יין ישמח לבב אנוש

The seven days of Passover and the eight days of Sukkot along with the other holidays are all forbidden for eulogizing and fasting. And one is obligated to be joyful and of a good heart on them—he, his children, his wife, the members of his household and all who accompany him. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), "And you shall rejoice in your holiday, etc." Even though the joy that is mentioned here is [referring to] peace offerings—as we explain in the Laws of the Festival Offering—included in that joy is for him, his children and the members of his household to rejoice—everyone according to what is fit for him. The children, for example, should be given parched grain, nuts, and sweetmeats; the womenfolk should be presented with pretty clothes and trinkets according to one's means; the menfolk should eat meat and drink wine, for there is no real rejoicing without the use of meat and wine. While eating and drinking, one must feed the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and other poor unfortunates. Anyone, however, who locks the doors of his courtyard and eats and drinks along with his wife and children, without giving anything to eat and drink to the poor and the desperate, does not observe a religious celebration but indulges in the celebration of his stomach. And about such is it stated (Hosea 9:4), "their sacrifices are like the bread of mourners, all who eat it will be contaminated; for their bread is for their own appetites." Such joy is a disgrace for them, as it is stated (Malakhi 2:3), "I will spread dung on your faces, the dung of your festivals." Even though eating and drinking are included in the positive commandment (of joy on the holiday), one should not eat and drink the whole entire day. Rather this is the appropriate measure: All of the people get up early in the morning [to go] to the synagogues and study halls to pray, and to read in the Torah about the topic of the day. [Then] they go back home, eat, and go to the study hall, [where they] read and study until midday. And after midday, they pray the afternoon prayers and return to their homes to eat and drink for the rest of the day, until the night.

And Noah, the husbandman, began and planted a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). Noah degraded himself when he began to till the soil. R. Judah the son of R. Shalum said: At first Noah was called a righteous and perfect man, but now he is described as a man of the earth. And he planted a vineyard; that is, after he planted the vineyard he was called a husbandman. Three men toiled upon the earth and degraded themselves thereby. They were: Cain, Noah, and Uzziah.¹⁹Cain became a murderer, Noah a drunkard, and Uzziah a leper. It is written of Cain: He was a tiller of the ground (ibid. 4:2), and that is followed by the verse: You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth (ibid., v. 12). Noah, as it is written: And Noah, the husbandman, began, and planted a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). And soon thereafter he disgraced himself: He drank of the wine (ibid., v. 21). Our sages held that on the very day he planted the vineyard, it bore its fruit, he harvested it, pressed it, drank the wine, became intoxicated, and exposed his private parts. Our teachers of blessed memory stated: While Noah was planting the vineyard, Satan appeared before him and asked: “What are you planting?” He answered: “A vineyard.” “What is it?” inquired Satan. “Its fruits are sweet, whether moist or dry,” he answered, “and from them one produces a wine that causes the heart of man to rejoice, as it is written: And wine doth make glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15).” Satan suggested: “Come, let us be partners in this vineyard.” And Noah replied: “Certainly.” What did Satan do? First, he obtained a lamb and slaughtered it beneath the vineyard. Then, he took a lion and slaughtered it there, and after that he obtained a pig and an ape and slaughtered them in the same place. Their blood seeped into the earth, watering the vineyard. He did this to demonstrate to Noah that before drinking wine man is as innocent as a sheep: Like a sheep that before her shearers is dumb (Isa. 53:7). But after he drinks a moderate amount of wine he believes himself to be as strong as a lion, boasting that no one in all the world is his equal. When he drinks more than he should, he behaves like a pig, wallowing about in urine and performing other base acts. After he becomes completely intoxicated, he behaves like an ape, dancing about, laughing hysterically, prattling foolishly, and is completely unaware of what he is doing. All this happened to the righteous Noah. If the righteous Noah, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, praised, could behave in such a fashion, how much more so could any other man! Thereupon Noah cursed his seed, saying: Cursed be Canaan (Gen. 9:25). Because Ham had glanced at his naked father, his eyes became red. Because he related (what he had seen) to others with his mouth, his lips became twisted. Because he turned his face away (ignored his father’s condition), the hair of his head and beard was singed. And because he neglected to cover his naked father, he went about naked, with his prepuce extended. This happened to him because the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts retribution measure for measure. Nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, relented and had mercy upon him, for His tender mercies are over all His works (Ps. 145:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Inasmuch as he caused himself to be sold into slavery,²⁰His penalty for his actions: A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers (Gen. 9:25). let him go free because of the eye that sees and the mouth that speaks. Hence, the law states: A slave must be freed because of the loss of a tooth or an eye, as it is written: And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his bondman’s tooth, or his bondwoman’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake (Exod. 21:26–27). May we not logically conclude a fortiori:²¹That is, kal va-homer (a conclusion drawn from a minor to a major), one of the hermeneutical rules for expounding the Written Law. If a servant, purchased with money, must be released from bondage if his master blinds him or knocks out his tooth, should not the seed blessed of the Lord (Isa. 65:23), the planting of the Lord that He might be glorified (Ps. 61:3), be freed after their deaths from their sins? Hence, free among the dead (Ps. 88:6), indicating that they should go free (from sin) with all their two hundred and forty-eight limbs. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: In this world sin increases because of the evil inclination, but in the hereafter I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh (Ezek. 36:26). Hence, it is written: It shall be no more the confidence of the House of Israel, bringing iniquity to remembrance, when they turn after them (ibid. 29:16), and it is written elsewhere: In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none, and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found (Jer. 50:20). Scripture states in reference to Uzziah: He loved husbandry (II Chron. 26:10). He was a king who devoted himself to husbandry while ignoring the Torah. One day he visited the House of Study and inquired of those present: “What are you engaged in doing?” They responded with the verse: The common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death (Num. 1:51). Thereupon, he replied: “The Holy One, blessed be He, is King, and I am king, and it is fitting indeed for a terrestrial king to serve a Celestial King by burning incense before Him.” He went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord (II Chron. 26:16–17). The young priests who entered with him said to him: It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated it pertaineth to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary, for thou has trespassed (ibid., v. 18). Therefore God was angry with him. Immediately, Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke out in his forehead (ibid., v. 19). At that moment the Temple was rent asunder, and its pieces were hurled a distance of twelve by twelve miles.²²The word mil indicates a distance of 2,000 cubits And they thrust him out quickly from thence; yea, himself made haste also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him (ibid., v. 20). Why did this all happen to him? Because he neglected the Torah and devoted himself to husbandry.

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. mishna The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. gemara The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only is preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.