א"ר אבא בר כהנא מאי דכתיב (בראשית יח, כה) חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה להמית צדיק עם רשע אמר אברהם לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע חולין הוא מעשות כדבר הזה להמית צדיק עם רשע ולא והכתיב (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע בצדיק שאינו גמור אבל בצדיק גמור לא והכתיב (יחזקאל ט, ו) וממקדשי תחלו ותני רב יוסף אל תקרי ממקדשי אלא ממקודשי אלו בני אדם שקיימו את התורה מאל"ף ועד תי"ו התם נמי כיון שהיה בידם למחות ולא מיחו הוו להו כצדיקים שאינן גמורים:
by it, as it is written: “For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall set them ablaze, said the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Malachi 3:19). This verse is interpreted as follows: Neither a root shall remain for them in this world, nor will a branch grow for them in the World-to-Come. This teaches that the sun itself will burn and consume the wicked in the future. And the righteous will be healed by it, as it is written in the next verse: “But to you that fear My Name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings” (Malachi 3:20). And moreover, not only will they be healed by it, but they will even be rejuvenated by it, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “And you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall.” Alternatively, just as in the case of fish of the sea, any fish that is bigger than another swallows the other, so too in the case of people, were it not for the fear of the ruling government, anyone who is bigger than another would swallow the other. And this is as we learned in a mishna (Avot 3:2) that Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: One should pray for the continued welfare of the government, as were it not for the fear of the government, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. § Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa raises a contradiction between the following verses. It is written: “The Almighty, Whom we have not found out His excellent power” (Job 37:23), which indicates that His power has not been seen. And it is written elsewhere: “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power” (Psalms 147:5), and it is also written: “Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power” (Exodus 15:6), from which it may be inferred that His power is discernable. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, in the first verse, God’s strength is not seen at a time of judgment, where He acts mercifully, whereas there, in the other verses, they are referring to a time of war, when He wages war against His enemies and His power is seen. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raises a contradiction between the following verses. It is written: “Fury is not in Me” (Isaiah 27:4), and it is written: “The Lord is a jealous and furious God” (Nahum 1:2). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where it states that God has no fury, it is speaking with regard to the Jewish people, whereas there, where it says that God has fury, it is speaking with regard to the nations of the world. Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says in explanation of the verse: “Fury is not in Me; would that I were as the briers and thorns in flame! I would with one step burn it altogether” (Isaiah 27:4). “Fury is not in Me,” as I have already taken an oath that I will not destroy the Jewish people; “would that I” had not taken this oath, since then I would be active “as the briers and thorns in flame! I would with one step burn it altogether.” And this is the same as that which Rabbi Alexandri says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations” (Zechariah 12:9)? “I will seek” from whom? Does God need to seek permission? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I will seek and search in their records [benigeni]; if they have merit, I will redeem them, and if not, I will destroy them. And this is the same as that which Rava says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Surely none shall put forth his hand to a ruinous heap, neither because of these things shall help come in one’s calamity [befido]” (Job 30:24)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the Jewish people: When I judge the Jewish people, I do not judge them as I judge the nations of the world. When judging the nations of the world, I punish them for all of their transgressions together, as it is written: “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it, this also shall be no more” (Ezekiel 21:32). Rather, I punish the Jewish people like the pecking [kefid] of a hen, which picks up only a tiny amount each time it pecks. Alternatively, even if the Jewish people perform but a few mitzvot before Me, like the pecking of hens that peck in a dunghill, I will combine them to a large reckoning, as it is stated: “Though they peck [befido],” i.e., perform mitzvot a little at a time, “they will be saved [lahen shua]” (Job 30:24). Alternatively, in reward for the manner in which they cry out [shua] and pray before Me, I will save [moshia] them. In other words, God punishes the Jewish people for each individual infraction, but He does not destroy them entirely in a moment of fury. And this is the same as that which Rabbi Abba says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And though I will redeem them, they have spoken lies against Me” (Hosea 7:13)? I said that I would redeem them through taking away their money in this world so that they should merit the World-to-Come, but they have spoken lies against Me, by saying that I am angry and uninterested in them. And this is the same as that which Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Though I have trained [yissarti] and strengthened their arms, yet they consider evil against Me” (Hosea 7:15)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I said that I would visit them [ayasserem] with afflictions in this world for their benefit, so that their arms would be strengthened in the World-to-Come, but they consider that which I have done as evil. With regard to the afflictions of the Jewish people, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu would praise Rav Safra to the heretics by saying that he is a great man. Therefore, they remitted Rav Safra’s obligation to pay taxes for thirteen years, as they relied upon Rabbi Abbahu’s word and wanted to reward a great man. One day they found Rav Safra and said to him: It is written: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore, I will visit upon you all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). The meaning of this verse is unclear, as why would God punish specifically the Jewish people because He loves them? One who has wrath [siseya], does he raise it against his beloved? Rav Safra was silent and did not say anything in response to them. They threw a scarf around his neck and tormented him, by pulling and denigrating him. Rabbi Abbahu came and found them doing this to Rav Safra. