Scripture]! It is necessary only for the teaching of Rabbi. For it is taught: Rabbi [T5] said: Life for life [means] monetary compensation. You say [it means] monetary compensation; but perhaps [it means] actual life? `Giving` is mentioned below, and `giving` is mentioned above: just as in the latter case [it means] monetary compensation, so in the former case [it means] monetary compensation. Temple services. But they are written [in Scripture]! It refers only to the carrying of the blood [to the altar]. For it is taught: And they shall present; this [means] the receiving of the blood. Now the Divine Law used for it an expression of `carrying`, as it is written: And the priest shall present the whole and make it smoke upon the altar, and the Master said: This [means] the carrying of the pieces [of the offering] to the altar ramp. This is to tell us that the `carrying` [of the blood] is not to be excluded from the category of `receiving` [the blood]. [Laws of] Levitical cleanness. But they are written [in Scripture]! It refers only to the measure of a ritual bath, which is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: And he shall bathe in water, [this means] in water of a ritual bath; all his flesh: [this means in] water which covers all his body. And how much is this? A cubit by a cubit to the height of three cubits; and the Sages fixed the measure of the ritual bath water at forty seahs. [Laws concerning Levitical] uncleanness. But they are written [in Scripture]! It refers only to [defilement caused by touching a part of a dead] creeping creature, which is the size of a lentil; this is not stated in Scripture. For it is taught: In them: I might think [it means] all of them, therefore Scripture teaches: `Of them`. I might then think [it means] even a part of them; therefore Scripture says: `in them`. How is this to be explained? [It means that he is not defiled] till he touches a part of one which is as the whole of one. The Sages fixed the measure at the size of a lentil, for a snail is at first the size of a lentil. R. Jose b. R. Judah [T5] said: [It must be] the size of the tail of a lizard. Forbidden relations. But they are written [in Scripture]! b.Hag.11b This refers only to his daughter by a woman whom he had forced; this case is not written [in Scripture]. For Raba [BA4] said: R. Isaac b. Abdimi told me, It is to be deduced by analogy from [the words] `they`, `they`, and from [the words] `lewdness`, `lewdness`. It is they that are the essentials of the Torah , These are and those are not! Say, therefore, these and those are essentials of the Torah.
[A] The release of vows hovers in the air, for it has nothing [in the Torah] upon which to depend.
[B] The laws of the Sabbath, festal-offerings, and sacrilege - lo, they are like mountains hanging by a hair,
[C] for they have little Scripture for many laws.
[D] Laws concerning civil litigations, the sacrificial cult, things to be kept cultically clean, sources of cultic uncleanness, and prohibited consanguineous marriages have much on which to depend.
[E] And both these and those [equally] are the essentials of the Torah. y.Hag.1.8 I
[A] [With reference to m.Hag.1.8A,] it has been taught: R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] says, ``[The release of vows] does have that upon which to depend, `I have sworn an oath and will fulfill it [to observe thy righteous ordinances]` (Ps.119.106). [That indicates that] there are occasions on which [an oath] is not fulfilled.``
[B] R. Joshua [T2] says, ``[The release of vows] does have that upon which to depend: `Therefore I swore in my anger [that they should not enter my rest]` (Ps.95.11). I swore in my anger, but I retract.`` y.Hag.1.8 I:2
[A] There we have learned:Four [kinds of] vow have sages allowed [to be released] [m.Ned.3.1A].
[B] Now is it not the case that sages are the ones to allow [the release of] all sorts of vows?
[C] It is written, ``Moses said to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel[, `This is what the Lord has commanded`]`` (Num.30.1).
[D] The entire passage [dealing with vows] is addressed to the heads of the tribes, [indicating that] they are the ones who are allowed [to release vows].
[E] R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] in the name of Samuel [BA1]: ``It is written, `[When a man vows a vow of the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge,] he shall not break his word; [he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth]` (Num.30.2). He shall not break his word, [but] another may break his word by making it no longer consecrated, and who is this? It is a sage who releases his vow for him.``
[F] R. Zeira [PA3], R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], Jeremiah bar Abba [BA2] in the name of Samuel [BA1]: ``Three who are expert in finding proper grounds for the release of vows may do so just as does an elder.``
[G] They proposed to rule that that is the case in a place in which there is no elder.
[H] Rabbis of Caesarea said, ``That is the case even in a place in which an elder is available.``
[I] They said before R. Yose, R. Huna [BA2 or PA4]: ```Heads of the tribes` [Must one be head of a tribe to release a vow as an individual?].``
[J] He said to them, ``Yes. If R. Huna [BA2 or PA4] is not in [the class] of heads of tribes, who is in that class? R. Huna [BA2 or PA4] is the head of the heads of tribes.`` y.Hag.1.8 I:3
[A] What is [the law] as to appointing elders [to serve] for specific purposes [only]?
