Close Bechdels in the Talmud

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the righteous Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and the wonders he performed. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Each and every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of My son Ḥanina ben Dosa, and yet for Ḥanina, My son, a kav of carobs, a very small amount of inferior food, is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife would heat the oven every Shabbat eve and create a great amount of smoke, due to embarrassment, to make it appear that she was baking, despite the fact that there was no bread in her house. She had a certain evil neighbor who said to herself: Now, I know that they have nothing. What, then, is all this smoke? She went and knocked on the door to find out what was in the oven. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife was embarrassed, and she ascended to an inner room [inderona]. A miracle was performed for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife, as her neighbor saw the oven filled with bread and the kneading basin filled with dough. She said to Rabbi Ḥanina’s wife, calling her by name: So-and-so, so-and-so, bring a shovel, as your bread is burning. She said to her neighbor: I too went inside for that very purpose. A tanna taught: She too had entered the inner room to bring a shovel, because she was accustomed to miracles and anticipated that one would occur to spare her embarrassment.

In order to reconcile this contradiction they said: They know of their own pain but do not know of the pain of others. The Gemara challenges this: And is it so that the dead do not know of the pain of others? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a pious man who gave a poor man a dinar on the eve of Rosh HaShana during drought years, and his wife mocked him for giving so large a sum at so difficult a time? And in order to escape her incessant mockery, he went and slept in the cemetery. That night in his dream (Ritva, HaKotev, Maharsha), he heard two spirits conversing with each other. One said to the other: My friend, let us roam the world and hear from behind the heavenly curtain [pargod], which separates the Divine Presence from the world, what calamity will befall the world. The other spirit said to her: I cannot go with you, as I am buried in a mat of reeds, but you go, and tell me what you hear. She went, and roamed, and came back. The other spirit said: My friend, what did you hear from behind the heavenly curtain? She replied: I heard that anyone who sows during the first rainy season of this year, hail will fall and strike his crops. Hearing this, the pious man went and sowed his seeds during the second rainy season. Ultimately, the crops of the entire world were stricken by hail and his crops were not stricken. The following year, on the eve of Rosh HaShana, the same pious man went and slept in the cemetery at his own initiative, and again he heard the two spirits conversing with each other. One said to the other: Let us roam the world and hear from behind the heavenly curtain what calamity will befall the world. She said to her: My friend, have I not already told you that I cannot, as I am buried in a mat of reeds? Rather, you go, and tell me what you hear. She went, and roamed, and returned. The other spirit said to her: My friend, what did you hear from behind the curtain? She said to her: I heard that those who sow during the second rainy season blight will strike his crops. That pious man went and sowed during the first rainy season. Since everyone else sowed during the second rainy season, ultimately, the crops of the entire world were blighted and his crops were not blighted. The pious man’s wife said to him: Why is it that last year, the crops of the entire world were stricken and yours were not stricken, and now this year, the crops of the entire world were blighted and yours were not blighted? He related to her the entire story. They said: It was not even a few days later that a quarrel fell between the pious man’s wife and the mother of the young woman who was buried there. The pious man’s wife said to her scornfully: Go and I will show you your daughter, and you will see that she is buried in a mat of reeds. The following year, he again went and slept in the cemetery, and heard the same spirits conversing with each other. One said to the other: My friend, let us roam the world and hear from behind the heavenly curtain what calamity will befall the world. She said to her: My friend, leave me alone, as words that we have privately exchanged between us have already been heard among the living. Apparently, the dead know what transpires in this world. The Gemara responds: This is no proof; perhaps another person, who heard about the conversation of the spirits secondhand, died and he went and told them that they had been overheard.

The Gemara relates: Abaye’s wife, Ḥoma, came before Rava after Abaye died, as Rava was the local judge. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me, as I am entitled to be sustained by Abaye’s heirs. Rava apportioned sustenance for her. She subsequently said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. Rava said to her: I know that Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, did not drink wine. Since you were not accustomed to drinking wine during your husband’s lifetime, you are not entitled to it after his death. She said to him: By the Master’s life, this is not correct. In fact, he would give me wine to drink in cups [shufrazei] as large as this. She gestured with her hands to show how large the cups were. While she was showing him the size of the cups, her arm became uncovered, and she was so beautiful that it was as though a light had shined in the courtroom.

Rava arose, went home, and requested intercourse from his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who was just now in the courtroom? Noticing his unusual behavior, she suspected that there must have been a woman in the court. He said to her: Ḥoma, Abaye’s wife, was there. Upon hearing this, Rava’s wife went after Ḥoma and struck her with the lock of a chest [kulpei deshida] until she drove her out of the entire city of Meḥoza, saying to her: You have already killed three men, as Abaye was your third husband, and now you come to kill another one, my husband Rava? Since you showed him your beauty, he will want to marry you.

The Gemara cites another example of the lack of linguistic precision of the Galileans: There was a certain woman who wanted to say to her friend: My neighbor, come and I will feed you milk [ta’i de’okhlikh ḥelba]; however, due to the imprecise articulation of her words, she said to her: My neighbor, may a lioness eat you [tokhlikh lavya].

The Gemara relates: A mother-in-law who hated her daughter-in-law said to her: Go adorn yourself with balsam oil. She went and adorned herself. When she came, her mother-in-law said to her: Go light the lamp. She went and lit the lamp. She caught fire and was burned.

The Gemara further states: These two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly engaging in witchcraft. What is the remedy for one who walks by? If there is another route, he should go by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, they should hold hands and switch places. And if there is no other person with him, he should say as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows. These are names of demons invoked by witches.

The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught with regard to this issue: If a woman giving birth were to need a lamp, her friend lights the lamp for her on Shabbat. And if she were to need oil, her friend brings her oil via the public domain in an atypical manner, carrying it in the palm of her hand but not in a vessel. And if the oil that her friend brings in her hand is not enough, she brings oil in her hair. And if oil that she brings in her hair is not enough, she brings oil for her in the typical manner, in a vessel.

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel says: Three women may knead their dough as one, meaning at one time, and bake the batches of dough in one oven, one after the other, and they need not be concerned that their dough will become leavened while they are waiting to use the oven. And the Rabbis say: Three women may be engaged in preparing dough as one, in the following manner: One kneads her dough as another one arranges her own dough so it takes the form of matza, while another one bakes her dough. Rabbi Akiva says: Not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same, and therefore no set rules should be established. Rather, this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise, she should spread cold water in which she immersed her hands, onto the dough, in order to stop the leavening process. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the woman who kneads first completes her kneading, she arranges her dough and another woman kneads in her place. When the first woman finishes arranging her dough, she bakes and another woman arranges her dough in her place, and the third woman kneads her dough. When the first woman finishes baking, she kneads the dough for her next batch, and another woman bakes in her place, and the third woman arranges her dough, and they continue in turn. As long as they are engaged in handling the dough, it will not become leavened. It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says that not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: I deliberated this matter before Rabban Gamliel, asking: May our master teach us if your statement, cited in the mishna, was said with regard to diligent women or women who are not diligent? Was it said with regard to an oven fueled with moist wood or dry wood? Was it said with regard to a hot oven or a cold oven? Rabban Gamliel himself said to me: You have only what the Sages taught, which is that this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise such that there is a concern that it may become leavened, she should spread cold water onto the dough to prevent it from becoming leavened.

The mishna taught that the young girls may go out with strings. The Gemara relates that Shmuel’s father did not allow his daughters to go out with strings, and did not allow them to lie next to each other, and he made ritual baths for them in the days of Nisan and mats in the Euphrates River in the days of Tishrei. Since the water was shallow and the riverbed muddy, he placed mats on the riverbed so that they could immerse without getting dirty. The Gemara analyzes the conduct of Shmuel’s father: He did not allow them to go out with strings. Didn’t we learn in the mishna that the girls may go out with strings? The Gemara answers: The strings with which the daughters of Shmuel’s father went out were colorful ones, and he was concerned that because the strings were beautiful they would come to remove them to show them to others and carry them. He did not allow them to lie next to one another. Let us say that this supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. The act renders a woman a zona. It is prohibited for a priest to marry her (Tosafot). The Gemara rejects this: No, that is not necessarily so. Perhaps the reason for Shmuel’s father’s insistence was because he thought to prevent them from lying next to one another so that they would not become accustomed to sleeping with a foreign body, which could stimulate sexual desire.

As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was dying, he said to his wife: I know that the Rabbis are angry at me for arresting several thieves who are their relatives, and therefore they will not properly tend to my burial. When I die, lay me in my attic and do not be afraid of me, i.e., do not fear that anything will happen to my corpse. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Rabbi Yonatan’s mother told me that the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, told her: I laid him in the attic for no less than eighteen years and for no more than twenty-two years.

Elazar’s wife came and said to her daughter: What has your father brought? She said to her mother: Whatever he brought he threw into the granary. She went to open the door of the granary, and saw that the granary was full of wheat, so much so that it was coming out through the doorknob, and the door would not open due to the wheat. The granary had miraculously been completely filled. Elazar’s daughter went to the study hall and said to her father: Come and see what your He Who loves You, the Almighty, has performed for you. He said to her: I swear by the Temple service, as far as you are concerned this wheat is consecrated property, and you have a share in it only as one of the poor Jews. He said this because he did not want to benefit from a miracle.

The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar Ḥana came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.

There was a certain man who heard his wife saying to her daughter: Why do you not act clandestinely when you engage in forbidden sexual intercourse? That woman has, i.e., I have, ten sons, and I have only one from your father, and no one knows. So too, you must be careful so that no one will discover your illicit behavior. Having overheard that only one son was his, when that man was dying he said to his family: All of my property is left to one son.

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and she said: My brooch [keveinati] shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement even though the gift included only a part of her property and an act of acquisition was not performed. Rava replied: That incident is different, as the case there is referring to one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death.

The Gemara relates: A certain divorcée came before Shmuel, as she did not wish to nurse her son. He said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go and check her, i.e., verify whether the child recognizes his mother. He went, placed her in a row of women, and took her son in his arms and passed him near them to see how the child would react. When the child reached her, he looked at her face with joy, and she averted her eyes from him, as she did not want to look at him. He said to her: Lift up your eyes, get up and take your son, as it is obvious that he knows you. The Gemara asks: If this is so, then how does a blind baby know and recognize his mother? Rav Ashi said: Through smell and through the taste of her milk.

On Rosh Hodesh, on Hannukah and on Purim they may wail and clap [their hands in grief]. Neither on the former nor on the latter occasions may they offer a lamentation. After the dead has been buried they neither wail nor clap [their hands in grief]. What is meant by wailing? When all wail in unison. What is meant by a lament? When one speaks and all respond after her, as it is said: “And teach your daughters wailing and one another [each] lamentation” (Jeremiah 9:19). But as to the future, it says: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:9).

He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde’a to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors.

(Numb. 5:13:) “In that a man has slept with her carnally.” [“A man” is to] exclude a minor, and one who is not a man.³⁸On the exception, see Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7). Cf. Sot. 4:4; TSot. 5:6; and Sot. 26b, all of which regard “one who is not a man” as a separate, non-human category. “[With her] carnally.” [This is the case] when her sleeping renders her unfit; and no other sleeping renders her unfit. [There is] a story about two sisters who resembled each other. Now one was married in one city and the other was married in another city. The husband of one of them wanted to accuse her of infidelity and have her drink the bitter water in Jerusalem. She went to that city where her married sister was. Her sister said to her, “What was your reason for coming here?” She said to her, “My husband wants to have me drink [the bitter water].” Her sister said to her, “I will go in your place and drink it.” She said to her, “Go.” She put on her sister's clothes, went in her place, drank the bitter water, and was found clean. When she returned to her sister's house, she joyfully went out to meet her, then embraced and kissed her on the mouth. As soon as the one kissed the other, she smelled the bitter water and immediately died, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Eccl. 8:8), “No human has control over the wind to contain the wind, nor is there control on the day of death […].”

And she may enter into seclusion even on the basis of the presence of a slave and on the basis of the presence of a maidservant, except for her personal maidservant, due to the fact that she is accustomed to her maidservant, and her presence will not serve as an impediment that would prevent her from engaging in intercourse. Therefore, with regard to the woman taken captive as well, the testimony of the maidservant is not accepted to establish that she was not defiled. Rav Pappi resolved the contradiction and said: With regard to a captive woman, the Sages ruled leniently. Because the prohibition against intercourse with a captive woman is based on the concern that she was violated, the Sages relied on the testimony of her personal maidservant.

The Gemara relates the following incident: It happened on a certain Shabbat eve that a neighbor came by and called and knocked at the door. His maidservant said to her: Be quiet, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is sitting. When he heard his maidservant reveal his presence to the neighbor, he did not come again, so as not to cast aspersions on earlier righteous individuals who did not appear to their families following their death.

MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.

Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is due to the fact that He sent them to their mother’s house, i.e., the birthplace of the forefathers of the Jewish people, who lived in Aram-Nahara’im, which is in Babylonia. This is comparable to a man who is angry at his wife; to where does he send her? He sends her to her mother’s house.

The mishna states that they bring the ḥaroset to the leader of the seder, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: And if it is not a mitzva, for what reason does one bring it to the seder? Rabbi Ami said: It is brought due to the poison in the bitter herbs, which is neutralized by the ḥaroset. In this regard, Rav Asi said: The remedy for one who ate the poison in lettuce is to eat a radish. The remedy for the poison in a radish is leeks. The remedy for the poison in leeks is hot water. A remedy for the poison in all vegetables is hot water. The Gemara comments: In the meantime, while one is waiting for someone to bring him the remedy, let him say the following incantation: Poison, poison, I remember you, and your seven daughters, and your eight daughters-in-law.

With regard to the deceased’s knowledge of what transpires, come and hear a proof, as it is told: Ze’iri would deposit his dinars with his innkeeper. While he was going and coming to and from the school of Rav, she died, and he did not know where she had put the money. So he went after her to her grave in the cemetery and said to her: Where are the dinars? She replied: Go and get them from beneath the hinge of the door in such and such a place, and tell my mother that she should send me my comb and a tube of eyeshadow with such and such a woman who will die and come here tomorrow. Apparently, the dead know what transpires in this world.

Besides vows, there are other areas of halakha where there is a distinction between different varieties of the same food. We learned in a mishna there (Ma’asrot 2:8): A hired worker who was working with keloppasin, a type of fig, may not partake of benot sheva, a different species of fig, during his work. A worker may partake only of the fruit that he is handling at the time (see Deuteronomy 23:25–26). Similarly, if he was working with benot sheva he may not partake of keloppasin. The Gemara asks: What are keloppasin? The Gemara answers: A type of fig from which compote [lifdei] is made.

The Gemara relates a story that validates this concern. This is like that incident involving a certain gentile woman who said to her fellow gentile: You are the midwife of Jewish women, the daughter of a midwife of Jewish women. This was meant as an insult. In response, the other gentile said to her: May as many evils befall that woman, i.e., you, as the number of Jewish infants that I have killed, as I extract blood from them like the foam [ufeya] of a river. This gentile midwife claimed to have caused the deaths of many Jewish children.

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.

We learned in the mishna that the Sages disagree whether or not a woman may go out on Shabbat with a false tooth and a gold tooth; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits doing so and the Rabbis prohibit doing so. Rabbi Zeira said: They only taught the dispute with regard to a gold tooth. Since it is precious, she might remove it from her mouth to show her friends and come to carry it. However, with regard to a silver tooth, which is less precious, there is no concern that she will remove it from her mouth. Everyone agrees that it is permitted. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a tooth made of silver, everyone agrees that it is permitted. With regard to a tooth of gold, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out with it and the Rabbis prohibit going out with it. Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that anything that makes her unappealing when removed, she will not come to remove it and show it to others. Therefore, it is permitted for her to go out with it.

Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelila of woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.

§ It was stated earlier that the city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a carriage. The Gemara explains that it was customary in Beitar that when a boy was born they would plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born they would plant a cypress [tornita]. And when they would later marry each other they would cut down these trees and construct a wedding canopy for them with their branches. One day the emperor’s daughter passed by there and the shaft of the carriage in which she was riding broke. Her attendants chopped down a cedar from among those trees and brought it to her. Owing to the importance that they attached to their custom, the residents of Beitar came and fell upon them and beat them. The attendants came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor then came against them in war.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.

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.

§ The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the series of incidents stated below: Zutra, the mother, of Amram, from two sisters, Rav Tovi, and Rav Dimi and Rav Yosef. The mother of Rav Zutra bar Toviyya wrote a deed granting her property to Rav Zutra bar Toviyya, explaining that she was doing so because she wanted to get married to Rav Zevid, and she did not want him to acquire her property. She married Rav Zevid, and he divorced her. She came before Rav Beivai bar Abaye to claim her property from her son. Rav Beivai said: She transferred her property because she wanted to get married, and she married. Since her intentions were fulfilled, even though she subsequently was divorced, the gift is a valid gift. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Beivai: Is it because you come from a line of truncated [mula’ei] people, from the house of the High Priest Eli, whose descendants were condemned to premature death (see I Samuel 2:31), that you say truncated [mulyata] and unsound matters? Even according to the one who says that the deed of a woman who shelters her property from her intended husband effects acquisition, and the woman cannot reclaim the property, this matter applies where she did not reveal her intentions in transferring ownership of her property. But here, she revealed her intentions that she transferred the property because she wanted to marry; and she married, but was divorced. Therefore, since she is no longer married, she can reclaim the property. The mother of Rami bar Ḥama wrote a deed in the evening granting her property to Rami bar Ḥama. In the morning of the following day, she wrote a deed granting her property to his brother, Rav Ukva bar Ḥama. Rami bar Ḥama came before Rav Sheshet, who established him as the owner of the property, as the deed transferring the property to him preceded the gift to his brother. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama came before Rav Naḥman, who established him as the owner of the property. Rav Sheshet came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: What is the reason that the Master established Rav Ukva bar Ḥama as the owner of the property? If it is because she retracted her gift, but didn’t she die? Since the gift of a person on his deathbed is considered valid, Rami bar Ḥama already acquired the property in the evening. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Sheshet: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, i.e., if he transferred ownership of all of his property, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift. Rav Sheshet responded: Say that Shmuel said that he can retract his gift if he wants to retain the property for himself, but if he wants to retract his gift in order to give it to another, did he also say that he can do so? Rav Naḥman said to Rav Sheshet: Shmuel explicitly said that he can retract his gift both in order to retain the property for himself and to grant it to another. The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle [meloga] of promissory notes. When she was dying, she said: Let these promissory notes be for Amram, my son. His brothers came before Rav Naḥman. They said to Rav Naḥman: But Rav Amram did not pull the bundle of documents, and since an act of acquisition was not performed he did not acquire them. Rav Naḥman said to them: An act of acquisition was not required, because the statement of a person on his deathbed is considered as written and as though the documents were delivered to the recipient. The sister of Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana wrote a deed in the morning granting her property to Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana. In the evening another brother, Rav Aḥadvoi bar Rav Mattana, came and cried to her. Rav Aḥadvoi said to her: Now people will say that you gave your property to Rav Tovi because this Master, Rav Tovi, is a Torah scholar, and that Master, Rav Aḥadvoi, is not a Torah scholar. She wrote a deed granting the property to him. Rav Tovi came before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Tovi: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift, and therefore the property belongs to Rav Aḥadvoi. The sister of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a tract of land in an orchard. Whenever she was sick and thought that she was dying, she would transfer ownership of the orchard to Rav Dimi, and when she recovered she would retract her gift. On one occasion she was sick. She sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come and acquire my property. He sent a message back to her: I do not want to come. She sent a message to him: Come and acquire my property in any manner that you want. He went and reserved for her part of the orchard, and he acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition. When she recovered she retracted the gift. She came before Rav Naḥman to reclaim it. Rav Naḥman sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come to court. Rav Dimi did not come. He said: What reason is there for me to come? Didn’t I reserve part of the property for her, and I acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition? Therefore, the acquisition is complete. Rav Naḥman sent a message to Rav Dimi: If you do not come, I will strike you with a thorn [besileva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you. Inquiring into the matter, Rav Naḥman said to the witnesses: How did the act of transferring the property take place? The witnesses said to Rav Naḥman: This is what she said: Woe, that woman is dying! Rav Naḥman said to them: If so, this is a case of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death. And one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death can retract his gift even if he did not transfer all of his property, as he evidently granted the gift only because he expected to die.

The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home. And the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya for a ruling as to whether the eiruv is valid, and he ruled that it was not valid and prohibited her return. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an eiruv? This is what my father said: Any case where you have the ability to be lenient with regard to an eiruv, be lenient.

Abishag said to him: When the thief is lacking what to steal, he makes himself like a man of peace. In other words, she was saying that since King David was physically unable to engage in intercourse, he devised an excuse not to marry her. King David said to his attendants: Call Bathsheba to me. And it is written: “And Bathsheba went in to the king into the chamber; now the king was very old and Abishag the Shunammite ministered to the king” (I Kings 1:15). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At that time, Bathsheba wiped herself with thirteen cloths, corresponding to the number of words in the verse, indicating that she engaged in intercourse with King David thirteen times.

Rather, we must say that it is this tanna who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, as it was taught in a baraita: Michal, daughter of Kushi, King Saul, would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her behavior, as she was permitted to do so. And similarly, Jonah’s wife would undertake the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest against her practice. From the fact that the Sages did not protest against Michal’s donning phylacteries, it is apparent that these Sages hold that phylacteries is a positive mitzva not bound by time, i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.

As a remedy for a bladder stone [litzmireta], let him bring three drops of tar oil, which is oil that emerges from burning wood, three drops from the squeezing [itzra] of leeks, and three drops of clean wine, and place this mixture, for a man on the penis, and for a woman on that place, i.e., her genital area. And if he is not able to do this, let him bring the ear, i.e., handle, of a wine sac and suspend it, for a man from his penis, and for a woman from her breasts. And if he is not able to do this, let him bring a crimson string spun by a woman suspected of prostitution who is also the daughter of a suspected woman, and let him suspend it, for a man from his penis and for a woman from her breasts. And if not, let him bring a louse from a male and a louse from a female, and suspend it, for a man from his penis, and for a woman on that place, i.e., her genital area. And when he urinates let him urinate on a dry branch [sisna] by the door pivot. And let him examine the bladder stone that comes out of him with the urine, as it is effective as a remedy for any illness accompanied by a fever [tzimra] if he grinds it and uses it.

Rav Yosef thought to say: Delivering the child of a gentile woman on Shabbat in exchange for payment is permitted due to enmity. Abaye said to him: The concern of enmity does not apply here, because she can say to the gentile: With regard to our own women, who keep Shabbat, we desecrate Shabbat for them; with regard to your women, who do not keep Shabbat, we do not desecrate Shabbat for them.

The Gemara relates: Rav was the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half brother and the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half sister, as Ayevu, Rav’s father, married his own stepsister, Imma. When Rav ascended there, to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Is your father, Ayevu, alive? He said to him, replying with a question: Is your sister, Imma, alive? He said to him: Indeed, is Imma alive? He said to him: Is Ayevu alive? Upon hearing this, Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that both Ayevu and Imma had passed away, and Rav did not wish to say so explicitly.