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: Why are you tormenting him? They said to him: And didn’t you say to us that he is a great man? But he did not even know how to tell us the explanation of this verse. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: You can say that I said this praise of Rav Safra to you only with regard to the Oral Law and the statements of tanna’im, but did I say to you that he is knowledgeable with regard to the Bible? They said to Rabbi Abbahu: What is different about you Sages of Eretz Yisrael, that you know the Bible as well? Rabbi Abbahu said to them: We, who are situated among you heretics and are forced to debate the meaning of verses, we impose upon ourselves this obligation and analyze verses in depth. By contrast, those Sages of Babylonia, who are not forced to debate you, do not analyze the Bible in such depth. The heretics said to Rabbi Abbahu: In that case, you should tell us the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a person who lends money to two people, one of whom is his beloved, and the other one is his enemy. In the case of his beloved, he collects the debt from him little by little, whereas in the case of his enemy he collects the debt from him all at once. So too, with regard to the Jewish people, God punishes them for each transgression as it occurs, so that they should not receive one severe punishment on a single occasion. § The Gemara continues discussing the manner in which God metes out punishment. Rabbi Abba Bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written as part of Abraham’s prayer to God, when God informed him that He was going to destroy Sodom: “That be far [ḥalila] from You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked” (Genesis 18:25)? This is what Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is a sacrilege [ḥullin] for You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked. The Gemara asks: And does God not act in this manner? But isn’t it written: “And I will cut off from You the righteous and the wicked” (Ezekiel 21:8)? The Gemara answers: There the verse is referring to a righteous person who is not completely righteous, and he will therefore be destroyed along with the wicked. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But is it true that one who is completely righteous cannot be destroyed along with the wicked? But isn’t it written in a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple that God says to the destroyers: “And begin at My Sanctuary [mimmikdashi]” (Ezekiel 9:6); and Rav Yosef teaches: Do not read the word as “mimmikdashi,” but rather read it as mimmekudashai, those sanctified to Me. He explains: These are people who observed the Torah in its entirety, from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet alef through its final letter tav. These people observed every mitzva in the Torah, and yet they were destroyed along with the wicked. The Gemara answers the difficulty: There too, since they had the power to protest against the wicked and prevent them from sinning and they did not protest, they are considered as righteous people who are not completely righteous. Rav Pappa raises a contradiction between the following verses. It is written: “A God that has indignation every day” (Psalms 7:12), and yet the world still exists, and it is written: “Who can stand before His indignation?” (Nahum 1:6). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where the verse states that no one can stand before His indignation, it is referring to an individual, whereas there, when it is written that God is indignant every day, it is referring to the community, which can withstand the indignation of God, due to its cumulative merits. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: A God that has indignation every day. And how long does His indignation last? It lasts a moment. And how long is a moment? One in 53,848 parts of an hour, a very small amount of time, that is a moment. The Gemara adds: And no entity can precisely determine that moment when God is indignant, except for Balaam the wicked, that it is written concerning him:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי סִימוֹן: לוֹכְחִינְהוּ מָר לְהָנֵי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מְקַבְּלִי מִינַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי לוֹכְחִינְהוּ מָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָצְתָה מִדָּה טוֹבָה מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר בָּהּ לְרָעָה חוּץ מִדָּבָר זֶה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֵלָיו עֲבוֹר בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָים וְהִתְוִיתָ תָּו עַל מִצְחוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱנָחִים וְהַנֶּאֱנָקִים עַל כׇּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בְּתוֹכָהּ וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְגַבְרִיאֵל: לֵךְ וּרְשׁוֹם עַל מִצְחָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים תָּיו שֶׁל דְּיוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁלְטוּ בָּהֶם מַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה. וְעַל מִצְחָם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים תָּיו שֶׁל דָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁלְטוּ בָּהֶן מַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה. אָמְרָה מִדַּת הַדִּין לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! מַה נִּשְׁתַּנּוּ אֵלּוּ מֵאֵלּוּ? אָמַר לָהּ: הַלָּלוּ צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים וְהַלָּלוּ רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִים. אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! הָיָה בְּיָדָם לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחוּ! אָמַר לָהּ: גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנַי שֶׁאִם מִיחוּ בָּהֶם לֹא יְקַבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. (אָמַר) [אָמְרָה] לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! אִם לְפָנֶיךָ גָּלוּי, לָהֶם מִי גָּלוּי? וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״זָקֵן בָּחוּר וּבְתוּלָה טַף וְנָשִׁים תַּהַרְגוּ לְמַשְׁחִית וְעַל כׇּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו הַתָּו אַל תִּגַּשׁוּ וּמִמִּקְדָּשִׁי תָּחֵלּוּ״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּחֵלּוּ בָּאֲנָשִׁים הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי הַבָּיִת״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״מִקְדָּשִׁי״ אֶלָּא ״מְקוּדָּשַׁי״ — אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ מֵאָלֶף וְעַד תָּיו. וּמִיָּד: ״וְהִנֵּה שִׁשָּׁה אֲנָשִׁים בָּאִים מִדֶּרֶךְ שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מׇפְנֶה צָפוֹנָה וְאִישׁ כְּלִי מַפָּצוֹ בְּיָדוֹ וְאִישׁ אֶחָד בְּתוֹכָם לָבֻשׁ הַבַּדִּים וְקֶסֶת הַסּוֹפֵר בְּמׇתְנָיו וַיָּבֹאוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת״. מִזְבֵּחַ הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת מִי הֲוָה? אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הַתְחִילוּ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנַי. וּמַאן נִינְהוּ שִׁשָּׁה אֲנָשִׁים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קֶצֶף, אַף, וְחֵימָה, וּמַשְׁחִית, וּמְשַׁבֵּר, וּמְכַלֶּה. וּמַאי שְׁנָא ״תָּיו״? אָמַר רַב: ״תָּיו״ — תִּחְיֶה, ״תָּיו״ — תָּמוּת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תַּמָּה זְכוּת אָבוֹת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תָּחוֹן זְכוּת אָבוֹת. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״תָּיו״ — סוֹף חוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא ״אֱמֶת״. (אָמַר) רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי [אָמַר]: אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ מֵאָלֶף וְעַד תָּיו:
what did the Elders, i.e., the Sages of that generation, do that was considered a sin? Rather, say: God will enter into judgment with the Elders because they did not protest the sinful conduct of the princes. The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters. And from where is it derived that this responsibility is incumbent upon the house of the Exilarch? As it is written: “House of David, so says the Lord: Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor, lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 21:12). The Exilarch is a direct descendant of the house of David. With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the members of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it. As Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Never did a promise manifesting a good attribute emerge from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and He later retracted it and rendered it evil, except with regard to this matter, as it is written: “And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry on account of all the abominations that are done in her midst” (Ezekiel 9:4). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel Gabriel: Go and inscribe a tav of ink on the foreheads of the righteous as a sign so that the angels of destruction will not have dominion over them. And inscribe a tav of blood on the foreheads of the wicked as a sign so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how are these different from those? He said to that attribute: These are full-fledged righteous people and those are full-fledged wicked people. The attribute of justice said to Him: Master of the Universe, it was in the hands of the righteous to protest the conduct of the wicked, and they did not protest. He said to that attribute: It is revealed and known before Me that even had they protested the conduct of the wicked, they would not have accepted the reprimand from them. They would have continued in their wicked ways. The attribute of justice said before Him: Master of the Universe, if it is revealed before You that their reprimand would have been ineffective, is it revealed to them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, retracted His promise to protect the righteous and decided that those who failed to protest would also be punished. And that is the meaning of that which is written: “Slay utterly old and young, both maid, and little children, and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). And it is written in that same verse: “Then they began with the elderly men who were before the house.” Rav Yosef taught: Read not: My Sanctuary [mikdashi], rather: Those sanctified to Me [mekudashai]. These are people who observed the whole Torah in its entirety from alef through tav. And immediately: “And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lies toward the north, and every man with his weapon of destruction in his hand; and one man among them was clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkwell by his side; and they went in and stood beside the bronze altar” (Ezekiel 9:2). The Gemara asks: Was there a bronze altar in the Temple in the time of Ezekiel? Already in the days of Solomon there was only a stone altar. Rather, this should be understood as a figure of speech. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Begin from the place where they recite songs of praise before Me. This is a reference to the Levites in the Temple whose musical instruments are made of bronze. And who are the six men mentioned here? Rav Ḥisda said: Fury, Wrath, and Rage, and Destroyer, and Breaker, and Annihilator, six angels of destruction. The Gemara asks further: And what is different about the letter tav, that it was inscribed on the foreheads of the righteous? Rav said: Tav is the first letter of the word tiḥye, you shall live, indicating that the righteous shall live. Tav is also the first letter of the word tamut, you shall die, indicating that the wicked shall die. And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word taḥon, will have mercy, indicating that due to the merit of the Patriarchs God will have mercy on the righteous. And Reish Lakish said: The letter tav is the last letter of the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: The seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth [emet], which ends with the letter tav. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: The letter tav teaches that these are people who observed the entire Torah from alef through tav. With regard to the statement that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased, the Gemara asks: From when did the merit of the Patriarchs cease? Rav said: From the days of the prophet Hosea, son of Beeri, as it is stated: “And now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hand” (Hosea 2:12). Israel will no longer be saved by the merit of the Patriarchs. And Shmuel said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hazael, as it is stated: “And Hazael, king of Aram, oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (II Kings 13:22). And it is written there: “And the Lord was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and turned toward them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and would not destroy them; neither has He till now cast them away from His presence” (II Kings 13:23). That was the last time that the merit of the Patriarchs was mentioned. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Elijah the Prophet, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at the time of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the Prophet came near and said, Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word” (I Kings 18:36). By inference: Let it be known this day and not afterward because the merit of the Patriarchs will cease today. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hezekiah, as it is stated: “For the increase of the realm and for peace without end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice; from now and forever the zeal of the Lord of hosts performs this” (Isaiah 9:6). That is to say, from this point on, the merit of the Patriarchs will not protect Israel, leaving only the zeal of the Lord. The Gemara continues its discussion of punishment in general and the relationship between a person’s actions and the punishments meted out against him in particular: Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity. The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death without sin, as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalms 89:33).
״וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת פְּנֵי ה׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה בִּתְפִלָּה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עַד שֶׁהֶחֱלָהוּ. וְרָבָא אָמַר: עַד שֶׁהֵפֵר לוֹ נִדְרוֹ. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיְחַל״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״, וְאָמַר מָר: הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵיחֵל, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְחִלִּין לוֹ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמָּסַר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה עֲלֵיהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ״. אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֻחֲלָה עֲלֵיהֶם מִדַּת רַחֲמִים. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! חוּלִּין הוּא לְּךָ מֵעֲשׂוֹת כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. ״וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת פְּנֵי ה׳״, תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה בִּתְפִלָּה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַד שֶׁאֲחָזַתּוּ אֲחִילוּ. מַאי אֲחִילוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵשׁ שֶׁל עֲצָמוֹת. מַאי אֵשׁ שֶׁל עֲצָמוֹת? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִשָּׁתָא דְגַרְמֵי:
As it is written in a future prophecy: “In that day, says the Lord, I will assemble the lame, and I will gather those who are abandoned and those with whom I have dealt in wickedness” (Micah 4:6). God states that He caused Israel to act wickedly. Similarly, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Had it not been for these three verses, the legs of the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, would have collapsed, as Israel would have been unable to withstand God’s judgment. One is the verse just mentioned in which it is written: “Those whom I have dealt in wickedness.” And one is the verse in which it is written: “Behold, like clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, house of Israel” (Jeremiah 18:6). And one is the verse in which it is written: “And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will place within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). These three verses indicate that God influences a person’s decisions, and therefore one does not have sole responsibility for his actions. Rav Pappa said there is a clearer proof from here: “And I will place My spirit within you and I will cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will observe My decrees and do them” (Ezekiel 36:27). And Rabbi Elazar said: Moses also spoke impertinently toward God on High, as it is stated in the verse following the sin of those who murmured against God in the desert: “And Moses prayed to the Lord and the fire subsided” (Numbers 11:2), and this verse is interpreted homiletically: Do not read to [el] the Lord, but rather onto [al] the Lord, which indicates that he spoke impertinently. The Gemara explains the basis for this interpretation: As the Sages of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov would indiscriminately read alef as ayin and ayin as alef and in this case transforming el into al. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai, however, say proof that Moses spoke impertinently toward God on High is derived from here, Moses’ rebuke at the beginning of Deuteronomy: “And Di Zahav” (Deuteronomy 1:1). This is an entry in a list of places where Moses had spoken to Israel. As there was no place encountered by that name, it is interpreted as an allusion to another matter. We must clarify: What is the meaning of and Di Zahav? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said that Moses said the following before the Holy One, Blessed be He, to atone for Israel after the sin of the Golden Calf: Master of the Universe, because of the gold and silver that you lavished upon Israel during the exodus from Egypt until they said enough [dai]; it was this wealth that caused Israel to make the Golden Calf. Establishing a general moral principle, the Sages the school of Rabbi Yannai said: A lion does not roar standing over a basket of straw from which he derives no pleasure, but he roars standing over a basket of meat, as he only roars when satiated. Similarly, Rabbi Oshaya said: This is comparable to a person who had a lean, but large-limbed cow. At one point, he fed it lupines, a choice food, and soon thereafter the cow was kicking him. He said to the cow: Who caused you to begin kicking me if not the lupines I fed you? Here, too, the sin was caused by an abundance of good. The Gemara offers another analogy: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is comparable to a person who had a son; he bathed him and anointed him with oil, fed him and gave him drink, and hung a purse of money around his neck. Then, he brought his son to the entrance of a brothel. What could the son do to avoid sinning? On a similar note, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Huna, said that Rav Sheshet said: That is what people say in a popular maxim: Filling his stomach is a type of sin, as it is stated: “When they were fed and became full they were sated, and their hearts were lifted and they have forgotten Me” (Hosea 13:6). Rav Naḥman said: This principle is derived not from the verse in Hosea, but from here: “And your heart is lifted and you forget the Lord” (Deuteronomy 8:14). And the Rabbis say that this principle is derived from here: “And they will have eaten and been sated and fattened, and they will turn to other gods” (Deuteronomy 31:20). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “And Jeshurun grew fat and kicked” (Deuteronomy 32:15). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where in the Torah is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, ultimately conceded to Moses that the reason for the sin of the Golden Calf was indeed the riches lavished upon Israel? As it is stated: “And I gave them an abundance of silver and gold, which they used for the Ba’al” (Hosea 2:10). The Gemara elaborates upon additional aspects of the sin of the Golden Calf. It is stated: “And the Lord said to Moses: Go and descend, for your people whom you have lifted out of the land of Egypt have been corrupted” (Exodus 32:7). What is the meaning of “go and descend”? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, descend from your greatness. Isn’t it only for the sake of Israel, so that you may serve as an emissary, that I granted you prominence; and now that Israel has sinned, why do I need you? There is no need for an emissary. Immediately, Moses’ strength waned and he was powerless to speak in defense of Israel. And once God said to Moses: “Leave Me be, that I may destroy them” (Deuteronomy 9:14), Moses said to himself: If God is telling me to let Him be, it must be because this matter is dependent upon me. Immediately Moses stood and was strengthened in prayer, and asked that God have mercy on the nation of Israel and forgive them for their transgression. The Gemara says: This is comparable to a king who became angry at his son who had sinned against him, and beat him, administering a severe beating. At that moment, a well-wisher of the king was sitting before him and witnessed the entire event, and was afraid to say anything to the king about the excessive beating. Meanwhile, the king said to his son: Were it not for this well-wisher of mine who is sitting before me, I would have killed you. Upon hearing this, the king’s friend said to himself: This is clearly a sign that this matter, rescuing the son from the hands of his father, is dependent upon me. Immediately he stood and rescued him from the king. In an additional aspect of the sin of the Golden Calf, God told Moses: “Now leave Me be, that My wrath will be enraged against them and I will consume them; and I will make of you a great nation” (Exodus 32:10). Explaining this verse, Rabbi Abbahu said: Were the verse not written in this manner, it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God. The phrase: Leave Me be, teaches that Moses grabbed the Holy One, Blessed be He, as a person who grabs his friend by his garment would, and he said before Him: Master of the Universe, I will not leave You be until You forgive and pardon them. In the same verse, God promised Moses: “And I will make of you a great nation.” What was Moses’ response? Rabbi Elazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, if a chair with three legs, the collective merit of the three forefathers, is unable to stand before You in Your moment of wrath, all the more so that a chair with one leg, my merit alone, will be unable to withstand your wrath. Moreover, but I have a sense of shame before my forefathers. Now they will say: See this leader that God placed over Israel. He requested greatness for himself but did not pray for God to have mercy upon them in their troubled time. The Torah continues: “And Moses beseeched [vayḥal] before the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). Many interpretations were given for this uncommon term, vayḥal: Rabbi Elazar said: It teaches that Moses stood in prayer before the Holy One, Blessed be He, until it made him ill [heḥelahu] from overexertion. And Rava said: Moses stood in prayer until he nullified His vow, as the term vayḥal alludes to nullification of an oath. Here it is written vayḥal, and there referring to vows, it is written: “He shall not nullify [lo yaḥel] his word” (Numbers 30:3). And with regard to vows, the Master said: He who vowed cannot nullify his vow, but others, the court, can nullify his vow for him. Here, it is as if Moses nullified the Lord’s vow to destroy Israel. And Shmuel said: The term vayḥal teaches that Moses gave his life, from the term ḥalal, a dead person, for Israel, as it is stated: “And if not, erase me, please, from Your book” (Exodus 32:32). Rava, also interpreting this verse, said that Rav Yitzḥak said: The term vayḥal teaches that he caused the Divine Attribute of Mercy to take effect [heḥela] upon them. And the Rabbis say that this term constitutes the essence of Moses’ claim: It teaches that Moses said before the Holy One Blessed be He: Master of the Universe! It is a sacrilege [ḥullin] for You to do something like this. And another interpretation of the verse, “And Moses beseeched [vayḥal] before the Lord.” It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This term teaches that Moses stood in prayer before the Holy One, Blessed be He, until he was overcome by aḥilu. Even the Sages were unfamiliar with this term. Therefore, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of aḥilu? Rabbi Elazar, an amora of Eretz Yisrael, said that aḥilu is fire in the bones. However, this expression was familiar in Eretz Yisrael but not in Babylonia. They asked in Babylonia: What is the disease that they called fire of the bones? Abaye said that is a disease known in Babylonia as eshta degarmei, which in Aramaic means fire of the bones; in other words, a fever. As Moses continues his prayer, he says: “Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel Your servants, to whom You swore in Your name” (Exodus 32:13). What is the meaning of in Your name? Rabbi Elazar said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, had You sworn to them by the heavens and the earth, I would say: Just as the heavens and the earth will ultimately be no more, so too Your oath will be null and void. Now that You swore to them by Your great name, just as Your name lives and stands for all eternity, so too does Your oath live and stand for all eternity. In this verse, Moses continues: “And You said to them: I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your offspring that they shall inherit it forever.” The Gemara clarifies a puzzling phrase in this verse. That phrase of which I have spoken, it should have said: Of which You have spoken, as Moses is referring to God’s promise to the forefathers. Rabbi Elazar said: To this point, the verse cites the words of the student, Moses; from this point, and all this land of which I have spoken, the verse cites the words of the Master, God. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: These and those are the words of the student; Moses spoke the entire verse. Rather, Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, those matters which You told me to go and say to Israel in My name, I went and told it to them in Your name. I have already told Israel of God’s promise to the forefathers. Now what do I say to them? The Gemara moves to a discussion of additional prayers offered by Moses. Moses said that if God fails to bring the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael, the nations of the world will say: “The Lord did not have the ability [yekholet] to bring this people into the land which He swore to them, and He killed them in the desert” (Numbers 14:16). The Gemara examines this verse closely: The verse should not have utilized the term yekholet, an abstract feminine noun, but rather, it should have said: “The Lord was not able [yakhol],” a masculine verb. Rabbi Elazar said: Moses phrased it that way because he said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, now the nations of the world will say that His strength weakened like a female and He is unable to rescue the nation of Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: And did the nations of the world not already see the miracles and the mighty acts that I performed on behalf of Israel at the Red Sea? Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, they can still say: The Lord can stand up to a single king like Pharaoh and defeat him, but He is unable to stand up to the thirty-one kings in the land of Canaan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, ultimately conceded to Moses? As it is said: “And the Lord said: I have forgiven according to your word” (Numbers 14:20). The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: According to your word, it will be, as indeed in the future the nations of the world will say this. The Gemara concludes: Happy is the student whose teacher concedes to him as the Lord conceded to Moses. Explaining the next verse, “Nevertheless, as I live, and the glory of the Lord fills the entire world” (Numbers 14:21), Rava said that Rav Yitzḥak said: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, you have given Me life with your words. I am happy that on account of your arguments, I will forgive Israel. Based on Moses’ prayers, Rabbi Simlai taught: One should always set forth praise of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive that one should conduct himself in this manner? From Moses, as it is written in his prayer: “And I beseeched the Lord at that time” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And immediately afterward in his prayer, it is written: “Lord, God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand, for what God is there in the heavens or on earth who can perform deeds such as Yours and Your might” (Deuteronomy 3:24)? Here, Moses began with praise of God, and it is only thereafter that it is written: “Please, let me pass over and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and the Lebanon” (Deuteronomy 3:25). Only after his praise did Moses make his personal request. The Gemara prefaces the next discourse with a mnemonic symbol: Deeds, charity, offering, priest, fast, shoe, iron.
תאני רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים ולא עוד אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע בכי רב יוסף כולי האי נמי לאין דומין א"ל אביי טיבותא הוא לגבייהו דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, א) כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה:
of thin wood and a candle [sheraga], since in that case his own action, i.e., that of the one who sent the flame, definitely caused the fire to spread. The mishna teaches that if one sent a fire in the hand of a halakhically competent person, the halakhically competent person is liable…If another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says with regard to the correct text of the mishna: The one who teaches it using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, and the one who teaches it using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken. Rav Naḥman explained: The one who teaches using the word fanned [libba] is not mistaken, as it is written: “With a flame [belabbat] of fire” (Exodus 3:2), and the one who teaches using the word blew [nibba] is not mistaken, as it is written: “He creates the fruit [niv] of the lips” (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips. § The mishna teaches: If the wind fanned the flames, all the people involved are exempt, indicating that even if one fanned the fire at the same time that the wind was blowing he is exempt. The Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught the same idea explicitly: In a case where one fanned the flame and at the same time the wind fanned it, if his fanning has sufficient strength by itself to fan the flames, he is liable for damage caused by the fire, since even without the wind the fire would have spread. But if his fanning alone was not sufficient, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt if his fanning is not sufficient? Let it be the same halakha as the case of one who winnows grain on Shabbat by throwing it into the air, and the wind assists him by separating the chaff from the grain. In such a case he is liable for desecrating Shabbat, despite the fact that without the assistance of the wind he would not have been able to winnow the grain. Abaye said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he fanned the fire from one side and the wind fanned it from the other side, and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Therefore, it is clear that his fanning did not help the fire spread, so he is exempt. Rava says: We are dealing with a case where he fanned it along with a typical wind, and this was not sufficient to cause the fire to spread, and suddenly an atypical wind came and fanned it. Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this. Rabbi Zeira said: We are dealing with a case where he only heated [detzamera tzamurei] the fire by breathing on it, rather than fanning it properly. Rav Ashi said: When we say that one is liable in a case where he winnows and the wind assists him, this statement applies with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. With regard to Shabbat, the principle is that the Torah prohibited planned, constructive labor. The primary consideration is that his objective is accomplished, even if he did not perform the entire act of labor. But here, in the context of damages, he is considered to have caused damage merely through indirect action, and one who causes damage through indirect action is exempt. MISHNA: If one sends forth a fire, i.e., allows it to escape, and it consumes wood, or stones, or earth, he is liable, as it is stated: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed, the one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation” (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself. GEMARA: With regard to the verse cited in the mishna, Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write in the Torah all of these terms: “Thorns,” “a stack of grain,” “standing grain,” and “field,” which seem to be redundant? Rava explains: All the terms are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only “thorns” in the Torah, I would say that it is specifically thorns for which the Merciful One renders one liable, because it is common for fire to be near them, and it is common that one is negligent. But with regard to a stack of grain, with regard to which it is not common for fire to be near it, as grain is valuable, so one keeps it out of harm’s way, and it is not common that one is negligent in allowing it to catch fire, I would say that he should not be liable. And if the Merciful One had written only: “A stack of grain,” I would say that it is specifically for such a stack that the Merciful One renders him liable, because it involves a substantial financial loss. But with regard to thorns, which involve only a minimal loss, I would say that he should not be liable. Therefore, the verse teaches that he is liable for damage to thorns as well. Why do I need the Torah to state the term “standing grain”? It is in order to teach that just as standing grain is exposed, so too, one is liable only for damage caused by fire for all items that are exposed. One is exempt from liability for damage to items that are concealed. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for a concealed article damaged by a fire, why do I need the Torah to state the term: “Standing grain”? The Gemara answers: The term serves to include all items that have stature, i.e., trees and animals, and not only produce. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive the halakha of concealed articles from the term “standing grain,” from where do they derive that all items that have stature are included? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the term: “Or standing grain,” since the additional word “or” is an inclusive term. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the additional word “or”? The Gemara answers: He requires the word “or” to divide the terms, i.e., to teach that one is liable for damage to any one of the items listed, and not only where the fire burned all of them together. The Gemara then asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive the halakha to divide the terms so that one is liable for damage to each one independently? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the second instance of the word “or,” as the verse states: “Or the field.” The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from the phrase “or the field”? The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: “Or standing grain,” He also wrote: “Or the field,” for stylistic consistency, but no additional halakha may be derived from this term. Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And why do I need the word “field” in the verse? It serves to include liability for damage in a case when the flames licked a plowed field and charred its stones. The Gemara asks: But let the Merciful One write only the term “field,” and then it would not require all these other terms. If one is liable for damage to a field, which is not totally destroyed by the fire, he is certainly liable for damage to other items that are completely destroyed. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to write the other terms as well, because if the Merciful One had written only “field,” I would say that for what is in the field, yes, one is liable, but for anything else, no, one is not liable. Therefore, it teaches us that one is liable for any damage caused by fire. § The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Calamity befalls the world only when wicked people are in the world, but the calamity begins only with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed” (Exodus 22:5). When does the fire, i.e., calamity, emerge? At a time when the thorns, i.e., the wicked, are found with it. But calamity begins only from the righteous first, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And a stack of grain is consumed [vene’ekhal].” It is not stated: If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, and consumes [ve’akhal] the stack of grain; rather, it states: “A stack of grain is consumed,” meaning that the stack, i.e., the righteous, has already been consumed before the thorns. Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22)? If the plague was not decreed upon the Jewish people, why were they not permitted to leave their homes? Once permission is granted to the destroyer to kill, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And not only that, but it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: “And will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked” (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked. Rav Yosef cried and said: Are all these righteous people also compared to nothing when calamity strikes? Abaye said to him: It is goodness for the righteous that they die first, as it is written: “The righteous is taken away because of the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always enter an unfamiliar city at a time of good, i.e., while it is light, as the Torah uses the expression “It is good” with regard to the creation of light (see Genesis 1:4). This goodness is manifest in the sense of security one feels when it is light. And likewise, when one leaves a city he should leave at a time of good, meaning after sunrise the next morning, as it is stated in the verse: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22). § The Sages taught: If there is plague in the city, gather your feet, i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, as it is stated in the verse: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it says in another verse: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror” (Deuteronomy 32:25). The Gemara asks: What is the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: And it says? The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one’s house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: And if you would say that this matter, the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only at night, but in the day one may think that the principle does not apply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: Come and hear: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.” And if you would say that this matter applies only where there is no fear inside, which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, but where there is fear inside, one might think that when he goes out and sits among people in general company it is better, therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: Come and hear: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.” This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors. At a time when there was a plague, Rava would close the windows of his house, as it is written: “For death is come up into our windows” (Jeremiah 9:20). The Sages taught: If there is famine in the city, spread your feet, i.e., leave the city, as it is stated in the verse: “And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there” (Genesis 12:10). And it says: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit here, we die also, now come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4). What is the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: And it says? And if you would say that this matter, the principle of leaving the city, applies only where there is no uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, but where there is uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation this principle does not apply, come and hear: “Come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.” The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due to the fact that the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, since in Heaven they have given him permission to kill within the city, he goes openly in the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is peace and quiet in the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, since the Angel of Death does not have permission to kill within the city, he hides himself and walks on the side of the road. The Sages taught: If there is a plague in the city, a person should not enter the synagogue alone, as the Angel of Death leaves his utensils there, and for this reason it is a dangerous place. And this matter, the danger in the synagogue, applies only when there are no children learning in the synagogue, and there are not ten men praying in it. But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place. The Sages taught: If the dogs in a certain place are crying for no reason, it is a sign that they feel the Angel of Death has come to the city. If the dogs are playing, it is a sign that they feel that Elijah the prophet has come to the city. These matters apply only if there is no female dog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence. § Rav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. One Sage said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Let the Master say words of halakha, and the other Sage said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Let the Master say words of aggada. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa began to say words of aggada but one Sage did not let him, so he began to say words of halakha but the other Sage did not let him. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? It can be compared to a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The young wife pulls out his white hairs, so that her husband will appear younger. The old wife pulls out his black hairs so that he will appear older. And it turns out that he is bald from here and from there, i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and said to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you, which contains both halakha and aggada. In the verse that states: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns” (Exodus 22:5), the term “breaks out” indicates that it breaks out by itself. Yet, the continuation of the verse states: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,” which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said that although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, it is incumbent upon Me to pay restitution for the fire that I kindled. I, God, kindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated: “The Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; and He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations” (Lamentations 4:11). And I will build it with fire in the future, as it is stated: “For I, says the Lord, will be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst” (Zechariah 2:9). There is a halakha that can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as the verse begins with damage caused through one’s property: “If a fire breaks out,” and concludes with damage caused by one’s body: “The one who kindled the fire.” This indicates that when damage is caused by fire, it is considered as though the person who kindled the fire caused the damage directly with his body. That serves to say to you that the liability for his fire damage is due to its similarity to his arrows. Just as one who shoots an arrow and causes damage is liable because the damage was caused directly through his action, so too, one who kindles a fire that causes damage is liable because it is considered as though the damage were caused directly by his actions. § The Gemara continues with another statement of aggada on a related topic: The verse states: “And David longed, and said: Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord” (II Samuel 23:15–16). The Sages understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma. What is the dilemma that David is raising? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: He was asking about the halakha with regard to a concealed article damaged by a fire. He wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. And the Sages in Bethlehem answered him what they answered him. Rav Huna stated a different explanation of the verse: There were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, and David wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. He raised the dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to save oneself by destroying the property of another? They sent the following answer to him: It is prohibited to save oneself by destroying the property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action, i.e., the normal halakhot of damage do not apply to you since you are king. The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba bar Mari, give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and said: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, and there were stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines. David needed barley to feed his animals. And David raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted to take a stack of barley belonging to a Jew, to place before one’s animal for it to consume, with the intent to pay the owner of the barley with the stacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines? The Sages of Bethlehem sent the following reply to him: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die” (Ezekiel 33:15). This verse teaches that even though the robber repays the value of the stolen item, he is nevertheless considered to be wicked, and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. But you are king, and a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action. The Gemara discusses the different explanations: Granted, according to the one who says that David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and exchange them, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, this is as it is written in one verse: “And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), and it is written in one other verse: “He was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines” (I Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils. But according to Rav Huna, the one who says that David’s question was asked because he wanted to burn the stacks of barley, for what purpose does he require these two verses? How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have said to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding. Granted, according to the one who says that David asked his question because he wanted to burn the stacks, this is as it is writ-ten in the following verse with regard to David: “But he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory” (II Samuel 23:12). But according to the one who says that David’s question was asked with regard to exchanging the lentils for the barley, what is the meaning of the phrase: “And saved it”? The Rabbis answer that David saved it in that he did not permit them to exchange the value of the barley with the lentils. Granted, according to both of these two opinions, this is as it is written in two distinct verses, one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley.
מ"ד חלילה לך כו' חולין הוא מעשות כו' והכתיב והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע וכו'. איכא למידק בלאו האי פירושא דקאמר חוליו הוא מגופיה דקרא חלילה וגו' להמית צדיק עם רשע ה"מ למיפרך והכתיב והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע ונראה לפרש דודאי ידע המקשה לפלוגי כדאמר בעלמא משניתן רשות למשחית לחבל אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע והכא לפי ענינו עדיין לא ניתן רשות למשחית לחבל דהא נצולו לוט ובנותיו כמ"ש לא אוכל לעשות דבר וגו' ?שזהו עונשן של מלאכים שאמרו כי משחיתים אנחנו כפרש"י שם דהיינו שאמרו כי ניתן להם רשות לחבל אבל למאי דמפרש חולין הוא כו' כלומר שזהו מדת ב"ו שלא ידע להבחין בין צדיק לרשע אבל כלפי שמיא ודיניו תולין הוא מעשות כדבר הזה לא הוא ולא כיוצא בו דהיינו שלא ידע להבחין וא"כ אין לחלק בין ניתן רשות למשחית ובין לא ניתן ופריך והכתיב והכרתי ממך צדיק וגו' ומשני בצדיק שאינו גמור ודאי ניתן רשות למשחית לחבל דאין זה חולין כלפי שמיא ודו"ק:
שהיה בידם למחות - והא דאמרי' בסוף חזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף ס:) מוטב שיהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין היינו בדבר שידוע שלא יקבלו אם ימחו: