חם > מדין > יתרו > פינחס

(1) פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן PHINEAS THE SON OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST — Because the tribes spoke disparagingly of him, saying, “Have you seen this grandson of Puti the father of whose mother used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifices (see Exodus 6:25 that Eleazar his father had married a daughter of Putiel who is identified with Jethro; see Rashi on that verse and Exodus 18:1), and he has dared to slay a prince of one of Israel’s tribes!”, therefore Scripture comes and connects his genealogy with Aaron (Sanhedrin 82b). (2) בקנאו את קנאתי means “when he executed my vengeance” (more lit., when he avenged my avenging) — when he displayed the anger that I should have displayed. The expression קנאה always denotes glowing with anger to execute vengeance for a thing; in O. F. emportment (cf. Rashi on 11:29).

and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it. The Gemara asks: According to this opinion, why was the sin offering burned? They should have delayed its consumption and consumed it that night. The Gemara answers: Ritual impurity came upon this sin offering due to circumstances beyond the priests’ control, and they were forced to burn it. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, this is as it is written: “And if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord”? The verse indicates that Aaron could have eaten it at night. But according to Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that Aaron distinguished between the offerings of that particular time and the offerings of all later generations, what did Aaron mean by the word “today”? The Gemara answers: He meant: And if I had eaten the sin offering of the New Moon, which is today’s obligation, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord? The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, this is as it is written: “Behold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord,” i.e., they offered it as the obligation of the day. But according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, what did Aaron mean by the phrase “behold [hen], today”? The Gemara answers: This is what Aaron is saying: Did they [hen], my sons, sacrifice the offering today, which would have been prohibited to them in acute mourning? No, I sacrificed the offering, and as High Priest, I may perform the service in acute mourning. § The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. The Master says: If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then the priests should have burned all three of the sin offerings offered that day. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: All three of the sin offerings? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned” (Leviticus 10:16). When the verse states: “The goat,” this is referring to the goat of Nahshon, son of Amminadav, the prince of the tribe of Judah, who brought the offering on the first day of the Tabernacle’s inauguration (see Numbers 7:12). When the verse states: “The sin offering,” this is referring to the sin offering that the people brought on the eighth day of the inauguration (see Leviticus 9:13). The term “inquired” is referring to the goat sacrificed at every New Moon (see Numbers 28:15). The Tabernacle was erected on the New Moon of Nisan (see Exodus 40:17). These are the three goats that were sacrificed that day. One might have thought that all three of them were burned. Therefore, the verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned,” to teach that one of the offerings was burned, but not all three of them were burned. The verse states: “And Moses diligently inquired [darosh darash].” Why were there two inquiries? Moses said to them: For what reason is this sin offering burned, and secondly, for what reason are those left unburned? The baraita comments: Still, I do not know which of them was burned. When it states with regard to the burned goat: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), you must say: This is the goat of the New Moon, which atones for impurity in the Temple. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya; if the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, then all three goats should have been burned. How would Rabbi Neḥemya respond? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Neḥemya conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Acute mourning does not disqualify offerings of a particular time. Therefore, they burned only the New Moon sin offering, which applies to future generations as well. The Master says in the baraita: If the sin offering was burned due to acute mourning, why was it burned at all? He should have eaten it in the evening. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya in posing this difficulty. How would he respond? The Gemara explains: He holds that acute mourning in the evening is by Torah law, and therefore the priests were not permitted to eat it even then. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: Alternatively, wasn’t Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not an acute mourner. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri, who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6–8). As it is written only after that incident concerning Pinehas: “And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons. Rav Ashi said: Pinehas did not become a priest until he made peace among the tribes at the time of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the tribes east of the Jordan River built their own altar and nearly provoked a civil war. Before this, Pinehas was always referred to as: Son of Elazar the priest, but during this incident he is himself referred to as a priest for the first time, as it is stated: “And Pinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, and the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, and it pleased them well” (Joshua 22:30). The Gemara asks: And for the other Sage, Rav Ashi, as well, isn’t it written: “And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood”? Apparently, Pinehas became a priest after he killed Zimri. The Gemara responds: When that verse is written, it is with regard to the blessing that it is written, that his descendants would always be priests. It did not indicate that Pinehas became a priest immediately. The Gemara asks: And for the other Sages as well, who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, isn’t it written: “And Pinehas the priest…heard”? Apparently he became a priest only after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: That verse serves to entitle his descendants after him, that they would continue as High Priests through his merit. § Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was a High Priest and would receive a share of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as it is stated: “And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord; it was Moses’ portion of the ram of inauguration, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 8:29). The Gemara raises an objection: In the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that acute mourning was not the reason the sin offering was burned by asking: Wasn’t Pinehas with them? And if it is so that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, let them say: Wasn’t Moses, our teacher, with them? The Gemara responds: Perhaps Moses is different, since as a prophet, he was preoccupied with the Divine Presence, and was not available. As the Master says: Moses ascended Mount Sinai early in the morning, and he descended early in the morning. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from another baraita: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: “He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred” (Leviticus 21:22). If offerings of the most sacred order are stated, that a blemished priest may eat them, then why are offerings of lesser sanctity also stated? And if offerings of lesser sanctity are stated, why are offerings of the most sacred order stated? The baraita answers: Had offerings of lesser sanctity not been stated, I would have said: It is only offerings of the most sacred order that a blemished priest may eat, as they were permitted both to a non-priest and to the priests, but a blemished priest may not eat offerings of lesser sanctity, which were not permitted to non-priests. And had offerings of the most sacred order not been stated, I would have said: A blemished priest may eat offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are of lesser sanctity, but he may not eat of offerings of the most sacred order, as they are of higher sanctity. Therefore, offerings of the most sacred order are stated, and therefore, offerings of lesser sanctity are stated. The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, the baraita teaches: As they were permitted both to a non-priest and to the priests. What non-priest is permitted to eat offerings of the most sacred order? Is this not referring to Moses? This indicates that Moses was not considered a High Priest, contrary to Rav’s statement. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is referring to a non-priest sacrificing on a private altar. Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, it was permitted for a time for them to build private altars, on which even non-priests could serve. And although only offerings of lesser sanctity were offered on private altars, this baraita is in accordance with the statement of the Sage who says: There is a meal offering that may be offered on a private altar. Meal offerings are of the most sacred order. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement: When Miriam became a leper (see Numbers 12:10), who diagnosed and quarantined her? If you say that Moses quarantined her, that is difficult, as Moses was a non-priest,