[B] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[C] Rabbi appointed Rab to release vows and to examine women`s menstrual stains. After he had died, Rab [BA1] requested permission of his son [to examine] blemishes of firstlings.
[D] The son said to him, ``I am not going to add to what Father assigned to you.``
[E] Said R. Yose b. R. Bun, ``[Rabbi] had permitted him [all rabbinic functions], to judge cases all by himself, to release vows, to examine external blemishes. When Rabbi died, Rab [BA1] asked his son for permission to assess blemishes that are in hidden parts of the body.
[F] He said to him: `I am not going to add to what Father assigned to you.```
[G] Even though you have said that they do appoint elders to serve for specific purposes only, that is the case only if the one appointed is suitable to carry out all sorts of tasks.
[H] It is in line with the following: R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] appointed all his disciples [to carry out official duties], but he was distressed in regard to one of them, who had weak eyes, and he could not appoint him. He did assign him to carry out some tasks.
[I] That implies that one who is suitable for all tasks is suitable to carry out only one task, but one who is not [76d] suitable for all tasks is not suitable even for one task.
[J] What is the law as to appointing elders for a limited period of time?
[K] Let us derive the answer from the following:
[L] R. Hiyya bar Ba came to R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3], saying to him, ``Recommend me to R. Yudan [PA4] the Patriarch, so that he will write a letter of recommendation for me as I go abroad to make my living.`` He recommended him, and [the patriarch] wrote the following letter for him: ``Lo, we send you a great man. He is our messenger and stands in our stead until he comes back to us.``
[M] R. Hezekiah [PA5], R. Dosetai, R. Abba bar Zamina - and some present the same saying in the name of R. Dosa [T2 in M; T5 in B]i the Elder: ``Thus did he write for him: `Lo, we send you a great man. And what is the greatness that is his? That he is not ashamed to say, `I have not heard [the law].``` y.Hag.1.8 I:4
[A] What is the law as to releasing vows while wrapped in a traveling cloak [instead of a rabbinical cloak]?
[B] R. Abbahu [PA3] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``They release vows while garbed in a traveling cloak.``
[C] Rabbi released vows while garbed in a traveling cloak.
[D] R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] released vows while garbed in a traveling cloak.
[E] R. Huna [BA2 or PA4] in the name of R. Jeremiah [PA4]: ``That is the case when one does not have a rabbinical cloak [tallit].``
[F] Said R. Yose b. R. Bun, ``It is in the case of more lenient vows [that a more lenient ruling applies].`` y.Hag.1.8 II
[A] The laws of the Sabbath [m.Hag.1.8B]:R. Jonah [PA5] said R. Hama bar Uqba raised the question [in reference to m.Hag.1.8B`s omission of laws of purity in the category of Scripture], ``And lo, it is only written, `Nevertheless a spring or a cistern holding water shall be clean; [but whatever touches their carcass shall be unclean]` (Lev.11.36). And from this verse you drive many laws. [So how can m.Hag.1.8B omit laws of purity?]``
[B] R. Zeira [PA3] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``If a law comes to hand and you do not know its nature, do not reinterpret it [as applying] to another matter, for lo, many laws were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all of them have been imbedded in the Mishnah.``
[C] Said R. Abun [PA4 or PA5], ``And that is so. Lo, there is the law about two kinds of wheat. Now had Nahum [BA3] not come and explained the matter to us, should we have known its meaning [cf. m.Pe.2.4].`` y.Hag.1.8 II:2
[A] R. Zeira [PA3] in the name of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3]: ```Were I to write for him most of my laws, would they not be regarded as a strange thing?]` (Hos.8.12). Now is the greater part of the Torah written down? [Surely not. The oral part is much greater.] But more abundant are the matters that are derived by exegesis from the written Torah than those derived by exegesis from the oral Torah.``
[B] And is that so?
[C] But more cherished are those matters that rest upon the written Torah and those that rest upon the oral Torah.
[D] Said R. Judah bar Pazzi, ```Were I to write for him most of my laws` - this refers to the admonitions.``
[E] ``Even so, would they not be regarded as a strange thing?``
[F] Said R. Abun [PA4 or PA5], ```Were I to write for him most of my laws, would they not be regarded as a strange thing?` What is the difference between them and [the sages of] the nations? These produce their books, and those produce theirs. These produce their documents, and those produce theirs.`` [Thus, the oral Torah serves to distinguish between Israel and the nations.] y.Hag.1.8 II:3
[A] R. Haggai [PA4] in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, ``Some teachings were handed on orally, and some things were handed on in writing, and we do not know which of them is the more precious. But on the basis of that which is written, `And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words; in accordance with [lit., the mouth of] these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel` (Exod.34.27), that is to say that the ones that are handed on orally are the more precious.``
[B] R. Yohanan [PA2] and R. Yudan [PA4] b. R. Simeon [T4] - One said, ``If you have kept what is preserved orally and also kept what is in writing, I shall make a covenant with you, and if not, I shall not make a covenant with you.``
[C] The other said, ``If you have kept what is preserved orally and you have kept what is preserved in writing, you shall receive a reward, and if not, you shall not receive a reward.``
[D] [With reference to Deut.9.10:``And on them was written according to all the words that the Lord spoke with you in the mount,``] said R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1], ``[He could have written] `On them,` [but wrote] `And on them.` [He could have written] `All,` [but wrote] `According to all.` [He could have written] `Words,` [but wrote] `The words.` [These then serve as three including clauses, serving to include] Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, laws, and lore. Every [decision] that an experienced student in the future will render before his master already has been stated to Moses at Sinai.``
[E] What is the scriptural basis for this view?
[F] ``There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after`` (Eccl.1.11).
[G] If someone says, ``See, this is a new thing,`` his fellow will answer him, saying to him, ``This has been around before us for a long time.`` y.Hag.1.8 II:4
[A] R. Zeira [PA3] in the name of Samuel [BA1]: ``One does not make a decision on the basis of laws [revealed to Moses at Sinai] or lore, or Tosefta-teachings, but only on the basis of Talmud.``
[B] But did not R. Halapta bar Saul teach, ``The law [in m.Pe.2.6] governing two types of wheat is the same as the law governing two types of barley`` [and this conclusion was reached only on the basis of reasoning, not on the basis of laws revealed to Moses at Sinai].
[C] R. Zeira [PA3] said,]``That was precisely how they had received the law, but they had forgotten it: The same law applies to two types of wheat and to two types of barley.
[D] And lo, we have learned:If he uprooted fresh onions for the market and left others to remain and dry for the storage chamber, he must give peah for these by themselves and for those by themselves [m.Pe.3.3]. [Now this law runs parallel to m.Pe.2.6`s rule, confirmed by Nahum the Scribe [T1], that if one sowed his field in two kinds of wheat and threshed them together, he gives one peah, but if he threshed them separately, he gives two distinct peahs.]
[E] Now can you say that the matter of the marketplace and the threshing floor constituted laws that they had had in hand but forgot [and not laws that they had derived through a process of analogy, that is, the rule on the onions from the rule on the wheat]? [Surely not!] y.Hag.1.8 II:5
[A] R. Hananiah [PA5] in the name of Samuel [BA1]: ``They do not derive rules of law from instructions [handed down in particular situations].``
[B] All concur that they do not derive rules of law from [the decisions rendered] in particular situations [without further confirmation].
[C] Said to him R. Mana [PA5], ``That which you have said applies to a case in which one did not give a reason for his ruling. But in a case in which one gave a reason for his ruling, one may apply the law likewise.``
[D] He said to him, ``Whether one gave a reason for his ruling or did not give a reason for his ruling, it applies in a case in which there is contrary opinion. But in a case in which there is no contrary opinion, whether one has given a reason for his ruling or not, one may apply the law in accord with the stated view.`` y.Hag.1.8 II:6
[A] R. Abbahu [PA3] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``In the case of all matters subject to prohibition by the laws of the Torah [involving mixtures], if one nullified such a prohibition by inadvertently adding [permitted substances], the matter is permitted, but if he did so deliberately, the matter is prohibited.``
[B] Now is this not [the clear message of] the Mishnah:[If one seah of food designated for the priest fell into less than a hundred of common produce, and other common produce afterward fell therein,] if this was inadvertent, the whole is permitted, but if it was deliberate, it is forbidden [m.Ter.5.9]?
[C] The Mishnah speaks of priestly food, which is subject to strict rules. The purpose of [Yohanan [PA2]`s statement] is to tell you that even in regard to other matters[, which are subject to less strict provisions, the law is the same]. y.Hag.1.8 II:7
[A] R. Aha [PA4] in the name of R. Jonathan [T4]: ``Just as it is a religious duty to speak out in a case in which what one says will be obeyed, so it is a religious duty not to speak out in a case in which what one says will not be obeyed.``
[B] Said R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3], ``Just as it is prohibited to declare what is unclean to be clean, so it is prohibited to declare what is clean to be unclean.``
[C] R. Aha bar Jacob [BA4] in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2], ``If a case of law comes to hand in which you do not know whether [to declare something unclean and so to order it to be] burned, or whether to hold the item in suspense, you ought under all circumstances to prefer [the alternative of] burning rather than [that of] holding the matter in suspense.
[D] ``For there is no offering in the Torah more beloved than the offering of bullocks which are to be burned and goats which are to be burned, and [they are, indeed, disposed of] by burning up.``
[E] R. Yose raised the question, ``Do they learn the rule governing a matter the religious duty of which is not in so doing, from a matter of religious duty of which indeed is in so doing? [That is, the religious duty concerning the bullocks and goats is to burn them up. But no religious duty attends upon burning up what is not definitely unclean.]``