נבואה ונביאים שיעור א'

(1) Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua, and Yehoshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence for the Torah.

The actions of Ahasuerus and Haman can be understood with a parable; to what may they be compared? To two individuals, one of whom had a mound in the middle of his field and the other of whom had a ditch in the middle of his field, each one suffering from his own predicament. The owner of the ditch, noticing the other’s mound of dirt, said to himself: Who will give me this mound of dirt suitable for filling in my ditch; I would even be willing to pay for it with money, and the owner of the mound, noticing the other’s ditch, said to himself: Who will give me this ditch for money, so that I may use it to remove the mound of earth from my property? At a later point, one day, they happened to have met one another. The owner of the ditch said to the owner of the mound: Sell me your mound so I can fill in my ditch. The mound’s owner, anxious to rid himself of the excess dirt on his property, said to him: Take it for free; if only you had done so sooner. Similarly, Ahasuerus himself wanted to destroy the Jews. As he was delighted that Haman had similar aspirations and was willing to do the job for him, he demanded no money from him. § The verse states: “And the king removed his ring from his hand” (Esther 3:10). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: The removal of Ahasuerus’s ring for the sealing of Haman’s decree was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. As, they were all unable to return the Jewish people to the right way, but the removal of Ahasuerus’s ring returned them to the right way, since it brought them to repentance. The Sages taught in a baraita: Forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people, and they neither subtracted from nor added onto what is written in the Torah, introducing no changes or additions to the mitzvot except for the reading of the Megilla, which they added as an obligation for all future generations. The Gemara asks: What exposition led them to determine that this was a proper mode of action? On what basis did they add this mitzva? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said that they reasoned as follows: If, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, in which the Jews were delivered from slavery to freedom, we recite songs of praise, the Song of the Sea and the hymns of hallel, then, in order to properly recall the miracle of Purim and commemorate God’s delivering us from death to life, is it not all the more so the case that we must sing God’s praise by reading the story in the Megilla? The Gemara asks: If so, our obligation should be at least as great as when we recall the exodus from Egypt, and let us also recite hallel on Purim. The Gemara answers: Hallel is not said on Purim, because hallel is not recited on a miracle that occurred outside Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the exodus from Egypt as well, which was a miracle that occurred outside Eretz Yisrael, how are we able to recite songs of praise? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: Prior to the time when the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, all lands were deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within their borders, as all lands were treated equally. But after the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. Rav Naḥman said an alternative answer as to why hallel is not recited on Purim: The reading of the Megilla itself is an act of reciting hallel. Rava said a third reason why hallel is not recited on Purim: Granted that hallel is said there, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, as after the salvation there, they could recite the phrase in hallel: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord” (Psalms 113:1); after their servitude to Pharaoh ended with their salvation, they were truly servants of the Lord and not servants of Pharaoh. But can it be said here, after the limited salvation commemorated on Purim: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord,” which would indicate that after the salvation the Jewish people were only servants of the Lord and not servants of Ahasuerus? No, even after the miracle of Purim, we were still the servants of Ahasuerus, as the Jews remained in exile under Persian rule, and consequently the salvation, which was incomplete, did not merit an obligation to say hallel. The Gemara asks: Both according to the opinion of Rava and according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman, this is difficult. Isn’t it taught in the baraita cited earlier: After the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. Therefore, there should be no hallel obligation on Purim for the miracle performed outside of the land of Israel, and Rav Naḥman’s and Rava’s alternative explanations are incorrect. The Gemara answers: They understood differently, as it can be argued that when the people were exiled from Eretz Yisrael, the other lands returned to their initial suitability, and were once again deemed fit for reciting hallel on miracles performed within them. With regard to the statement that forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people, the Gemara asks: Is there no one else? Isn’t it written with regard to Samuel’s father, Elkanah: “And there was a certain [eḥad] man from Ramathaim-zophim” (I Samuel 1:1), which is expounded as follows to indicate that Elkanah was a prophet: He was one [eḥad] of two hundred [mata’im] prophets [tzofim] who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. If so, why was it stated here that there were only forty-eight prophets? The Gemara answers: In fact, there were more prophets, as it is taught in a baraita: Many prophets arose for the Jewish people, numbering double the number of Israelites who left Egypt. However, only a portion of the prophecies were recorded, because only prophecy that was needed for future generations was written down in the Bible for posterity, but that which was not needed, as it was not pertinent to later generations, was not written. Therefore, the fifty-five prophets recorded in the Bible, although not the only prophets of the Jewish people, were the only ones recorded, due to their eternal messages. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said another explanation of the verse “And there was a certain man from Ramathaim-zophim”: A man who comes from two heights [ramot] that face [tzofot] one another. Rabbi Ḥanin said an additional interpretation: A man who descends from people who stood at the height of [rumo] the world. The Gemara asks: And who are these people? The Gemara answers: These are the sons of Korah, as it is written: “But the sons of Korah did not die” (Numbers 26:11), and with regard to them it is taught in the name of our teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A high place was set aside for them in Gehenna, as the sons of Korah repented in their hearts, and were consequently not propelled very far down in Gehenna when the earth opened to swallow Korah and his followers; and they stood on this high place and sung to the Lord. They alone stood at the height of the lower world. § The Gemara asks with regard to the prophetesses recorded in the baraita: Who were the seven prophetesses? The Gemara answers: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. The Gemara offers textual support: Sarah, as it is written: “Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” (Genesis 11:29). And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Iscah is in fact Sarah. And why was she called Iscah? For she saw [sakhta] by means of divine inspiration, as it is stated: “In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice” (Genesis 21:12). Alternatively, Sarah was also called Iscah, for all gazed [sokhin] upon her beauty. Miriam was a prophetess, as it is written explicitly: “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand” (Exodus 15:20). The Gemara asks: Was she the sister only of Aaron, and not the sister of Moses? Why does the verse mention only one of her brothers? Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: For she prophesied when she was the sister of Aaron, i.e., she prophesied since her youth, even before Moses was born, and she would say: My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver the Jewish people to salvation. And at the time when Moses was born the entire house was filled with light, and her father stood and kissed her on the head, and said to her: My daughter, your prophecy has been fulfilled. But once Moses was cast into the river, her father arose and rapped her on the head, saying to her: My daughter, where is your prophecy now, as it looked as though the young Moses would soon meet his end. This is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Miriam’s watching Moses in the river: “And his sister stood at a distance to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4), i.e., to know what would be with the end of her prophecy, as she had prophesied that her brother was destined to be the savior of the Jewish people. Deborah was a prophetess, as it is written explicitly: “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth” (Judges 4:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “the wife of Lappidoth”? The Gemara answers: For she used to make wicks for the Sanctuary, and due to the flames [lappidot] on these wicks she was called the wife of Lappidoth, literally, a woman of flames. With regard to Deborah, it says: “And she sat under a palm tree” (Judges 4:5). The Gemara asks: What is different and unique with regard to her sitting “under a palm tree” that there is a need for it to be written? Rabbi Shimon ben Avshalom said: It is due to the prohibition against being alone together with a man. Since men would come before her for judgment, she established for herself a place out in the open and visible to all, in order to avoid a situation in which she would be secluded with a man behind closed doors. Alternatively, the verse means: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, as a palm tree does not send out separate branches, but rather has only one main trunk, so too, the Jewish people in that generation had only one heart, directed to their Father in Heaven. Hannah was a prophetess, as it is written: “And Hannah prayed and said, My heart rejoices in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1), and her words were prophecy, in that she said: “My horn is exalted,” and not: My pitcher is exalted. As, with regard to David and Solomon, who were anointed with oil from a horn, their kingship continued, whereas with regard to Saul and Jehu, who were anointed with oil from a pitcher, their kingship did not continue. This demonstrates that Hannah was a prophetess, as she prophesied that only those anointed with oil from a horn will merit that their kingships continue. Apropos the song of Hannah, the Gemara further explains her words: “There is none sacred as the Lord; for there is none beside You [biltekha]” (I Samuel 2:2). Rav Yehuda bar Menashya said: Do not read it as biltekha, “beside You,” but rather read it as levalotekha, to outlast You. As the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is unlike the attribute of flesh and blood. It is an attribute of man that his handiwork outlasts him and continues to exist even after he dies, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, outlasts His handiwork, as He exists eternally. Hannah further said: “Neither is there any rock [tzur] like our God” (I Samuel 2:1). This can be understood as