(12) Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship. (13) It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time, because he took impassioned action for his God, thus making expiation for the Israelites.’”

Rabbi Elazar said: This story proves that prayer is greater than good deeds without prayer (Tosafot), as there was none greater in the performance of good deeds than Moses our teacher; nevertheless, his request was granted, albeit in a limited manner, in his request to enter Eretz Yisrael, only through prayer, when God permitted him to climb the mountain and look out over the land. As, initially it is stated: “Speak no more to Me,” juxtaposed to which is: “Go up to the summit of the mountain.” After comparing and contrasting prayer and good deeds, the Gemara explores another comparison. Rabbi Elazar said: A fast is greater than charity. What is the reason that fasting is greater? Because a fast is a mitzva performed with one’s body as he afflicts himself, while charity is performed only with one’s money. In another comparison, Rabbi Elazar said: Prayer is greater than sacrifices, as it is stated: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me, says the Lord. I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not desire the blood of bulls and sheep and goats” (Isaiah 1:11). And several verses later it is written: “And when you spread forth your hands I will hide My eyes from you, and even if you increase your prayer, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15). Not only Israel’s sacrifices, but even their prayers, which are on a higher spiritual level, will not be accepted. Speaking of that verse in Isaiah, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any priest who killed a person may not lift his hands in the Priestly Blessing as it is stated: “And when you spread forth your hands I will hide My eyes from you…your hands are full of blood.” Here we see that the Priestly Blessing, performed with hands spread forth, is not accepted when performed by priests whose “hands are full of blood.” On the subject of prayer, Rabbi Elazar also said: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is said in lamentation of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13). Since this prayer is a request that God should pay heed to the tears of one who is praying, he is certain that at least the gates of tears are not locked. With regard to the locking of the gates of prayer, the Gemara relates that Rava did not decree a fast on a cloudy day because it is stated: “You have covered Yourself in a cloud, through which prayer cannot pass” (Lamentations 3:44). The verse indicates that clouds are a bad omen, indicating that God has averted His face (Rav Hai Gaon). And Rabbi Elazar said: Since the day the Temple was destroyed an iron wall separates Israel from their Father in heaven, as it is stated to the prophet Ezekiel, instructing him to symbolize that separation: “And take for yourself an iron griddle, and set it as an iron wall between yourself and the city…it will be a sign for the house of Israel” (Ezekiel 4:3). The Gemara cites other statements in praise of prayer: Rabbi Ḥanin said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Anyone who prolongs his prayer is assured that his prayer does not return unanswered; it will surely be accepted. From where do we derive this? From Moses our teacher, as it is stated that Moses said: “So I fell down before the Lord the forty days and forty nights that I fell down; and I prayed to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 9:26–27), and it is written thereafter: “And the Lord heard me that time as well, the Lord would not destroy you” (Deuteronomy 10:10). The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prolongs his prayer and expects it to be answered, will ultimately come to heartache, as it will not be answered. As it is stated: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Proverbs 13:12). And what is the remedy for one afflicted with that illness? He should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “But desire fulfilled is the tree of life” (Proverbs 13:12), and tree of life is nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it, and those who support it are joyous” (Proverbs 3:18). This is not difficult. This, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement that one will suffer heartache refers to one who prolongs his prayer and expects it to be answered; that, Rabbi Ḥanin’s statement that one who prolongs his prayer is praiseworthy refers to one who prolongs his prayer and does not expect it to be answered. On a similar note, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: A person who prayed and saw that he was not answered, should pray again, as it is stated: “Hope in the Lord, strengthen yourself, let your heart take courage, and hope in the Lord” (Psalms 27:14). One should turn to God with hope, and if necessary turn to God again with hope. Connected to the emphasis on the need to bolster one’s effort in prayer, the Gemara notes that the Sages taught in a baraita: Four things require bolstering, constant effort to improve, and they are: Torah, good deeds, prayer, and occupation. For each of these, a biblical proof is cited: From where is it derived that Torah and good deeds require bolstering? As it is stated in the instruction to Joshua: “Only be strong and be extremely courageous, observe and do all of the Torah that Moses My servant commanded you; do not deviate to the right or to the left, that you may succeed wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). In this verse, observe refers to Torah study and do refers to good deeds (Maharsha); the apparently repetitive language is not extraneous. The Gemara derives: Be strong in Torah and be courageous in good deeds. From where is it derived that prayer requires bolstering? As it is said: “Hope in the Lord, strengthen yourself, let your heart take courage, and hope in the Lord.” From where is it derived that occupation requires bolstering? As it is stated: “Be strong and we will be strong for the sake of our nation and for the cities of our God” (II Samuel 10:12). All of one’s labor requires bolstering. The Gemara cites a midrash on the following verse from Isaiah, relating to the sin of the Golden Calf and Moses’ supplication for forgiveness: “But Zion said: The Lord has forsaken me and the Lord has forgotten me. Can a woman forget her suckling baby, that she would not have compassion for the child of her womb? These may forget, but you I will not forget” (Isaiah 49:14–15). The Gemara seeks to clarify: Forsaken is the same as forgotten. They are synonymous; why repeat the same idea twice? Reish Lakish said: The community of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when a man marries a second wife after his first wife, he certainly recalls the deeds of his first wife. Yet You have not only forsaken me, but You have forgotten me as well. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My daughter, I created twelve constellations in the firmament, and for each and every constellation I have created thirty armies, and for each and every army I have created thirty legions [ligyon], and for each and every legion I have created thirty infantry division leaders [rahaton], and for each and every infantry division leader I have created thirty military camp leaders [karton], and for each and every military camp leader I have created thirty leaders of forts [gastera], and on each and every leader of a fort I have hung three hundred and sixty-five thousand stars corresponding to the days of the solar year. And all of them I have created only for your sake; and you said the Lord has forsaken me and the Lord has forgotten me? The verse goes on to say: “Can a woman forget her suckling baby, that she would not have compassion for the child of her womb? These may forget, but you I will not forget.” The meaning of this verse is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the community of Israel: Have I forgotten the ram offerings and firstborn animals that you offered before Me in the desert? The community of Israel replied to Him: Master of the Universe, since there is no forgetfulness before the Throne of Your Glory, perhaps you will not forget my sin of the Golden Calf? God responded to Israel: “These [elu] too shall be forgotten.” “These” is a reference to the sin of the Golden Calf, regarding which Israel said: “These [elu] are your gods.” The community of Israel said before Him: Master of the Universe, since there is forgetfulness before the Throne of Your Glory, perhaps You will also forget the events revolving around the revelation at Sinai? God said to Israel: I [anokhi] will not forget you the revelation at Sinai, which began with: “I [anokhi] am the Lord your God.” The Gemara notes: That is what Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “These too will be forgotten”? That is the sin of the Golden Calf. And what is the meaning of I will not forget you? Those are the events that transpired at Sinai. We learned in the mishna that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour in order to achieve the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This is alluded to when the verse states: “Happy are those who dwell in Your House” (Psalms 84:5), immediately after which it is said: “They will yet praise You, Selah.” And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who prays must also wait one hour after his prayer, as it is stated: “Surely the righteous will give thanks unto Your name, the upright will sit before You” (Psalms 140:14), meaning that after thanking God through prayer, one should stay and sit before Him. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who prays must wait one hour before his prayer and one hour after his prayer. From where is it derived that one must wait one hour before his prayer? As it is stated: “Happy are those who dwell in Your House.” And from where is it derived that one must stay one hour after his prayer? As it is written: “Surely the righteous will give thanks unto Your name, the upright will sit before You.” The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to waiting before and after prayer: The early generations of pious men would wait one hour, pray one hour, then wait one hour again. This raises the question: Since the early pious men would spend nine hours per day engaged either in prayer or the requisite waiting periods before and after prayer, three hours each for the morning, afternoon, and evening prayers, how is their Torah preserved? There was little time remaining to review their studies. And how was their work accomplished? The Gemara answers: Rather, because they were pious they merited that their Torah is preserved and their work is blessed. Additionally, we learned in the mishna: Even if the king greets him while he is praying, he should not respond to him as one may not interrupt his prayer. In limiting application of this principle, Rav Yosef said: They only taught this mishna with regard to kings of Israel, as a Jewish king would understand that the individual did not fail to respond to his greeting due to disrespect for the king. However, with regard to kings of the nations of the world, he interrupts his prayer and responds to their greeting due to the potential danger. The Gemara raised an objection to Rav Yosef’s statement: One who is praying and saw a violent person, feared by all, coming toward him, or a carriage coming toward him and he is in the way, he should not stop his prayer but rather abridge it and move out of the way. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Rather, this that teaches to abridge one’s prayer rather than stopping, refers to a case where it is possible to abridge his prayer and complete it in time, in which case he should abridge it. And if it is not a situation where he can abridge his prayer, he interrupts his prayer. The Sages taught: There was a related incident, involving a particular pious man who was praying while traveling along his path when an officer [hegmon] came and greeted him. The pious man did not pause from his prayer and did not respond with a greeting. The officer waited for him until he finished his prayer.After he finished his prayer, the officer said to him: You good for nothing. You endangered yourself; I could have killed you.Isn’t it written in your Torah: “Take utmost care and guard yourself diligently” (Deuteronomy 4:9)? And it is also written: “Take therefore good heed unto yourselves” (Deuteronomy 4:15)? Why did you ignore the danger to your life? When I greeted you, why did you not respond with a greeting? Were I to sever your head with a sword, who would hold me accountable for your spilled blood? The pious man said to him: Wait for me until I will appease you with my words. He said to him: Had you been standing before a flesh and blood king and your friend came and greeted you, would youreturn his greeting?