§ Concerning the lack of truth, Rava says: Initially I would say that there is no truth anywhere in the world. There was a certain one of the Sages, and Rav Tavut is his name, and some say Rav Tavyomei is his name, who was so honest that if they were to give him the entire world, he would not deviate from the truth in his statement. He said to me: One time I happened to come to a certain place, and Truth is its name, and its residents would not deviate from the truth in their statements, and no person from there would die prematurely. I married a woman from among them, and I had two sons from her. One day his wife was sitting and washing the hair on her head. Her neighbor came and knocked on the door. He thought: It is not proper conduct to tell the neighbor that his wife is bathing. He said to her: She is not here. Since he deviated from the truth his two sons died. The people residing in that place came before him and said to him: What is the meaning of this? He said to them: This was the nature of the incident, and told them what happened. They said to him: Please leave our place and do not provoke premature death upon these people.

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the messianic period. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says: During the generation in which the son of David comes, youths will humiliate elders and elders will stand in deference before youths, and a daughter will rebel against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law, and the face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, and a son will not be ashamed before his father.

The Gemara explains: A parable with regard to Moses and David shows to what this may be compared. It may be compared to two women who were flogged in court for their sins. One of them sinned by engaging in forbidden relations, and one ate unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year although they are forbidden. The woman who ate the unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year said to the court: Please publicize the sin for which I am being flogged, so that people will not say that what that woman is being flogged for is also what this woman is being flogged for. They brought unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year, and hung them around her neck, and announced before her, saying: She is receiving lashes on account of the Sabbatical Year. Moses requested that his sin be publicized so that people would not think that he committed the same sins as the members of his generation, i.e., the Golden Calf and the report of the spies.

And learn from it: A woman can become an agent to accept a betrothal for another woman, and this is so even in a situation where she thereby becomes the rival wife of the other, as in the case of the mishna.

§ The Sages taught: This ḥilazon, which is the source of the sky-blue dye used in ritual fringes, has the following characteristics: Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles that of a fish, it emerges once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes wool sky-blue for ritual fringes. It is scarce, and therefore it is expensive. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: There is no mitzva, however minor, that is written in the Torah, for which there is no reward given in this world; and in the World-to-Come I do not know how much reward is given. Go and learn from the following incident concerning the mitzva of ritual fringes. There was an incident involving a certain man who was diligent about the mitzva of ritual fringes. This man heard that there was a prostitute in one of the cities overseas who took four hundred gold coins as her payment. He sent her four hundred gold coins and fixed a time to meet with her. When his time came, he came and sat at the entrance to her house. The maidservant of that prostitute entered and said to her: That man who sent you four hundred gold coins came and sat at the entrance. She said: Let him enter. He entered. She arranged seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold. Between each and every one of them there was a ladder made of silver, and the top bed was the one that was made of gold. She went up and sat naked on the top bed, and he too went up in order to sit naked facing her. In the meantime, his four ritual fringes came and slapped him on his face. He dropped down and sat himself on the ground, and she also dropped down and sat on the ground. She said to him: I take an oath by the gappa of Rome that I will not allow you to go until you tell me what defect you saw in me. He said to her: I take an oath by the Temple service that I never saw a woman as beautiful as you. But there is one mitzva that the Lord, our God, commanded us, and its name is ritual fringes, and in the passage where it is commanded, it is written twice: “I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 15:41). The doubling of this phrase indicates: I am the one who will punish those who transgress My mitzvot, and I am the one who will reward those who fulfill them. Now, said the man, the four sets of ritual fringes appeared to me as if they were four witnesses who will testify against me. She said to him: I will not allow you to go until you tell me: What is your name, and what is the name of your city, and what is the name of your teacher, and what is the name of the study hall in which you studied Torah? He wrote the information and placed it in her hand. She arose and divided all of her property, giving one-third as a bribe to the government, one-third to the poor, and she took one-third with her in her possession, in addition to those beds of gold and silver. She came to the study hall of Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: My teacher, instruct your students concerning me and have them make me a convert. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: My daughter, perhaps you set your sights on one of the students and that is why you want to convert? She took the note the student had given her from her hand and gave it to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: Go take possession of your purchase. Those beds that she had arranged for him in a prohibited fashion, she now arranged for him in a permitted fashion. The Gemara completes its point about the reward of mitzvot and points out how this story illustrates the concept: This is the reward given to him in this world, and with regard to the World-to-Come, I do not know how much reward he will be given.