saying that there is no artist [tzayyar] like our God. How is He better than all other artists? Man fashions a form upon a wall, but is unable to endow it with breath and a soul, or fill it with innards and intestines, whereas the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashions a form of a fetus inside the form of its mother, rather than on a flat surface, and endows it with breath and a soul and fills it with innards and intestines. Abigail was a prophetess, as it is written: “And it was so, as she rode on the donkey, and came down by the covert of the mountain” (I Samuel 25:20). The Gemara asks: Why does it say: “By the covert [beseter] of the mountain”? It should have said: From the mountain. The Gemara answers that in fact this must be understood as an allusion to something else. Rabba bar Shmuel said: Abigail, in her attempt to prevent David from killing her husband Nabal, came to David and questioned him on account of menstrual blood that comes from the hidden parts [setarim] of a body. How so? She took a blood-stained cloth and showed it to him, asking him to rule on her status, whether or not she was ritually impure as a menstruating woman. He said to her: Is blood shown at night? One does not examine blood-stained cloths at night, as it is difficult to distinguish between the different shades by candlelight. She said to him: If so, you should also remember another halakha: Are cases of capital law tried at night? Since one does not try capital cases at night, you cannot condemn Nabal to death at night. David said to her:

A house that has a sealed entrance still has the four cubits adjoining that entrance because the entrance can be reopened. If one broke its doorposts and sealed the entrance, the entrance is completely negated, and it does not have the four cubits adjoining it. There is a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. There is a halakha that a house in which there is a corpse transmits ritual impurity only through its doorways. The baraita continues: A grave whose entrance is sealed does not render all its surroundings ritually impure; the ritual impurity extends only to the area opposite the entrance. But if one broke its doorposts and sealed it, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the grave renders all its surroundings ritually impure, because impurity that has no egress bursts from all sides. Similarly, a house in which there is a corpse that has a sealed entrance does not render all its surroundings ritually impure. But if one broke its doorposts, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the corpse renders all of its surroundings ritually impure. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to alleyways that are open to another city, and through which one would ordinarily travel to reach that other city, if the residents of the city in which the alleyways are located wished to block them off, the residents of the city into which the alleyways open can prevent them from doing so, because they have a right to reach their city via those routes. The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state that they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways when there is no alternative route to reach their town, but they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways even when there is an alternative route. This is due to the reasoning that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav says: One is prohibited from ruining a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, i.e., steps may not be taken to prevent people from using it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel says: If the public has chosen a route for itself and they walk on it, what they have chosen is chosen, and it cannot be taken away from them. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to alleyways that open onto a public thoroughfare, if the residents of the alleyways wished to put up doors at the entrance to their alleyways, the people who use the public thoroughfare can prevent them from doing so. Some Sages understood from this that this statement applies specifically to the area within four cubits of the public thoroughfare, in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says, as Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says: The four cubits in an alleyway that are adjacent to the public thoroughfare are considered like the public thoroughfare itself. Consequently, this area has the halakha of a public thoroughfare. But that is not so. There, the ruling of Rav Naḥman was stated with regard to the issue of ritual impurity, with regard to which only the first four cubits of the alleyway are considered like the public thoroughfare. But here, with regard to doors set up at the entrance to the alleyway, sometimes the public thoroughfare becomes crowded with people and they enter far into the alleyway, even farther than four cubits. § The mishna teaches: And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the fundamental halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In Rabbi Yehuda’s locale, even a smaller parcel of land was considered a viable field. The Gemara asks: The mishna was taught in Eretz Yisrael; what practice should be followed in Babylonia? Rav Yosef said: In Babylonia, a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing is considered a field; if each of the parties will receive less than that, the field should not be divided. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing? If it means a day’s plowing in the planting season, i.e., the winter, when it is easy to plow, since the earth has already been turned over at the end of the summer, the field will not require two full days of plowing in the plowing season, i.e., at the end of the summer, when it is more difficult to plow, since the earth is hard and dry. In that case, he will have to pay his summer plowman two days’ wages for less than two days of work. And if it means a day’s plowing in the plowing season, the field will not require a full day of plowing in the planting season. In that case, he will have to pay his winter plowman a full day’s wages for less than a full day of work. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is referring to a day’s plowing in the plowing season, and the field will still require a full day of plowing in the planting season since he plows once before he sows the seeds and then he repeats the plowing after the seeds are sown. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a day’s plowing in the planting season, and the field will in fact require two full days of plowing in the plowing season if it is rocky ground, on which plowing takes longer. In connection with this discussion, the Gemara clarifies the conditions under which a cistern, from which its joint owners draw their water, is divided. Rav Naḥman said: It should be divided only if each party will receive the volume of water needed for a day’s irrigation work. As for an orchard, Shmuel’s father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard. The Gemara asks: What is the measure with regard to this matter in Babylonia? Rava bar Kisna said: Three rows [atzyata] of twelve vines, which is the area a person can hoe in a single day. § In connection with Rabbi Yosei’s statement that Sumakhos’s words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages. Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: “And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy. Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited

(1) It is a fundamental part of religion to acknowledge that God bestows prophecy upon the sons of men. But prophecy does not descend¹Nedarim, 35; Pesahim, 66; Shabbat, 30. C. G. save upon a wise man, eminent in wisdom, of sterling character, never subdued by worldly passion, but conquering it by an ever-present will-power, broadminded and settled to the highest degree. A man, endowed with all these moral principles, of sound physique, when he enters the Vineyard and is carried away with the current of these great and remote subjects, and possessed of a mind ready to understand and attain, he continuing to gain in saintliness, separated from the general public which follows the dark paths of the times, continuing to take care of himself, training his soul to heed no thought in idle affairs nor in the vanities and phantasies of the time, but his mind be constantly ready and directed Upward, connected to the Throne Beneath, to understand the Holy and Pure Intelligences and to penetrate the scope of Wisdom of the Holy One, blessed is He! from the First Intelligence even unto the summit of the earth to know from them His greatness —immediately the Holy Spirit will rest upon him. And, when the Spirit will rest upon him his soul will be mingling with the Angels of the degree of the Sphere called Men, and will be transformed into another being, and will understand his own intelligence that he is not as he was, but that he was elevated above the degree of other wise sons of man, as it is said of Saul: "And thou shalt prophesy among them and thou shalt be turned into another man" (I Sam. 10.6).

(6) Another explanation: "And God said all of these things, saying" - Rabbi Yitzchak said, What the prophets were to prophesy in the future in each generation, they received from Mount Sinai. As Moshe said to Israel (Deuteronomy 29:14), "But with those here with us standing today and with those not here with us today." It does not say [at the end of the verse], "with us standing today," but rather, "with us today"; these are the souls that will be created in the future, who do not have substance, about whom "standing" is not mentioned. For even though they did not exist at that time, each one received that which was his. And so [too], it states (Malachi 1:1), "The burden that God spoke to Israel by ['in the hand of'] Malachi" - it does not state, "in the days of Malachi," but rather "in the hand of Malachi," as the prophecy was already in his hand from Mount Sinai, but until that time, he was not given permission to prophesy. Likewise Yeshayahu said (Isaiah 48:16), "from the time it was, was I there." Yeshayahu said, "From the time the Torah was given at Sinai, I was there and received this prophecy, except [only] 'now did God send me and His spirit'" - until now, he was not given permission to prophesy. And it was not only of the prophets who receive their prophecy from Sinai, but also the sages who arise in each generation - each of them received what was his from Sinai. And so [too] it states (Deuteronomy 5:19), "These things did the Lord speak to your entire congregation, [...] a great voice and it did not cease": Rabbi Yochanan said, "One voice was split into seven voices and they were divided into seventy languages"; Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, "From it prophesied all of the prophets who arose." The Sages said that it did not have an echo. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "What is [the meaning of] 'The voice of the Lord is in strength' (Psalms 29:4)? Can one really say this? Isn't it true that, with even one angel, no creature can stand up to his voice, as it states (Daniel 10:6), 'And its body was like beryl (tarshish) [...] and the voice of its words was like the voice of the multitude.' And does the Holy One, blessed be He, about Whom it is written (Jeremiah 23:24), 'do I not fill the heavens and the earth,' need to speak in strength? Rather, 'The voice of the Lord is in strength' - in the strength of all of the voices." And this verse supports the view of Rabbi Yochanan: "The Lord gives the word, the announcers are a great host" (Psalms 68:12).