אגדה מושכת את הלב
רבי אומר בתחילה פירש עונשה דכתיב וישב משה דברים שמשבבין דעתו של אדם ולבסוף פירש מתן שכרה דכתיב ויגד משה דברים שמושכין לבו של אדם כאגדה.
On the third day of the week, God said to them the mitzva of setting boundaries around Mount Sinai. On the fourth day of the week, the husbands and wives separated from one another. And the Rabbis hold: On the second day of the week the New Moon was established, and on the second day of the week God did not say anything to them due to the weariness caused by their journey. On the third day of the week, God said to them: “And 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” (Exodus 19:6). On the fourth day of the week, God said to them the mitzva of setting boundaries around Mount Sinai. On the fifth day of the week, the husbands and wives separated from one another. The Gemara raises an objection: Doesn’t the verse state: “And the Lord said to Moses: Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10), indicating that the husbands and wives were separated for only two days? This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said earlier that the separation was for three days. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: Moses added one day to the number of days that God commanded based on his own perception, as it was taught in a baraita: Moses did three things based on his own perception, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with him. He added one day to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai based on his own perception. And he totally separated from his wife after the revelation at Sinai. And he broke the tablets following the sin of the Golden Calf. The Gemara discusses these cases: He added one day based on his own perception. What source did he interpret that led him to do so? He reasoned that since the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “Sanctify them today and tomorrow,” the juxtaposition of the two days teaches that today is like tomorrow; just as tomorrow the men and women will separate for that day and the night preceding it, so too, today requires separation for the day and the night preceding it. Since God spoke to him in the morning, and the night of that day already passed, Moses concluded: Derive from it that separation must be in effect for two days besides that day. Therefore, he extended the mitzva of separation by one day. And from where do we derive that the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with his interpretation? It is derived from the fact that the Divine Presence did not rest upon Mount Sinai until Shabbat morning, as Moses had determined. And he totally separated from his wife after the revelation at Sinai. What source did he interpret that led him to do so? He reasoned an a fortiori inference by himself and said: If Israel, with whom the Divine Presence spoke only one time and God set a specific time for them when the Divine Presence would be revealed, and yet the Torah stated: “Prepare yourselves for three days, do not approach a woman” (Exodus 19:15); I, with whom the Divine Presence speaks all the time and God does not set a specific time for me, all the more so that I must separate from my wife. And from where do we derive that the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with him? As it is written after the revelation at Sinai: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:26), meaning to your homes and wives. And afterward it is written that God told Moses: “And you, stand here with Me” (Deuteronomy 5:27), indicating that Moses was not allowed to return home, as he must constantly be prepared to receive the word of God. And some say a different source indicating that God agreed with his reasoning. When Aaron and Miriam criticized Moses’ separation from his wife, God said: “With him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord does he behold; why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?” (Numbers 12:8). This indicates that God agreed with his reasoning. And he broke the tablets following the sin of the Golden Calf. What source did he interpret that led him to do so? Moses said: With regard to the Paschal lamb, which is only one of six hundred and thirteen mitzvot, the Torah stated: “And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Paschal offering; no alien shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), referring not only to gentiles, but to apostate Jews as well. Regarding the tablets, which represented the entire Torah, and Israel at that moment were apostates, as they were worshipping the calf, all the more so are they not worthy of receiving the Torah. And from where do we derive that the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with his reasoning? As it is stated: “The first tablets which you broke [asher shibarta]” (Exodus 34:1), and Reish Lakish said: The word asher is an allusion to the phrase: May your strength be true [yishar koḥakha] due to the fact that you broke the tablets. Come and hear an additional difficulty from the verse: “And be prepared for the third day, for on the third day God will descend onto Mount Sinai before the eyes of the entire nation” (Exodus 19:11). This indicates that God said that the Torah would be given on the third day after two days of separation. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara answers: Didn’t we say that Moses added one day based on his own perception? Come and hear a proof against this from what was taught in a baraita. That which is stated in the Torah: “For on the third day,” means the third day of the month and the third day of the week. Apparently, the New Moon was on Sunday. This is difficult according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara answers: The Rabbis could have said to you: Whose is the opinion in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Therefore, this baraita poses no difficulty to the opinion of the Rabbis. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, that day was the third day of what reckoning? As it was taught in a baraita: It is written: “And Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:8). And it is written immediately thereafter: “And God said to Moses: Behold I will come to you in a thick cloud so that the people will hear when I speak with you, and they will also believe in you forever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:9). The Gemara asks: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, say to Moses, and what did Moses say to Israel, and what did Israel say to Moses, and what did Moses report to the Almighty? The verses do not elaborate on the content of God’s command to Moses, which Moses then told the people and which they accepted. It must be that this refers to the mitzva of setting boundaries, which Moses told the people and which they accepted. He then went back and reported to God that the people accepted the mitzva; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: At first, he explained the punishment and the hardship involved in receiving the Torah, as it is written: “And Moses reported [vayashev],” which is interpreted homiletically as: Matters that shatter [meshabbevin] (Rav Hai Gaon) a person’s mind; and, ultimately, he explained its reward, as it is written: “And Moses told [vayagged],” which is interpreted homiletically as: Matters that draw a person’s heart like aggada. And some say that at first, he explained its reward, as it is written: “And Moses reported,” which is interpreted homiletically as: Matters that restore [meshivin] and calm a person’s mind; and ultimately, he explained its punishment, as it is written: “And Moses told,” matters that are as difficult for a person as wormwood [gidin]. Come and hear a proof from that which was taught in a baraita: The sixth was the sixth day of the month and the sixth day of the week. This is also difficult according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara answers: This baraita is also according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. But if so, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, that day was the sixth day of what reckoning? Rava said:
אחרים אומרים גד שדומה להגדה שמושכת לבו של אדם כמים.
his eye on his cup, i.e., is habitually drunk, all the prohibitions of those with whom relations are forbidden seem to him like level [mishor] ground. He is unaware of the pitfalls of sin and continues walking along a twisted and dangerous path. And one said: Whoever casts his eye on his cup, the whole world seems to him like level [mishor] ground. Not only is such a person unconcerned by forbidden sexual relations, but all other prohibitions, e.g., monetary prohibitions, also seem permitted in his eyes. § The Gemara explains another verse in Proverbs: “If there is care in a man’s heart, let him quash it [yashḥena]” (Proverbs 12:25). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi dispute the verse’s meaning. One said: He should forcefully push it [yasḥena] out of his mind. One who worries should banish his concerns from his thoughts. And one said: It means he should tell [yesiḥena] others his concerns, which will lower his anxiety. § Another verse states: “And dust shall be the serpent’s food” (Isaiah 65:25). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi dispute the verse’s meaning. One said: Even if the serpent eats all the delicacies in the world, they will still taste like dust. And one said: Even if it eats all the delicacies in the world, its mind is unsettled until it also eats some dust. With regard to the same topic, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is different than the attribute of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood is that one who seeks to provoke another harasses him in all aspects of his life, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act in this way. He cursed the serpent and what happened? When the serpent goes up to the roof its food is with it, and when it comes down its food is with it. Consequently, the curse that it suffers does not ruin its life but rather benefits it. Similarly, He cursed Canaan that he should be the servant of servants, but he benefits somewhat from this. He eats what his master eats, and drinks what his master drinks, and does not worry like a free man does. He cursed the woman and everyone pursues her to marry her. He cursed the land after the sin of Adam and Eve, yet everyone is sustained from it. Even when God is angry, He does not punish His creations severely. The Gemara cites more verses that pertain to the same issue. Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the following verse: “We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing” (Numbers 11:5). One said: The verse is referring literally to fish. And one said: The verse is referring to incestuous relations that the Torah had not yet forbidden. The people cried once the Torah prohibited certain relatives to them. The Gemara explains: The one who said that the verse is referring to fish bases him explanation on the verse, as it is written “which we ate.” This means what they actually ate. And the one who said that the verse is referring to forbidden sexual relations also bases his explanation on the verse, as it is written “for nothing.” Certainly, the people did not actually eat fish for free. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that it is referring to forbidden relations, but isn’t it written “which we ate”? The Gemara answers: The Torah employed a euphemistic expression. Eating is used as a euphemism for sexual relations, as it is written: “So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20). And according to the one who said it is referring to fish, what is the meaning of the phrase “for nothing”? The people brought the fish from the river, which was ownerless property, since the Egyptians obviously would not have given them free food. The Master said: When the Jews drew water from the river, the Holy One, Blessed be He, prepared little fish for them in the water. They swam into their jugs. The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who said that they cried over actual fish but were not promiscuous in having forbidden relations in Egypt, this is what is written to praise the Jewish people: “A garden enclosed is my sister the bride; a locked fountain, a sealed spring” (Song of Songs 4:12). This figurative language teaches that Jewish women are chaste. However, according to the one who said the Jewish people cried over forbidden sexual relations, what does the phrase “a sealed spring” mean? The Gemara answers: It means that they were not promiscuous with those relatives who were already forbidden to them. In Egypt, the Jewish people observed the laws of forbidden sexual relations that are included in the seven Noahide commandments. In the desert, they cried over the additional prohibitions imposed when the Torah was given. The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who said that they cried over the new prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations, this is as it is written: “And Moses heard the people weeping for their families” (Numbers 11:10). They cried with regard to the issue of their families, because now it became prohibited for them to cohabit with them. But according to the one who says that they cried over fish what does “weeping for their families” mean? The Gemara answers: Both this and that happened. They cried about the laws of forbidden sexual relations, and they also cried because they no longer had the fish of Egypt. The Gemara returns to the same verse: It states: “We remember…the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic” (Numbers 11:5). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi debate the verse’s meaning. One said: They tasted the flavor of all types of food in the manna, but they cried because they could not taste the tastes of these five foods that they mentioned. And one said: They tasted the flavor of all types of food, as well as their textures. The sensation was so strong that it seemed to them like they were eating those very foods. However, with the foods they listed, the people tasted only their flavor but not their texture. With regard to the manna, the Torah further states: “And it was white [lavan] like coriander seed; and its flavor was like wafers made of honey” (Exodus 16:31). The Gemara questions this, since coriander is brown, not white. Rabbi Asi said: The manna was round like coriander seed but white like a pearl. This was also taught in a baraita: Coriander [gad] is so named because it is similar to flax seeds on their stalks, which are bound [agud] in a bundle. Others say: It was called coriander [gad] because it is similar to a tale [haggada], which draws a person’s heart toward it, just like water, which is essential for life, draws one. It was taught in another baraita: Why is it called gad? Because it told [maggid] the Jewish people the answer to issues of uncertainty, such as the paternity of a baby. If a woman remarries within two months after her divorce or the death of her husband and gives birth seven months after her remarriage, it is unclear if the baby gestated for seven months and is the son of the second husband or for nine months and is the son of the first husband. The manna would tell them if the baby was born after nine months and belongs to the first husband, or if the baby was born after seven months and belongs to the second husband. Since the manna was collected by each family based on the number of its biological members, the manna established the baby’s paternity. The manna was called white because it whitened Israel’s sins. The people feared that if they sinned the manna would not continue to fall. Consequently, they devoted themselves to introspection and repentance. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Just like the prophet would tell the Jewish people what was in the holes and what was in the cracks of their souls, highlighting the sins of the people, so too, the manna clarified for Israel what was in the holes and what was in the cracks. How so? If two people came before Moses for a judgment, one saying: You stole my slave, and the other one saying: I did not steal him, rather you sold him to me, Moses would say to them: In the morning there will be a judgment. How was the matter resolved? If on the following day the slave found his omer of manna in his first master’s house, it would be clear that he was stolen, because the manna still came to the first owner. And if on the following day he found his omer of manna in his second master’s house, it would be clear that he had been sold. Similarly, if a man and a woman came to Moses for a judgment, he saying: She sinned against me, and therefore I may divorce her and am not obligated to pay her divorce settlement, and she saying: He sinned against me and therefore I am entitled to the full settlement from the marriage contract, Moses would say to them: In the morning there will be a judgment. The following day, if her omer of manna was found in her husband’s house, it would be clear that she sinned against him. The fact that her nourishment was given to his household signifies the fact that he has respected her appropriately and is worthy of nourishing her. If her omer of manna was found in her father’s house, it would be clear that he sinned against her. Her nourishment has not been given to his household, signifying that he has been disrespectful to her and is not worthy of nourishing her. § The Gemara continues to discuss the manna: It is written: “And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it” (Numbers 11:9). And it is written: “And the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day” (Exodus 16:4). And it is written: “The people went about and gathered it” (Numbers 11:8). How can these texts be reconciled? For the righteous, the manna fell at the opening of their homes. They expended no effort at all. The average people went out of the camp and gathered what fell there. The wicked had to go about farther to gather. With regard to the manna, it is written “bread” (Exodus 16:4); and it is written “cakes” (Numbers 11:8); and it is also written “and ground it in mills,” (Numbers 11:8), implying that it was neither bread nor a cake. How can these texts be reconciled? For the righteous, it fell as baked bread; for average people, it fell as unbaked cakes; for the wicked it came in an unprocessed form and consequently they ground it in a mill. The verse states: “Or beat it in a mortar” (Numbers 11:8). Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: This teaches that women’s perfumes fell for the Jewish people with the manna because they are an item that is beaten in a mortar. The verse continues: “And cooked it in a pot” (Numbers 11:8). Rabbi Ḥama said: This teaches that cooking spices fell for the Jewish people with the manna. § With regard to donations for the Tabernacle, the verse states: “And they brought yet to him free-will offerings every morning” (Exodus 36:3). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “every morning”? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They brought donations from that which fell every morning with the manna. This teaches that pearls and precious stones fell for the Israelites with the manna. It states: “And the rulers [nesi’im] brought the onyx [shoham] stones” (Exodus 35:27). A tanna taught that the word nesi’im means actual clouds brought them. As it states: “As clouds [nesi’im] and wind without rain so is he that boasts himself of a false gift” (Proverbs 25:14). We learn from this that the precious stones fell from the clouds with the manna. It was also said with regard to the manna: “And its taste was as the taste of a cake [shad] baked with oil [hashamen]” (Numbers 11:8). Rabbi Abbahu said: Shad means breast. Just as a baby tastes different flavors from the breast, since the taste of the milk changes somewhat depending on what foods his mother eats, so too with the manna, every time that the Jewish people ate the manna, they found in it many different flavors, based on their preferences. There are those who say that the word is written as shed and means literally a demon. How so? Just as a demon changes into different forms and colors, so too, the manna changed into different flavors. The verse states: “And Moses said: This shall be, when the Lord will give you in the evening meat to eat, and in the morning bread to the full” (Exodus 16:8). A tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: The meat that the Jewish people asked for inappropriately, since they had the manna and did not need meat, was given to them inappropriately, in a way that was unpleasant; they were punished afterward (Rabbeinu Elyakim).
שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה.
before the creation of the world, but they were not created. The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting a few of them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all. And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse: “Who were snatched [kumtu]” (Job 22:16), is written for a blessing, as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [mekamtin], i.e., humble, themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [yesodam] was poured out as a stream” (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [sod]. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song to God and then immediately cease to exist, as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with that of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur. § The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion. The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this rebuff from him, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara offers a proof: Come and hear the following teaching of a different baraita: One throne is for judgment and one is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take [kelakh] your words to the topics of plagues and tents. Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. Rather, with regard to the two thrones: One throne is for a seat and one is for a small seat. The seat is to sit on, and the small seat is for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). § The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. When Rav Dimi came from Israel to Babylonia, he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, i.e., he was not satisfied, until he said to them the great curse of the following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). The Gemara asks: What are these eighteen curses? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel. The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. The Gemara interjects: Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One of them said: They were proficient in six hundred orders of Mishna, and the other one said: In seven hundred orders of Mishna, only six of which remain today. “Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” (Proverbs 9:5). “And every support of water”; these are the masters of aggada, who draw people’s hearts like water by means of aggada. “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, one who masters the halakhot transmitted to him from his rabbis. “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, generating novel teachings in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. Why is he called a diviner? For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” (Proverbs 16:10). “An elder”; this is one fit for the position of head of an academy. “A captain of fifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of [ḥamisha ḥumshei] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here we learn that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is less than fifty years of age. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, who would plead Israel’s case in the house of the emperor. “The counselor”; this is referring to one who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise through his questions. “Charmer [ḥarashim]”; this is referring to one so wise that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all those listening are as though deaf [ḥershin], as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful”; this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter [laḥash]”; this is referring to one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [laḥash], i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him. The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: “And I will make children their princes” (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “And I will make children [ne’arim] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [menu’arin] of mitzvot; such people will become the leaders of the nation. “And babes [ta’alulim] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: Ta’alulim means foxes [ta’alei], sons of foxes. In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. And the prophet Isaiah’s mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [na’ar]; these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, who will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [nikleh] against the honorable [nikhbad]”; this means that one for whom major [kaved] transgressions are like minor ones [kalot] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom even minor transgressions are like major ones in his mind. § The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist among its people, as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, and say: You have a cloak, be our ruler” (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: Things that people are careful to keep covered as with a cloak, i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, are under your hand, as you are an expert with regard to them. What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, he would have said that he learned and forgot, thereby avoiding shame. What is the meaning of “I will not be a healer,” which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: I will not be a healer at all, as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all. The Gemara raises another difficulty: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult:
(ד) ר' יצחק נפחא פתח (ש"ה ב) סמכוני באשישות אלו הלכות המאוששות רפדוני בתפוחים שריחן יפה כתפוחים כי חולת אהבה אני אמר ר׳ יצחק לשעבר כשהיתה הפרוטה מצויה היתה נפש אדם מתאוה לשמוע דבר הלכה ודבר אגדה:
"עקיבא מה לך אצל אגדה"
כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי.
כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה.
before the creation of the world, but they were not created. The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting a few of them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all. And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse: “Who were snatched [kumtu]” (Job 22:16), is written for a blessing, as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [mekamtin], i.e., humble, themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [yesodam] was poured out as a stream” (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [sod]. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song to God and then immediately cease to exist, as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with that of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur. § The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion. The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this rebuff from him, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara offers a proof: Come and hear the following teaching of a different baraita: One throne is for judgment and one is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take [kelakh] your words to the topics of plagues and tents. Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. Rather, with regard to the two thrones: One throne is for a seat and one is for a small seat. The seat is to sit on, and the small seat is for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). § The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. When Rav Dimi came from Israel to Babylonia, he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, i.e., he was not satisfied, until he said to them the great curse of the following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). The Gemara asks: What are these eighteen curses? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel. The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. The Gemara interjects: Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One of them said: They were proficient in six hundred orders of Mishna, and the other one said: In seven hundred orders of Mishna, only six of which remain today. “Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” (Proverbs 9:5). “And every support of water”; these are the masters of aggada, who draw people’s hearts like water by means of aggada. “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, one who masters the halakhot transmitted to him from his rabbis. “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, generating novel teachings in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. Why is he called a diviner? For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” (Proverbs 16:10). “An elder”; this is one fit for the position of head of an academy. “A captain of fifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of [ḥamisha ḥumshei] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here we learn that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is less than fifty years of age. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, who would plead Israel’s case in the house of the emperor. “The counselor”; this is referring to one who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise through his questions. “Charmer [ḥarashim]”; this is referring to one so wise that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all those listening are as though deaf [ḥershin], as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful”; this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter [laḥash]”; this is referring to one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [laḥash], i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him. The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: “And I will make children their princes” (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “And I will make children [ne’arim] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [menu’arin] of mitzvot; such people will become the leaders of the nation. “And babes [ta’alulim] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: Ta’alulim means foxes [ta’alei], sons of foxes. In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. And the prophet Isaiah’s mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [na’ar]; these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, who will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [nikleh] against the honorable [nikhbad]”; this means that one for whom major [kaved] transgressions are like minor ones [kalot] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom even minor transgressions are like major ones in his mind. § The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist among its people, as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, and say: You have a cloak, be our ruler” (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: Things that people are careful to keep covered as with a cloak, i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, are under your hand, as you are an expert with regard to them. What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, he would have said that he learned and forgot, thereby avoiding shame. What is the meaning of “I will not be a healer,” which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: I will not be a healer at all, as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all. The Gemara raises another difficulty: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult:
ת"ש דתניא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי ר"ע א"ל ר' אלעזר בן עזריא עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו.
דא"ר יוחנן כי הוה דריש ר' מאיר בפירקיה הוה דריש תילתא שמעתא תילתא אגדתא תילתא מתלי.
his torso was fashioned from dust taken from Babylonia, and his head was fashioned from dust taken from Eretz Yisrael, the most important land, and his limbs were fashioned from dust taken from the rest of the lands in the world. With regard to his buttocks, Rav Aḥa says: They were fashioned from dust taken from Akra De’agma, on the outskirts of Babylonia. Rabbi Yoḥanan bar Ḥanina says: Daytime is twelve hours long, and the day Adam the first man was created was divided as follows: In the first hour of the day, his dust was gathered. In the second, an undefined figure was fashioned. In the third, his limbs were extended. In the fourth, a soul was cast into him. In the fifth, he stood on his legs. In the sixth, he called the creatures by the names he gave them. In the seventh, Eve was paired with him. In the eighth, they arose to the bed two, and descended four, i.e., Cain and Abel were immediately born. In the ninth, he was commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. In the tenth, he sinned. In the eleventh, he was judged. In the twelfth, he was expelled and left the Garden of Eden, as it is stated: “But man abides not in honor; he is like the beasts that perish” (Psalms 49:13). Adam did not abide, i.e., sleep, in a place of honor for even one night. Rami bar Ḥama says in explanation of the end of that verse: A wild animal does not have power over a person unless that person seems to the wild animal like an animal, as it is stated: “He is like the beasts that perish.” The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the statements that follow: At the time, to the end, Aramaic. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to create a person, He created one group of ministering angels. He said to them: If you agree, let us fashion a person in our image. The angels said before him: Master of the Universe, what are the actions of this person You suggest to create? God said to them: His actions are such and such, according to human nature. The angels said before him: Master of the Universe: “What is man that You are mindful of him? And the son of man that You think of him?” (Psalms 8:5), i.e., a creature such as this is not worth creating. God outstretched His small finger among them and burned them with fire. And the same occurred with a second group of angels. The third group of angels that He asked said before Him: Master of the Universe, the first two groups who spoke their mind before You, what did they accomplish? The entire world is Yours; whatever You wish to do in Your world, do. God then created the first person. When history arrived at the time of the people of the generation of the flood and the people of the generation of the dispersion, i.e., the Tower of Babel, whose actions were ruinous, the angels said before God: Master of the Universe, didn’t the first set of angels speak appropriately before You, that human beings are not worthy of having been created? God said to them concerning humanity: “Even to your old age I am the same; and even to hoar hairs will I suffer you; I have made and I will bear; and I will carry, and I will deliver you” (Isaiah 46:4), i.e., having created people, I will even suffer their flaws. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man spanned from one end of the world until the other, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other” (Deuteronomy 4:32), meaning that on the day Adam was created he spanned from one end of the heavens until the other. Once Adam sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand on him and diminished him, as it is stated: “Behind and before You have created me and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5), that at first Adam spanned “behind and before,” meaning everywhere, and then God laid His hand on him and diminished him. Rabbi Elazar says: The height of Adam the first man was from the ground until the firmament, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other.” Adam stood “upon the earth” and rose to the end of the heavens. Once Adam sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand on him and diminished him, as it is stated: “Behind and before You have created me and laid Your hand upon me.” The Gemara asks: The interpretations of the verses contradict each other. The first interpretation is that his size was from one end of the world to the other, and the second interpretation is that it was from the earth until the heavens. The Gemara answers: This and that, from one end of the world to another and from the earth until the heavens, are one measure, i.e., the same distance. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man spoke in the language of Aramaic, as it is stated in the chapter of Psalms speaking in the voice of Adam: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God” (Psalms 139:17). And this, i.e., that the verse in Psalms is stated by Adam, is what Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1)? This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Adam every generation and its Torah interpreters, every generation and its wise ones. When he arrived at his vision of the generation of Rabbi Akiva, Adam was gladdened by his Torah, and saddened by his manner of death. He said: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God,” i.e., how it weighs upon me that a man as great as Rabbi Akiva should suffer. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man was a heretic, as it is stated: “And the Lord called to the man and said to him: Where are you”? (Genesis 3:9), meaning, to where has your heart turned, indicating that Adam turned from the path of truth. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: He was one who drew his foreskin forward, so as to remove any indication that he was circumcised. It is written here: “And they like men [adam] have transgressed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7), and it is written there: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). Rav Naḥman says: He was a denier of the fundamental principle of belief in God. It is written here: “And they like men [adam] have transgressed the covenant,” and it is written there: “He has broken My covenant,” and it is written in a third verse: “And then they shall answer: Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God and worshipped other gods and served them” (Jeremiah 22:9). § We learned in a mishna there (Avot 4:4): Rabbi Eliezer says: Be persistent to learn Torah, and know what to respond to the heretic [la’apikoros]. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This was taught only with regard to a gentile heretic, but not with regard to a Jewish heretic, as one should not respond to him. All the more so, if one does respond he will become more heretical. His heresy is assumed to be intentional, and any attempt to rebut it will only cause him to reinforce his position. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any place in the Bible from where the heretics attempt to prove their heresy, i.e., that there is more than one god, the response to their claim is alongside them, i.e., in the immediate vicinity of the verses they cite. The verse states that God said: “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), employing the plural, but it then states: “And God created man in His image” (Genesis 1:27), employing the singular. The verse states that God said: “Come, let us go down and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7), but it also states: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower” (Genesis 11:5). The verse states in the plural: “There God was revealed [niglu] to him when he fled from the face of his brother” (Genesis 35:7), but it also states in the singular: “To God Who answers [haoneh] me in the day of my distress” (Genesis 35:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan cites several examples where the counterclaim is in the same verse as the claim of the heretics. The verse states: “For what nation is there so great that has God so near to them as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), where the term “near” is written in plural, kerovim, but the term “upon Him” is written in singular. Another verse states: “And who is like Your people, like Israel, a nation one in the earth, whom God went to redeem unto Himself for a people?” (II Samuel 7:23), where the term “went” is written in plural, halekhu, but the term “Himself” is written in singular. Another verse states: “I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit” (Daniel 7:9); where the term “thrones” is written in plural, kharsavan, but the term “sit” is written in singular. The Gemara asks: Why do I need these instances of plural words? Why does the verse employ the plural at all when referring to God? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act unless He consults with the entourage of Above, i.e., the angels, as it is stated: “The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:14). The Gemara clarifies: This works out well for almost all the verses, as they describe an action taken by God, but what is there to say concerning the verse: “I beheld till thrones were placed”? The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah, as it is taught in a baraita: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Akiva! Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person? Rather, the correct interpretation is that both thrones are for God, as one throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this explanation from Rabbi Yosei or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to the matter from what was taught in another baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: One throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva! What are you doing near, i.e., discussing, matters of aggada? Go near tractates Nega’im and Oholot, which examine the complex halakhot of ritual purity, where your knowledge is unparalleled. Rather, the correct interpretation is that while both thrones are for God, one is for a throne and one is for a stool. There is a throne for God to sit upon, and a stool that serves as His footstool. Rav Naḥman says: This one, i.e., any person, who knows how to respond to the heretics as effectively as Rav Idit should respond to them, but if he does not know, he should not respond to them. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rav Idit: It is written in the verse concerning God: “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” (Exodus 24:1). The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come up to Me. Rav Idit said to him: This term, “the Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written: “Behold I send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21). The heretic said to him: If so, if this angel is equated with God, we should worship him as we worship God. Rav Idit said to him: It is written: “Do not defy [tammer] him,” which alludes to: Do not replace Me [temireni] with him. The heretic said to him: If so, why do I need the clause “For he will not pardon your transgression”? Rav Idit said to him: We believe that we did not accept the angel even as a guide [befarvanka] for the journey, as it is written: “And he said to him: If Your Presence go not with me raise us not up from here” (Exodus 33:15). Moses told God that if God Himself does not accompany the Jewish people they do not want to travel to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: It is written: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). The heretic raised the question: It should have stated: From Him out of heaven. A certain launderer said to Rabbi Yishmael: Leave him be; I will respond to him. This is as it is written: “And Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, hearken to my speech” (Genesis 4:23). One can raise the question: It should have been written: My wives, and not: “Wives of Lemech.” Rather, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Here too, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Rabbi Yishmael said to the launderer: From where did you hear this interpretation? The launderer said to him: I heard it at the lecture of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara comments: This is as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When Rabbi Meir would teach his lecture he would expound one-third halakha, one-third aggada, and one-third parables. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir had, i.e., taught, three hundred parables of foxes, and we have only three.