(22) Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

(1) Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words. (2) And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. (3) They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard.”—Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.— (4) And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.” (5) The LORD came down to look at the city and tower that man had built, (6) and the LORD said, “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach. (7) Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.” (8) Thus the LORD scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. (9) That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confounded the speech of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

(34) Or has any god ventured to go and take for himself one nation from the midst of another by prodigious acts, by signs and portents, by war, by a mighty and an outstretched arm and awesome power, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?

(6) but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

(12) Swearing by My Name, I say to him, Behold, I decree to him My covenant of peace, and will make him an angel of the covenant, that he may ever live, to announce the Redemption at the end of the days.

(17) “Assail the Midianites and defeat them— (18) for they assailed you by the trickery they practiced against you—because of the affair of Peor and because of the affair of their kinswoman Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite chieftain, who was killed at the time of the plague on account of Peor.”

(1) וידבר משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SPAKE etc. — Although he had heard (v. 2) that his death was associated with this matter, he did it gladly and did not delay (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:2). (2) החלצו — Understand this as the Targum does in the sense of “equipped (חלוצי) for war”, armed. (3) אנשים MEN — righteous men, and similar is, (Exodus 17:9) “Choose men for us”, and so, too, (Deuteronomy 1:13) “men wise and well-known” (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 3). (4) ‎'נקמת ה‎ “THE VENGEANCE OF THE LORD” — [This is really equivalent to the expression God had employed (v.2), “the vengeance of the children of Israel”], because whoever attacks Israel is as though he attacks the Holy One blessed be He.

MISHNA: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles the following actions are prohibited, as they would bring joy to the gentile, who would subsequently give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival: It is prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend items to them or to borrow items from them; to lend money to them or to borrow money from them; and to repay debts owed to them or to collect repayment of debts from them. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment of debts from them because this causes the gentile distress. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Even though he is distressed now, when he repays the money, he is happy afterward that he is relieved of the debt, and therefore there is concern that he will give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival. GEMARA: Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the correct version of the text of the mishna. One teaches the term meaning: Their festivals, as eideihen, spelled with an alef as the first letter, and one teaches eideihen with an ayin as the first letter. The Gemara comments: The one who teaches eideihen with an alef is not mistaken, and the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin is not mistaken, as there is support for each version of the term. The Gemara elaborates: The one who teaches eideihen with an alef is not mistaken, as it is written: “For the day of their calamity [eidam] is at hand” (Deuteronomy 32:35), and the future downfall mentioned in the verse is partly due to the festivals of idol worshippers. The term there is spelled with an alef. And likewise, the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin is not mistaken, as it is written: “Let them bring their witnesses [eideihem], that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9), i.e., the festivals will serve as witnesses against gentile sinners, proving that they engaged in idol worship. The term there is spelled with an ayin. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who teaches eideihen with an alef, what is the reason that he did not teach eideihen with an ayin? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that a term that refers to a calamity is preferable. The Gemara asks: And the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin, what is the reason that he did not teach eideihen with an alef? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: What causes this calamity to happen to them? It is the testimony that they testified against themselves. Therefore, a term that references testimony is preferable. The Gemara asks: But is this verse: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified,” written with regard to the nations of the world? Isn’t it written with regard to the Jewish people? As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All the mitzvot that the Jews perform in this word will come and bear witness for them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified.” These are the Jews, as their good deeds bear witness for them and demonstrate their righteousness. When the verse states: “And let them hear, and say: It is truth” (Isaiah 43:9), these are the nations of the world, who will admit to the righteousness of the Jews. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The one who says that the correct word is eideihen with an ayin derived this use of the term from here: “They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity, and their delectable things shall not profit; and their own witnesses [eideihem] see not, nor know” (Isaiah 44:9). This demonstrates that the objects of idol worship will serve as witnesses against their worshippers. § The Gemara cites homiletic interpretations of the verse that was discussed earlier: “All the nations are gathered together, and let the peoples be assembled; who among them can declare this, and announce to us former matters? Let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified; and let them hear, and say: It is truth” (Isaiah 43:9). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught, and some say that it was Rabbi Simlai who taught: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring a Torah scroll and place it in His lap and say: Anyone who engaged in its study should come and take his reward. Immediately, the nations of the world will gather together and come intermingled with each other, as it is stated: “All the nations are gathered together and let the peoples be assembled.” The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to them: Do not enter before Me intermingled; rather, let each and every nation enter