ותעל הצפרדע ותכס את ארץ מצרים אמר ר' אלעזר צפרדע אחת היתה השריצה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים כתנאי רבי עקיבא אומר צפרדע אחת היתה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלה מדברותיך ולך אצל נגעים ואהלות צפרדע אחת היתה שרקה להם והם באו:
one type of death penalty, namely, decapitation. Since that is the only type of capital punishment that applies to gentiles, it cannot be derived through a verbal analogy that the same type applies to a Jewish sorceror. The baraita continues: Ben Azzai says that it is stated: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), and it is stated in the following verse: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposes this matter to that matter is to teach that just as one who lies with an animal is executed by stoning (see Leviticus, chapter 20), so too, a warlock is executed by stoning. With regard to this derivation, Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And because the Torah juxtaposes this matter with that matter, shall we take this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe type of capital punishment on that basis? Rather, the source is as follows: A necromancer and a sorcerer were included in the general category of warlocks, and why were they singled out from the rest, with their prohibition and punishment stated independently? This was done in order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too, a warlock is executed by stoning. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, let the punishment with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer be considered two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and therefore the halakha of other cases cannot be derived from it, according to the principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach about other cases. In other words, if a halakha is taught with regard to two individual cases in the Torah, the understanding is that this halakha applies only to those cases. Had this halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Rabbi Zekharya says: This means that Rabbi Yehuda holds that two verses that come as one do teach about other cases. § Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is sorcery called keshafim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage [shemakhḥishin pamalia shel mala]. Sorcery appears to contradict the laws of nature established by God. The verse states: “To you it was shown, so that you should know that the Lord is God; there is none else besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Rabbi Ḥanina says: This is true even with regard to a matter of sorcery; sorcery is ineffective against a righteous person. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was attempting to take dust from under the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: If you succeed, go and do it. I am not concerned about it, as it is written: “There is none else besides Him.” The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Why are sorcerers called mekhashefim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage. This indicates that one should be wary of sorcery. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina is different, as his merit is great, and sorcery certainly has no effect on such a righteous person. Rabbi Aivu bar Nagri says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that in the verse: “And the magicians of Egypt did in that manner with their secret arts [belateihem]” (Exodus 7:22), these words are describing acts of employing demons, which are invisible, and their actions are therefore hidden [balat]. With regard to the similar term “belahateihem” (Exodus 7:11), these are acts of sorcery, which sorcerers perform themselves, without using demons. And likewise it says: “And the flaming [lahat] sword that turned every way” (Genesis 3:24), referring to a sword that revolves by itself. Abaye says: A sorcerer who is particular about using a certain utensil for his sorcery is employing a demon; one who is not particular about using a certain utensil is performing an act of sorcery. Abaye says: The halakhot of sorcery are like the halakhot of Shabbat, in that their actions can be divided into three categories: There are some of them for which one is liable to be executed by stoning, and there are some of them for which one is exempt from punishment by Torah law but they are prohibited by rabbinic law, and there are some of them that are permitted ab initio. Abaye elaborates: One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable to be executed by stoning. One who deceives the eyes is exempt from punishment, but it is prohibited for him to do so. What is permitted ab initio is to act like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya: Every Shabbat eve they would engage in the study of the halakhot of creation, and a third-born calf would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat. Rav Ashi said: I saw Karna’s father perform a magic trick in which he would blow his nose and cast rolls of silk from his nostrils by deceiving the eye. With regard to the verse: “And the magicians said to Pharaoh: This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:15), Rabbi Eliezer says: It is derived from here that a demon cannot create an entity smaller than the size of a barley grain. Consequently, the magicians were not capable of duplicating the plague of lice, and they realized that this was not an act of sorcery but was performed by God. Rav Pappa said: By God! They cannot create even an entity as large as a camel. They do not create anything. Rather, they can gather these large animals, leading them from one place to another, but they cannot gather those small animals. Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: I myself saw a certain Arab who took a sword and sliced a camel and then beat a drum [betavla], and the camel arose from the dead. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Was there blood and excretion afterward in that place, which flowed from the camel when it was sliced? Rather, since there was none, that was clearly a deception of the eyes and not sorcery. The Gemara relates: Ze’eiri happened to come to Alexandria of Egypt. He bought a donkey. When he was about to give it water to drink the magic thawed when the donkey touched the water and it was revealed that it was not a donkey, and it turned into the plank of a bridge. The ones who sold it to him said to him: If you were not Ze’eiri, a distinguished person, we would not refund you the money for the donkey. Is there anyone who buys an item here and does not examine it first with water? Since sorcery was widespread there, anyone who bought an item examined it in order to find out if it was affected by sorcery, and if one did not examine an acquired item by exposing it to water and it turned out to be under a spell, he suffered the loss. The Gemara relates: A man named Yannai arrived at a certain inn. He said to the innkeepers: Give me water to drink. They brought him flour mixed with water. He saw that the lips of the innkeeper woman were moving, and he cast a bit of the drink to the ground, and it turned into scorpions, and he understood that the innkeepers performed sorcery on the drink. Yannai said to them: I drank from yours; you too drink from mine, and he also performed sorcery on the drink. He gave it to her to drink and she turned into a donkey. He rode upon her and went to the marketplace. Her friend came and released her from the sorcery, and people saw him riding on a woman in the marketplace. It is stated with regard to the plagues of Egypt: “And the frog came up and covered the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:2). Noting that the term “the frog” is written in the singular, Rabbi Elazar says: At first it was one frog; it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Akiva says: It was one frog, and it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take your statements to the tractates of Nega’im and Oholot. In other words, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity imparted in a tent, which are among the most difficult areas of halakha and are within your field of expertise. Rather, the verse is to be understood as follows: It was one frog; it whistled to the other frogs, and they all came after it. § In the mishna, Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery, one of whom is exempt, as he merely deceives the eyes, and one of whom is liable, as he performs real sorcery.
בעלי הלכה ובעלי אגדה
רבי פתח אוצרות בשני בצורת אמר יכנסו בעלי מקרא בעלי משנה בעלי גמרא בעלי הלכה בעלי הגדה אבל עמי הארץ אל יכנסו.
these are Torah scholars, and towers do not require additional protection? The Gemara comments: And Reish Lakish, who did not cite this verse, holds in accordance with the way that Rava expounded the verse: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls. It is similarly related that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda once im-posed payment of the poll tax [karga] even on the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have transgressed the words of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. You have transgressed the words of the Torah, as it is written: “Even when He loves the peoples, all His holy ones are in Your hand” (Deuteronomy 33:3), which is understood to mean that Moses said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when You hold the other nations dear and grant them dominion over Israel, let “all His holy ones,” meaning the Torah scholars, be exclusively in Your hand and free from the authority of the nations, and therefore be exempt from pay-ing taxes. The continuation of that verse can also be understood as referring to Torah scholars, as it states: “And they sit [tukku] at Your feet, receiving Your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3), and Rav Yosef teaches: These are Torah scholars who pound [mekhatetim] their feet from city to city and from country to country to study Torah; “receiving [yissa] Your words,” to discuss [lissa velitten] the utterances of God. And you have transgressed the words of the Prophets, as it is written: “Though they have hired lovers [yitnu] among the nations, now I will gather them, and they will begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of kings and princes” (Hosea 8:10). With regard to this verse, Ulla says: Part of this verse is stated in the Aramaic language; the word yitnu should be understood here in its Aramaic sense: To learn. And the verse should be interpreted as follows: If all of Israel learns Torah, I will gather them already now; and if only a few of them learn Torah, they will be excused from the burden imposed by kings and princes. This indicates that those who study Torah should not be subject to paying taxes. And furthermore, you have transgressed the words of the Writings, as it is written: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost or toll upon them” (Ezra 7:24), i.e., upon the priests and Levites who serve in the Temple. This halakha would apply to Torah scholars as well. And Rav Yehuda says: “Tribute”; this is referring to the king’s portion, a tax given to the king. “Impost”; this is referring to the head tax. “Toll”; this is referring to a tax [arnona] paid with property that was imposed from time to time. It is related that Rav Pappa once imposed a tax for the digging of a new cistern even on orphans. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: Perhaps they will dig, but in the end they will not draw any water from there, and it will turn out that the money will have been spent for nothing. The rest of the townspeople can relinquish their rights to their money, but orphans who are minors cannot do so. Rav Pappa said to him: I shall collect money from the orphans; if they draw water, they will draw water, and if not, I will return the money to the orphans. Rav Yehuda says: All of the city’s residents must contribute to the building and upkeep of the city gates [le’aglei gappa], and for this purpose money is collected even from orphans. But the Sages do not require protection and are therefore exempt from this payment. All of the city’s residents must contribute to the digging of cisterns [lekarya patya], and for this purpose money is collected even from the Sages, since they too need water. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the people are not required to go out en masse [be’akhluza] and do the actual digging, but are obligated merely to contribute money for that purpose. But if the people are required to go out en masse and actually dig, the Sages are not expected to go out with them en masse, but rather they are exempt from such labor. It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him. After Rabbi Yonatan left, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus. His son, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted to materially benefit from the honor shown to the Torah? They investigated the matter and found that such was the case. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then said: Let everyone enter, as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars. Commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conformed to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses. This is like the incident of the crown tax [kelila] that was imposed on the residents of the city of Tiberias. The heads of the city came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we will run away and the entire burden will fall on the Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. Half of the city’s residents ran away. The authorities then waived half the sum that they had initially imposed on the city. The half of the population that remained in the city then came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we too will run away. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. They all ran away, so that only one launderer was left in the city. The authorities imposed the entire tax on the launderer. The launderer then ran away as well. The crown tax was then canceled in its entirety. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: You see from this that suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses, for as soon as they all fled from the city, the crown tax was completely canceled. § The mishna teaches: And how long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city? Twelve months. And we raise a contradiction from what is taught in a baraita: In the case of a donkey caravan or a camel caravan that was journeying from place to place, and it lodged inside an idolatrous city, and its members were led astray along with the other residents of the city, and they too engaged in idol worship, they, the members of the caravan, are liable to death by stoning like ordinary individual idolaters, and their property escapes destruction, i.e., they are not treated like the residents of an idolatrous city, who are liable to death by the sword and whose property is destroyed. The baraita continues: And if the caravan members had remained in that city for thirty days, they are liable to death by the sword and their property is destroyed, just as it is for the rest of the residents of the city. This seems to indicate that once an individual has lived in a city for thirty days, he is already considered one of its residents. Rava said: This is not difficult. This period, i.e., twelve months, is required in order to be considered one of the members of the city; and that period, i.e., thirty days, suffices in order to be considered one of the residents of the city. As it is taught in a baraita: One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the people of a particular city is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for twelve months, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that. By contrast, if he prohibited himself by way of a vow from deriving benefit from the residents of a particular city, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for thirty days, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that. The Gemara asks: And do we require that one live in a city for twelve months for all matters? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one lives in city for thirty days, he must contribute to the charity platter from which food is distributed to the poor. If he lives there for three months, he must contribute to the charity box. If he lives there for six months, he must contribute to the clothing fund. If he lives there for nine months, he must contribute to the burial fund. If he lives there for twelve months, he must contribute to the columns of the city [lepassei ha’ir], i.e., for the construction of a security fence. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When we learned twelve months in the mishna, we learned that with regard to contributing to the columns of the city, money used for protecting and strengthening the city, but not for other matters. And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All are required to contribute to the columns of the city, and money is collected for that purpose even from orphans. But the Sages are not required to contribute, since the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said: Money is collected even from orphans for the city wall, for the city horseman, and for the guard [uletarzina] of the city armory, but the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matter is: Money is collected even from orphans for anything from which they derive benefit. It is reported that Rabba imposed a contribution to a certain charity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba said to him: I did this to elevate them in standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit. Incidental to this story, the Gemara relates that Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, king of Persia, sent a purse [arneka] full of dinars to Rav Yosef. She said to him: Let the money be used for a great mitzva. Rav Yosef sat and considered the question: What did Ifera Hurmiz mean when she attached a condition to the gift, saying that it should be used for a great mitzva? Abaye said to him: From what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught, that one does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, learn from this
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר כל הרגיל לעשות צדקה זוכה הויין לו בנים בעלי חכמה בעלי עושר בעלי אגדה בעלי חכמה דכתיב ימצא חיים בעלי עושר דכתיב צדקה בעלי אגדה דכתיב וכבוד כתיב הכא וכבוד וכתיב התם (משלי ג, לה) כבוד חכמים ינחלו
who perverted the ways of his mother. He said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And He donned charity like a coat of mail” (Isaiah 59:17)? This verse serves to tell you that just as with regard to this coat of mail, each and every scale of which it is fashioned combines to form one large coat of mail, so too with regard to charity, each and every peruta that one gives combines to form a great sum. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The same idea is derived from here, as it is stated: “And all our charity is as a polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:5). Just as with regard to this garment, each and every thread in it combines to form one large garment, so too with regard to charity, each and every peruta combines to form a great sum. The Gemara comments: Why was this Sage called the infant who perverted the ways of his mother? It was because of the following incident: Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet: From where is it derived that a leper renders a person impure through contact during his days of counting, i.e., during the seven days that the leper must count from the start of his purification process, when he brings his birds, until he completes that process with the bringing of his sacrifices? Rav Sheshet said to him: Since he renders his garments impure, as it states that on the seventh day of his purification he must wash his clothes (see Leviticus 14:9), he also renders people impure. Rav Aḥadvoi said to him: Perhaps connected impurity is different, meaning perhaps he renders his garments impure because they are connected to the source of the impurity, but this does not mean that he renders impure a person whom he touches. A proof for this distinction may be brought from the fact that if one moves an animal carcass, an action that renders him impure even if there was no actual contact with the carcass, he renders the garments that he is wearing impure but does not render another person impure. Rav Sheshet said to him: But from where do we derive that the carcass of a creeping animal renders a person impure? Is it not because we know that it renders his garments impure? Rav Aḥadvoi said to him: It is written explicitly with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal: “Or a man who touches any creeping animal, whereby he may be made unclean” (Leviticus 22:5). Rav Sheshet said to him: But from where do we derive that semen renders a person impure? Is it not because we say that since it renders his garments impure (see Leviticus 15:17) it also renders a person impure? Rav Aḥadvoi said to him: It is also written explicitly with regard to semen: “Or a man from whom semen is expelled” (Leviticus 22:4), and the Sages expound the superfluous word “or” as serving to include as impure one who touches semen. The Gemara relates that with each of his answers Rav Aḥadvoi responded to Rav Sheshet in a mocking tone, intimating that he doubted Rav Sheshet’s grasp of Torah verses. Rav Sheshet was deeply offended, and as punishment, Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami became mute and forgot his learning. Rav Aḥadvoi’s mother came and wept before Rav Sheshet. She cried and cried but he ignored her. As she had once been Rav Sheshet’s nursemaid, she said to him: Look at these breasts of mine from which you suckled. Upon hearing that, Rav Sheshet prayed for mercy for Rav Aḥadvoi, and he was healed. And since it was Rav Aḥadvoi whose behavior led to his mother’s acting in this manner, he was referred to as the infant who perverted his mother’s ways. The Gemara comments: With regard to that which we arrived at, i.e., this particular subject, let us clarify the matter: From where do we derive that a leper renders impure a person with whom he comes into contact during his days of counting? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: Washing garments is stated with respect to his days of counting, and washing garments is stated with respect to his days of confirmed leprosy, after he has been declared conclusively impure by a priest. Just as there, when he is a confirmed leper he renders a person impure, as is explicitly stated in the Torah, so too here, during his days of counting he renders a person impure. § The Gemara resumes its discussion of the virtues of giving charity. Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs acts of charity in secret is greater than Moses, our teacher. Whereas with regard to Moses, our teacher, it is written: “For I was afraid of the anger and the wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19), with regard to one who performs acts of charity it is written: “A gift in secret pacifies anger, and a present in the bosom fierce wrath” (Proverbs 21:14). The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with a statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A secret gift pacifies anger, but it does not pacify wrath, as it is stated: “And a present in the bosom fierce wrath,” meaning that although a present is in the bosom, i.e., even if one gives charity in secret, nevertheless fierce wrath can still harm him. There are those who say that Rabbi Yitzḥak says as follows: Any judge who accepts a bribe brings fierce wrath upon the world, as it is stated: “And a present in the bosom fierce wrath.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who gives a peruta to a poor person receives six blessings, and whoever consoles him with words of comfort and encouragement receives eleven blessings. The Gemara explains: One who gives a peruta to a poor person receives six blessings, as it is written: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him” (Isaiah 58:7). And the next verses list six blessings: “Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your health shall spring forth speedily, and your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard. Then, shall you call, and the Lord shall answer; you shall cry, and He shall say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:8–9). And whoever consoles a poor person with words of comfort and encouragement receives eleven blessings, as it is stated: “And if you draw out your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then shall your light shine in darkness, and your gloom shall be as the noonday. And the Lord shall guide you continually, and satisfy your thirst in drought… And they that shall be of you shall build the old waste places, you shall raise up the foundations of many generations” (Isaiah 58:10–12). And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who pursues charity and mercy finds life, charity, and honor” (Proverbs 21:21)? Is this to say that because one has pursued charity, he himself shall find charity? That is, shall the reward of one who has always given charity be that he will eventually become poor and other people will act charitably toward him? Rather, the verse serves to tell you that with regard to anyone who pursues charity, giving to the poor and leading others to do so, the Holy One, Blessed be He, furnishes him with money with which to perform his acts of charity. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sends him people who are deserving of charity, so that he will reap his just reward for helping them. The Gemara comments: What does this statement serve to exclude? It serves to exclude Rabba’s homiletical interpretation of a different verse, as Rabba taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let them be made to stumble before You; deal thus with them in the time of Your anger” (Jeremiah 18:23)? The prophet Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when those wicked men who pursued me subdue their inclinations and seek to perform acts of charity before You, cause them to stumble upon dishonest people who are not deserving of charity, so that they will not receive reward for coming to their assistance. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who is accustomed to performing acts of charity merits blessing; he will have sons who are masters of wisdom, masters of wealth, and masters of aggada. The Gemara explains: Masters of wisdom, as it is written:
ת"ר שנים עשר דברים שאלו אנשי אלכסנדריא את רבי יהושע בן חיננא ג' דברי חכמה ג' דברי הגדה ג' דברי בורות ג' דברי דרך ארץ..
...
חכמים שהתייחדו באגדה
רבי יצחק בן אחא דשמעתא הוא רבי יצחק בן פנחס דאגדתא
The Rabbi Yitzhak ben Aḥa mentioned in a ruling of halakha is the same as the Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas who appears in statements of aggada. And your mnemonic to remember the names is the standard phrase: Listen my brothers and friends [shimu aḥai vere’ai]. Shimu sounds like shema’ta, the term for halakha, while aḥai is similar to the patronymic ben Aḥa. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, citing Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Eat an onion [batzal] and sit in the shade [batzel], i.e., eat inexpensive food while sitting in a comfortable place, but do not eat expensive geese and chickens, as your heart will pursue you, i.e., you will develop a taste for luxuries. Devote less to your food and your drink and spend more on your house, as one’s house is a better investment than food. When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that they say the following proverb in the west, Eretz Yisrael: One who eats a fat tail [alita] must hide in the attic [aliyata] from creditors who think he is wealthy. One who eats vegetables [kakulei] can lie down in the city’s garbage [kiklei] without fear of others, as he is not in debt. MISHNA: The tanna describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder. Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day. GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal. Beit Shammai say: When reciting kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and thereafter recites a blessing over the wine, because the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason. The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites a blessing over the day, because the wine causes kiddush to be recited. Since one does not recite kiddush without wine or bread, clearly the wine is the primary feature of the ritual. Alternatively, the blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The Tosefta concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite an additional reason? The Gemara explains: And if you say that there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one; therefore Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here too: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. It was taught in the Tosefta: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is so, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why was it necessary for the Tosefta to state that in this particular case the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that principle. And if you wish, say instead that this statement was indeed issued after the Divine Voice emerged, and the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one disregards a Divine Voice when deciding halakha. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Therefore, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel here. MISHNA: The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ḥazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread, i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matza. They brought before him matza and ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzva to eat ḥaroset. And in the period when the Temple stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.
שאל רבי חנינא בן עגיל את רבי חייא בר אבא מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב, ובדברות האחרונות נאמר בהם טוב? אמר לו: עד שאתה שואלני למה נאמר בהם טוב, שאלני אם נאמר בהן טוב אם לאו, שאיני יודע אם נאמר בהן טוב אם לאו.
כלך אצל ר' תנחום בר חנילאי שהיה רגיל אצל ר' יהושע בן לוי שהיה בקי באגדה אזל לגביה א"ל ממנו לא שמעתי אלא כך אמר לי שמואל בר נחום אחי אמו של רב אחא ברבי חנינא ואמרי לה אבי אמו של רב אחי ברבי חנינא הואיל וסופן להשתבר וכי סופן להשתבר
in the context of the mitzva to honor one’s parents, the word good is stated there: “In order that it shall be good for you” (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Before you ask me why the word good is stated, ask me if the word good is actually stated there or not, since I am not sufficiently proficient in my knowledge of the biblical verses to remember the precise wording, and I do not know if the word good is stated there or not. Go to Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, who was commonly found at the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada. Perhaps he heard something from him on this matter and can answer your question. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tanḥum said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naḥum, the brother of the mother of Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: It does not mention the word good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf. The Gemara asks: And even if it had mentioned the term good, and they were ultimately destined to break, what of it? Rav Ashi said: If this term had been mentioned in the first tablets, all good would have, God forbid, ceased from Israel once they were broken. Therefore, only the second version, which was written after the breaking of the tablets, contains the word good, so that there would always be good for the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua says: If one sees the letter tet in his dream, it is a good sign for him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because the word good [tov] is written in the Torah and begins with the letter tet, then one could say instead that it is an allusion to the verse: “And I will sweep it with the broom [vetetetiha bemate’ateh] of destruction” (Isaiah 14:23), which also contains the letter tet several times but is referring to punishment. The Gemara answers: We mean that when someone sees one tet in his dream, it is a good sign, but this latter verse contains several. The Gemara asks: This latter statement is problematic, as even according to this explanation, one can say that a single letter tet alludes to the verse: “Her filthiness [tumatah] is in her skirts” (Lamentations 1:9), which begins with the letter tet. The Gemara answers: We mean that when one sees the letter tet together with the letter bet in his dream, it is a good sign for him, as the word tov is written with both. The Gemara asks further: According to this, say that it alludes to the verse: “Her gates are sunk [tave’u] into the ground” (Lamentations 2:9), which begins with the letter tet followed by the letter bet. Rather, it is not merely because it is the first letter of the word good [tov] that it is considered a good omen. Since the Torah initially introduces the letter tet in a context of good, with the word good [tov] itself, it is a good omen. As from the word bereshit, the first word in the Torah, until the verse: “And God saw that the light was good [tov]” (Genesis 1:4), the letter tet is not written anywhere. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one sees a eulogy [hesped] in his dream, it is an allusion that in Heaven they had pity [ḥasu] on him and saved him [peda’uhu] from actually being eulogized. The Gemara notes: This statement applies specifically when he actually saw the word: Eulogy [hesped], in writing. § The mishna teaches: And similarly, undomesticated animals and birds are subject to the same halakhot as domesticated animals. Reish Lakish says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a ruling from the Tosefta that illustrates the statement that birds and undomesticated animals are also subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds: A cock, a peacock [tavvas], and a pheasant [ufasyonei] are diverse kinds with respect to each other, since this halakha applies to birds as well. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious; what novelty is stated here? Rav Ḥaviva said: The novelty here is because they are reared together. Lest you say: Since they are reared together, they are essentially one species, and not considered diverse kinds. Therefore, it teaches us that they are actually separate species, and the halakhot of diverse kinds do apply to them. Following the discussion of the prohibition of diverse kinds as it relates to birds, Shmuel says: The domestic goose and the wild goose are diverse kinds with respect to each other and are not one species. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to this: What is the reason? If we say it is because the beak of this one is long and the beak of that one is short, if that is so, then with regard to a Persian camel and an Arabian camel, where the neck of this one is thick and the neck of that one is thin, they should indeed be considered diverse kinds with respect to one another. Clearly, though, the camels are in fact two variants of a single species. Rather, Abaye says: That is not the reason, but rather another difference exists between the domestic goose and the wild goose, concerning the male: With regard to this type, i.e., the wild goose, its testicles are visible from the outside, and with regard to that one, i.e., the domestic goose, its testicles are inside. Rav Pappa said that another difference exists between them, concerning the female: This one, i.e., the wild goose, releases only one egg in its ovary and later releases another, and that one, i.e., the domestic goose, releases several eggs at once in its ovary. Consequently, they are not considered to be the same species. In connection with the prohibition of diverse kinds, Rabbi Yirmeya says that Reish Lakish says: One who crossbreeds two species of creatures that live in the sea is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of crossbreeding diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: What is the reason, i.e., where is there an allusion to this in the Torah? Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Ulla: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the term: “According to its species [leminehu]” (Genesis 1:21), referring to animals living on dry land, and the same term: “According to its species [leminehu]” (Genesis 1:25), referring to sea creatures. In the same way that the former may not be crossbred, similarly, the latter may not be crossbred. The Sage Raḥava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition? Ravina objects to this: But if that is so that one is liable, then if a person joined wheat and barley together in his hand and sowed the wheat in Eretz Yisrael and the barley outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to seeds, so too he should be liable. Clearly, however, they are two distinct regions, and the seeds are not considered to be mixed together. The Sages said in response to this objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of planting diverse kinds of seeds, it is specifically Eretz Yisrael that is the location subject to this obligation, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael is not a location subject to this obligation. Here, by contrast, in the case of the person driving a wagon, both this location, i.e., the land, and that location, i.e., the sea, are locations subject to this obligation. Consequently, if one works together two different species either on the land or in the sea, he is liable. Therefore, the question is a valid one.
אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון כל מקום שאתה מוצא דבריו של רבי אליעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי בהגדה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת..
“That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence. The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept property that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable to return that which the young men had already consumed. § Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset], i.e., be receptive to his words. As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me. I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7). But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted greatness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a city and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib, yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14). I granted greatness to Ḥiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2). The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written: “And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The world endures only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses and Aaron. With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company [elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men” (Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have thought that he should render himself as a mute even with regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righteous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. Therefore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the correct understanding. § The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says: One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird with the dust of an idolatrous city. The Torah states that the city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuteronomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteronomy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering, and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before it can be gathered and burned. And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for benefit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree. The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. Rav Reḥumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With regard to a shofar of idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation. Rav Reḥumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a lulav of idol worship, one may not take it to perform the mitzva. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled his obligation? Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because
מעלת האגדה
(ג) דורשי רשומות אומרים: רצונך שתכיר מי שאמר והיה העולם? - למוד הגדה, שמתוך כך אתה מכיר את הקב"ה ומדבק בדרכיו. ואם עשיתם מה שעליכם - אף אני אעשה מה שעלי:
(1) (Devarim 11:22) "to walk in His ways": Which are the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He? (Shemoth 34:6-7) "The L-rd, the L-rd, G-d of mercy and grace, slow to wrath and abundant in mercy and truth, keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving transgression, offense, and sin, and cleansing …" And it is written (Yoel 3:5) "All who will be called by the name of the L-rd will escape": Now how is it possible for a man to be called by the name of the Holy One Blessed be He? But, (the intent is) just as the L-rd is called "merciful and gracious," you, too, be merciful and gracious, and give gratuitously to all. Just as the Holy One Blessed be He is called "righteous," viz. (Psalms 145:17) "Righteous is the L-rd in all His ways and saintly in all His acts" — you, too, be righteous. Just as the Holy One Blessed be He is called "saintly," — you, too, be saintly. This is the intent of "All who will be called by the name of the L-rd will escape." And it is written (Isaiah 43:7) "… everyone that is called by My name. For My honor I have created him, and formed him, and fashioned him." And it is written (Proverbs 16:4) "The L-rd has created all for His sake." (Devarim, Ibid.)
(2) "and to cleave to Him": How is it possible for a man to ascend the heights and cleave to Him? Is it not written (Ibid. 4:24) "For the L-rd your G-d is a consuming fire"? and (Daniel 8:9) "His throne was like a fiery flame and its wheels like burning fire"? But, (the intent is) cleave to the sages and to the disciples, and I will account it to you as if you had ascended the heights and had taken it (the Torah). And not as if you had taken it peacefully, but as if you had waged war and taken it. And thus is it written (Psalms 68:19) "You ascended on high; you took spoils; you took gifts for man."
(3) The expounders of metaphor say: Do you wish to recognize the One who spoke and brought the world into being? Learn haggadah. For if you do so, you will come to recognize the Holy One Blessed be He and cleave to His ways. And if you do yours, then I will do Mine, (Devarim 11:23) "and the L-rd will drive out, etc."
סדר הלימוד
(א) יהושע בן פרחיה ונתאי הארבלי קבלו מהם יהושע בן פרחיה אומר עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות. עשה לך רב כיצד מלמד שיעשה לו את רבו קבע וילמד ממנו מקרא ומשנה מדרש הלכות ואגדות. טעם שהניח לו במקרא סוף שיאמר לו במשנה טעם שהניח לו במדרש סוף שיאמר לו בהלכות טעם שהניח לו בהלכות סוף שיאמר לו בהגדה נמצא האדם ההוא [יושב במקומו] ומלא טוב וברכה:
(יג) [כי] למדה תורה דרך ארץ [נתמנתה לאדם פרנס] יקח [לו] בית חזר [נתמנתה] לו יקח לו שדה חזר [נתמנתה] יקח לו אשה שנאמר (דברים כ) מי האיש אשר בנה ומי האיש אשר נטע ומי האיש אשר ארש [אשה] וכן שלמה אמר בחכמתו (משלי כד) הכן בחוץ מלאכתך וגו' הכן בחוץ מלאכתך זה בית ועתדה בשדה זה שדה אחר ובנית ביתך זו אשה. ד"א הכן בחוץ מלאכתך זו מקרא ועתדה בשדה לך [אלו] משנה אחר ובנית ביתך זה מדרש. ד"א הכן בחוץ מלאכתך [זה משנה] ועתדה בשדה לך זה מדרש אחר ובנית ביתך אלו הלכות. ד"א הכן בחוץ מלאכתך זה מדרש ועתדה בשדה לך אלו הלכות אחר ובנית ביתך אלו אגדות. ד"א הכן בחוץ מלאכתך אלו הלכות ועתדה בשדה לך אלו אגדות אחר ובנית ביתך זו תלמוד ר' אליעזר בנו של ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר הכן בחוץ מלאכתך [זה תלמוד] ועתדה בשדה לך [זה מעשה הטוב] אחר ובנית ביתך בא דרוש [וטול שכר].
סדר החשיבות
ענין ושאינו ענין נזקקין לענין מעשה ושאינו מעשה נזקקין למעשה הלכה ומדרש נזקקין להלכה מדרש ואגדה נזקקין למדרש מדרש וק"ו נזקקין לק"ו ק"ו וגזירה שוה נזקקין לק"ו חכם
(5) ...Hillel the elder expounded seven hermeneutical principles before the elders of Betheira: kal vachomer, gezeirah shavah, shnei kethuvim, kllal ufrat, kayotze bo bemakom acher ("the same applies elsewhere" — i.e., binyan av), davar halamed me'inyano (and davar halamed misofo).
(ב) א"ר יהושע ב"ל הדא אגדתא כתוב בה הכותבה אין לו חלק לעולם הבא והדורשה מתברך והשומעה אינו מקבל שכר והתני ר׳ חיננא בר פפא (דברים ה) פנים בפנים דבר ה' פנים תרי בפנים תרי הא ארבעה אפין פנים של אימה למקרא פנים בינוניות למשנה פנים שוחקות לתלמוד פנים מסבירות לאגדה:
(ז) ר׳ אבהו בשם ר׳ יוחנן תלמיד וותיק היה לו לר"ע והיה יודע לדרוש את התורה במ"ט פנים טמא ומ"ט פנים טהור שלא מאותו הטעם שאם כן רבו המטמאין טמא רבו המטהרין טהור כל אלו מנין אלא שהיה חכם במקרא ובקי במשנה וותיק בתלמוד וסבר בהגדה:
א"ל ר' ירמיה לר' זירא ליתי מר ליתני א"ל חלש לבאי ולא יכילנא לימא מר מילתא דאגדתא א"ל הכי אמר ר' יוחנן מאי דכתיב (דברים כ, יט) כי האדם עץ השדה וכי אדם עץ שדה הוא...
we will recite them both: God of thanksgivings, and: Abundant thanksgivings. § The Gemara cites statements in praise of rainfall. Rabbi Abbahu said: The day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead. The reason is that while the resurrection of the dead benefits only the righteous, rain benefits both the righteous and the wicked. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: Since rainfall is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, the Sages established its recitation in the second blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the resurrection of the dead. According to Rav Yosef, rainfall is the equivalent to, but not superior to, the resurrection of the dead. Similarly, Rav Yehuda said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine [likḥi] shall drop as the rain” (Deuteronomy 32:2), and lekaḥ means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I give you good doctrine [lekaḥ]; do not forsake My Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). Rava said: Rainfall is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” and when one makes a comparison, which object is made dependent upon which? You must say that the lesser object is dependent upon the greater one. If Torah is compared to rain, it follows that rain is greater than Torah. The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse from Deuteronomy. Rava raised a contradiction: At the beginning of the verse it is written: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof] as the rain,” in a harsh manner, and yet later in the verse, it is written: “My speech shall distill as the dew,” in a gentle tone. He resolves this apparent contradiction as follows: If he is a worthy Torah scholar, the Torah flows through him like the dew, but if he is not worthy, it snaps his neck [orfehu] like the powerful rain. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Bena’a would say: Anyone who engages in Torah for its own sake, his Torah study will be an elixir of life for him, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18), and it says: “It shall be health to your navel” (Proverbs 3:8), and it says: “For whoever finds Me finds life” (Proverbs 8:35). And anyone who engages in Torah not for its own sake, e.g., for self-aggrandizement, his Torah will be an elixir of death for him, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof ] as the rain,” and arifa means nothing other than killing, as it is stated: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck [arefu] there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Rabbi Yirmeya once said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and teach a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My heart is weak and I cannot strain myself over a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Yirmeya replied to him: In that case, let the Master tell us a matter of aggada, which does not require as much effort. Rabbi Zeira said to him that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man is a tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19)? And is man actually a tree of the field? Rather, it is because it is written earlier in the same verse: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” and it is written in the next verse: “Them you may destroy and cut down” (Deuteronomy 20:20). This indicates that there are certain trees which may be cut down, while others may not be destroyed. How so? If a Torah scholar is worthy: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” but if he is not worthy: “He you may destroy and cut down.” The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Why are matters of Torah compared to fire, as it is stated: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29)? To tell you: Just as fire does not ignite in a lone stick of wood but in a pile of kindling, so too, matters of Torah are not retained and understood properly by a lone scholar who studies by himself, but by a group of Sages. And this is what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the boasters [habaddim], and they shall become fools [noalu]” (Jeremiah 50:36)? This verse can be interpreted homiletically: There is a sword upon the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars themselves, who sit alone [bad bevad] and study Torah. And not only that, but those who study by themselves grow foolish from their solitary Torah study, as it is stated: “And they shall become fools.” And not only that, but they sin, as it is written here: “And they shall become fools,” and it is written there: “For that we have done foolishly [noalnu] and for that we have sinned” (Numbers 12:11). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “The princes of Zoan have become fools [noalu]…they have caused Egypt to go astray” (Isaiah 19:13). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Why are Torah matters likened to a tree, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18)? This verse comes to tell you that just as a small piece of wood can ignite a large piece, so too, minor Torah scholars can sharpen great Torah scholars and enable them to advance in their studies. And this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said: I have learned much from my teachers and even more from my friends, but from my students I have learned more than from all of them. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “To him who is thirsty bring water” (Isaiah 21:14), which indicates that the one who has water must bring it to the thirsty person, and it is written elsewhere: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), from which it may be inferred that the thirsty person must seek out water himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that if he is a worthy student the teacher must seek him out, as in “to him who is thirsty bring water,” but if the student is not worthy, then “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” i.e., this student must seek out a teacher himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama raised another contradiction. In one verse it is written: “Let your springs be dispersed abroad” (Proverbs 5:16), whereas in the next verse it is written: “Let them be your own” (Proverbs 5:17). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama explains: If the student sitting before you is worthy, then “Let your springs be dispersed abroad,” as you should teach him, but if he is not worthy, then “Let them be your own.” And Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi said: Why are matters of Torah likened to water, as it is written: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1)? This verse comes to tell you: Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too, Torah matters are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly, i.e., a humble person. And Rabbi Oshaya said: Why are matters of Torah likened to these three liquids: To water, wine and milk? As it is written with regard to water: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” and it is written in the same verse: “Come, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” This verse comes to tell you: Just as these three liquids can be retained only in the least of vessels, e.g., clay pots, but not vessels of silver and gold, as they will spoil, so too, matters of Torah are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly. The Gemara cites a related incident: This is as the daughter of the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who was an ugly man: Woe to glorious wisdom such as yours, which is contained in an ugly vessel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her, in a seemingly unrelated response: Does your father keep his wine in simple clay vessels? The emperor’s daughter said to him: Rather, in what, then, should he keep it? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her: You, who are so important, should put it in vessels of gold and silver. The emperor’s daughter went and said this to her father. He put the wine in vessels of gold and silver and it turned sour. When his advisors came and told the emperor that the wine had turned sour, he said to his daughter: Who told you to do this? His daughter responded: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya. The emperor summoned him and said to him: Why did you say this to her? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to him: Just as she said to me, so I said say to her, to demonstrate to her that fine material is best preserved in the least of vessels. The emperor said to him: But there are handsome people who are learned.
העדפת הלכה או אגדה
ר' אבהו ור' חייא בר אבא איקלעו לההוא אתרא רבי אבהו דרש באגדתא רבי חייא בר אבא דרש בשמעתא שבקוה כולי עלמא לרבי חייא בר אבא ואזול לגביה דר' אבהו חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אמשל לך משל למה הדבר דומה לשני בני אדם אחד מוכר אבנים טובות ואחד מוכר מיני סידקית על מי קופצין לא על זה שמוכר מיני סידקית כל יומא הוה מלוה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי אבהו עד אושפיזיה משום יקרא דבי קיסר ההוא יומא אלויה רבי אבהו לרבי חייא בר אבא עד אושפיזיה ואפילו הכי לא איתותב דעתיה מיניה.
During the closing prayer [ne’ila] of Yom Kippur, which also includes the Priestly Benediction, what do the people say? Mar Zutra says, and some say that this was taught in a baraita: “Behold, surely thus shall the man who fears the Lord be blessed” (Psalms 128:4), “The Lord shall bless you out of Zion, and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life” (Psalms 128:5), and “And see your children’s children. Peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 128:6). The Gemara asks: Where does the congregation say these verses during the Priestly Benediction? Rav Yosef says: They are said between each and every blessing. And Rav Sheshet says: They are said during the mention of the name of God in each of the three blessings. Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree about this matter. One says: The congregation recites one verse at a time, corresponding to the verse that the priests recite. And one says: For every single verse that the priests recite, the congregation says all three verses. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Anyone who recites these verses in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, is nothing other than mistaken in his practice. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: You should know that in the Temple also people should not recite these verses. Do you have a servant who is being blessed and does not listen to the blessing, but rather speaks at the same time? Conversely, Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: You should know that in the outlying areas one is also required to say these verses. Is there a servant who is being blessed and his face does not brighten? Therefore, one must recite these verses to give thanks for receiving the Priestly Benediction. Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would recite these verses, but since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko does not say them, I also do not recite them anymore. And Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would say to myself that I was humble. Since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko himself stated one reason for a matter, and his interpreter stated one other reason of his own rather than delivering the reason that Rabbi Abba stated, and yet Rabbi Abba did not mind, I say to myself that I am not humble. The Gemara asks: And what was the humility of Rabbi Abbahu? The Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu’s interpreter’s wife said to Rabbi Abbahu’s wife: This one of ours, i.e., my husband, has no need for your husband Rabbi Abbahu, as he could teach everything on his own. And the fact that he bends over to listen to Rabbi Abbahu, and then stands up above him, and repeats his words to the congregants is merely to show respect for him. Rabbi Abbahu’s wife went and told this to Rabbi Abbahu. He said to her: And what difference does it make to you? Through me and through him the One above will be exalted, and it does not matter which one of us is teaching. And furthermore, in another example of his humility, the Sages were counted and reached a decision to appoint Rabbi Abbahu to be the head of the yeshiva. Since he saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko had many creditors and was impoverished, he attempted to get him out of debt. He said to them: There is a man who is greater than me, Rabbi Abba. The Gemara relates another example of his humility: Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to a certain place. Rabbi Abbahu taught matters of aggada, and at the same time Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba taught halakha. Everyone left Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and went to Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Ḥiyya was offended. Rabbi Abbahu said to him, to appease him: I will tell you a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to two people, one who sells precious stones and one who sells small items [sidkit]. Upon whom do the customers spring? Don’t they spring upon the one who sells small items? Similarly, you teach lofty and important matters that do not attract many people. Everyone comes to me because I teach minor matters. The Gemara relates that every day Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would escort Rabbi Abbahu to his lodging place [ushpizei] out of respect for the house of the emperor, with which Rabbi Abbahu was associated. On that day, Rabbi Abbahu escorted Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to his lodging place, and even so, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s mind was not at ease with Rabbi Abbahu and he felt insulted. § The Gemara returns to discuss the response of the congregants to certain parts of the prayer service. While the prayer leader is reciting the blessing of: We give thanks, what do the people say? Rav says that they say: We give thanks to You, Lord our God, for the merit of giving thanks to You. And Shmuel says that one should say: God of all living flesh, for the merit of giving thanks to You. Rabbi Simai says that one should say: Our Creator, Who created everything in the beginning, for the merit of giving thanks to You. The Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Simai that one should say: We offer blessings and praises to Your great name, for You have given us life and sustained us, for giving thanks to You. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would finish the blessing as follows: So may You give us life, and show us favor, and collect us, and gather our exiles into Your sacred courtyards, in order to observe Your laws and to fulfill Your will wholeheartedly, for giving thanks to You. Rav Pappa said: These Sages each added a different element to the prayer. Therefore, we should combine them together and recite all of them. § Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The awe of the public should always be upon you, i.e., one must always treat the public courteously. As when the priests bless the people they face the people and their backs are toward the Divine Presence, out of respect for the congregation. Rav Naḥman said that this principle is derived from here: “Then King David stood up upon his feet, and said: Hear me, my brethren, and my people” (I Chronicles 28:2). Evidently, King David stood up to address the people rather than remain seated. If he said “my brethren,” why did he say “my people”? And if he said “my people” why did he say “my brethren”? Rabbi Elazar says: David said to the Jewish people: If you listen to me, you are my brethren. And if you do not listen to me willingly, you are my people and I am your king, and I will rule over you by force with a staff. This shows that if the nation acted properly, David would relate to them respectfully. The Sages say that the importance of showing respect for the congregation is derived from here: The halakha is that the priests are not permitted to ascend the platform to recite the benediction in their sandals, as is taught in a baraita. And this halakha is one of nine ordinances that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted. What is the reason for this ordinance? Is it not out of respect for the congregation, as it would be disrespectful for the priests to display their dirty sandals in front of the congregants? Rav Ashi said: No, this is not the reason. There, in the baraita, the reason is a concern lest a strap of his sandal break, and he will therefore return to his place to go tie it and not ascend the platform in time for the benediction, and people will say that he was removed from the platform because he is disqualified from the priesthood, as he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman or the son of a priest and a ḥalutza. § It is taught in the mishna: And in the Temple, the priests recite the three verses as one blessing.
יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דר' יצחק נפחא מר א"ל לימא מר שמעתתא ומר א"ל לימא מר אגדתא פתח למימר אגדתא ולא שביק מר פתח למימר שמעתתא ולא שביק מר אמר להם אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיש לו שתי נשים אחת ילדה ואחת זקינה ילדה מלקטת לו לבנות זקינה מלקטת לו שחורות נמצא קרח מכאן ומכאן אמר להן אי הכי אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים תצא מעצמה שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה אמר הקב"ה עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי אני הציתי אש בציון שנאמר (איכה ד, יא) ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה ואני עתיד לבנותה באש שנאמר (זכריה ב, ט) ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה שמעתתא פתח הכתוב בנזקי ממונו וסיים בנזקי גופו לומר לך אשו משום חציו.
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.
כתיבת האגדות ולימודם
ורבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו האי ספר אפטרתא אסור למקרי ביה בשבת מאי טעמא דלא ניתן ליכתב מר בר רב אשי אמר לטלטולי נמי אסור מ"ט דהא לא חזי למיקרי ביה ולא היא שרי לטלטולי ושרי למיקרי ביה דר' יוחנן ור"ש בן לקיש מעייני בספרא דאגדתא בשבתא והא לא ניתן ליכתב אלא כיון דלא אפשר (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך ה"נ כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך
who reads from the Torah? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said to him: After them read the Torah scholars who are appointed as leaders [parnasim] of the community. And after them read Torah scholars who are fit to be appointed as leaders of the community, even if in practice they received no such appointment. The Sages said that a Torah scholar who knows how to answer any question asked of him is fit to be appointed as leader of the community. And after them read the sons of Torah scholars whose fathers were appointed as leaders of the community. And after them read the heads of synagogues, and after them any person. The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: What is the halakha with regard to reading from ḥumashim, i.e., scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, in the synagogue in public? Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, but an answer was not readily available to him either. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa came and asked this question in the study hall, and they resolved the difficulty from that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Torah scroll that is missing even one sheet of parchment, one may not read from it in public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so, i.e., this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. There, it is lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas here, it is not lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as it contains a complete book. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community. And Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited to publicly read the haftara, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, on Shabbat, from a scroll containing only the haftarot. What is the reason for this? It is because this type of scroll may not be written, as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: To handle such a scroll on Shabbat is also prohibited. What is the reason for this? It is because it is not fit to be read. Consequently, it is treated as set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so; rather, it is permitted to handle such a scroll and it is permitted to read from it. And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.” Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study it? The Gemara notes: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once. The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book. On the one hand it is possible to say that since it was given from the outset as a complete book, one may not write it today in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one could say that since it is not always possible to write a complete Torah, one may write it in separate scrolls. Rabba said to him: One may not write the Torah in separate scrolls. And what is the reason? Because one may not write a scroll that is only part of the Torah. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Yoma 37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet as a gift for the Temple on which the Torah portion discussing a sota was written. When the priest would write the scroll of a sota in the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e., only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the sota scroll would remember what to write. The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: When the priest writes the sota scroll, he looks at and writes that which is written on the tablet, which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the baraita and say that it should read as follows: He looks at and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written. The Gemara raised an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? “If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written by alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted. The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in the following baraita: One may not write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study, but if the writer’s intention is to complete the scroll, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the book of Genesis he may write a scroll from the beginning until the generation of the flood. In Torat Kohanim, the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning until “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written “take,” indicating that the Torah scroll was given whole? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking about the Torah after it was joined together to form a single unit. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Reish Lakish, as well, isn’t it written: “With the scroll of the book that is written for me,” indicating that the Torah was given scroll by scroll? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that the entire Torah is called a scroll. This is indicated in another verse as well, as it is written: “And He said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying scroll” (Zechariah 5:2). Alternatively, this verse serves to allude to the sections of the Torah discussed in that statement of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: Eight sections were said on the day that the Tabernacle was erected, on the first of Nisan. They are: The section of the priests (Leviticus 21:1–22:26); the section of the Levites (Numbers 8:5–26); the section of the impure (Leviticus 13:1– 14:57); the section of the sending away of the impure (Numbers 5:1–4); the section beginning with the words “After the death” (Leviticus, chapter 16);
דרש ר' יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דר"ל כתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כתוב לך את הדברים האלה אלה אתה כותב אבל אין אתה כותב הלכות אמרי דלמא מילתא חדתא שאני דהא רבי יוחנן ור"ל מעייני בסיפרא דאגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך אמרי מוטב תיעקר תורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל.
...