בין אחריות הציבור לאחריות הפרט

it does appear to be Shabbat wages. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he should not give her money for Shabbat. On the same issue, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is the reason for the difference in halakha between a rebellious man and a rebellious woman? According to all opinions, a rebellious wife’s fine is greater than that of a rebellious husband. He said to him: Go and learn from the market of prostitutes. Who hires whose services? Clearly, a man suffers more from lack of sexual intercourse, and therefore the penalty for a rebellious wife is greater. Alternatively, when he desires sexual relations, his inclination is noticeable on the outside, and therefore he feels shame as well as pain. But for her, her inclination is on the inside, and is not obvious. MISHNA: If someone feeds his wife by means of a third party serving as a trustee, while the husband himself is not living with her for some reason, he may not give her less than two kav of wheat or four kav of barley a week for her sustenance. Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. And he must give her half a kav of legumes, and half a log of oil, and a kav of dried figs or the weight of a maneh of fig cakes. And if he does not have these fruits, he must apportion for her a corresponding amount of fruit from elsewhere. And he must give her a bed, a soft mat, and a hard mat. And he must give her a cap for her head, and a belt for her waist, and new shoes from Festival to Festival, i.e., he must buy her new shoes each Festival. And he must purchase garments for her with a value of fifty dinars from year to year. The mishna comments: And he may not give her new clothes, which tend to be thick and warm, in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, as these are too thin and she will be cold. Rather, he should give her clothes at a value of fifty dinars in the rainy season, and she covers herself with these same worn garments in the summer as well. And the leftover, worn clothes belong to her. In addition to the above, he must give her another silver ma’a coin for the rest of her needs. And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Although he may provide for her sustenance via a third party throughout the week, on Shabbat evening she has the right to eat together with him. And if he does not give her a silver ma’a coin for her needs, her earnings belong to her. And what is the fixed amount that she must earn for him? She must spin wool in the weight of five sela of threads of the warp in Judea, which are equivalent to ten sela according to the measurements of the Galilee, or the weight of ten sela of the threads of the woof, which are easier to prepare, in Judea, which are equivalent to twenty sela according to the measurements used in the Galilee. And if she is nursing at the time, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. In what case is this statement, i.e., all these amounts and measurements, said? With regard to the poorest of Jews, i.e., these are the minimum requirements. However, in the case of a financially prominent man, all the amounts are increased according to his prominence. GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and it is not Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 82b): What is the measure for a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv]? It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv. The tanna’im disagree with regard to the definition of these two meals: It is referring to one’s food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intend to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Food for two meals is the size of a loaf bought with a pundeyon, which is one forty-eighth of a sela, when four se’a of wheat are sold for a sela. According to this calculation, a pundeyon can purchase one-twelfth of a se’a of wheat, which is equivalent to half of a kav, as there are six kav in a se’a. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal. Rabbi Shimon says: Food for two meals is two of three parts of a loaf, when three loaves are prepared from a kav of wheat. According to Rabbi Shimon, therefore, one-ninth of a kav of wheat is sufficient for a meal. Having discussed the various opinions with regard to the size of a loaf of bread sufficient for a meal, the mishna states that half of this loaf is the amount called a half [peras], a measure relevant for the halakhot of a leprous house. If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure. And half of its half, one quarter of a loaf this size, is the amount of ritually impure food that renders the body unfit. In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating teruma. And half of one half of its half, one-eighth of this loaf, is the minimum measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity as food. After the citing the mishna, the Gemara returns to its question: Who is the author of the mishna here, which says a husband must provide two kav of wheat per week for his wife’s sustenance? If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who maintains that one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal, there are only eight meals in two kav, and the wife requires at least fourteen meals for a week, as it was customary to eat two meals each day. And if it is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one-ninth of a kav is sufficient for a meal, two kav are enough for eighteen meals, and therefore the mishna requires more than she actually needs. The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and this is as Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s opinion: Deduct one-third for the grocer’s markup, as he takes one-third as profit. This adds one half to the total cost. Here, too, bring one-third and add it to the total amount of meals that can be provided by two kav of wheat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Still, after adjusting the calculation by adding an additional half, a measurement known by the term: Outside third, to the amount of meals that can be eaten from two kav of wheat, they are equal to twelve meals. This is still not sufficient, as the wife requires fourteen. The Gemara answers: She eats with him on Shabbat evening. Consequently, this meal is not included in the amount that must be provided through the third party. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that when the mishna is referring to eating, it means literal eating. However, according to the one who says that this eating on Shabbat evening is a euphemism, and it is actually referring to conjugal relations, what can be said? And furthermore, even if the meal on Shabbat evening is omitted, they are still thirteen meals that she requires but she has enough for only twelve. Rather, this is as Rav Ḥisda said, with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s opinion: Deduct one-half for the grocer’s markup. So too here, bring a half and add it to the total amount, which means she has enough for sixteen meals, not eight. The Gemara asks: This is difficult with regard to one statement of Rav Ḥisda, which seemingly contradicts the other statement of Rav Ḥisda. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that the grocer’s markup adds one-third to the price, is referring to a place where they also give money as a separate payment for the wood required to bake bread. That statement, that the grocer’s markup adds half, is referring to a place where they do not give money for wood, and therefore the markup must be higher to cover those costs. After reconciling the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara returns to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. If so, according to the above calculation, there are sixteen meals, which is more than a woman requires in a week. The Gemara suggests: In that case, who is the author of the mishna? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥidka, who said that a person is obligated to eat four meals on Shabbat? Since two meals are eaten on an ordinary weekday, this results in a total of sixteen meals a week. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one is obligated to eat only three meals on Shabbat, as you should remove one meal for guests and wayfarers. In other words, the husband cannot give his wife the absolute minimum amount she requires for herself and no more. He must give her enough to provide for the occasional visitor. Consequently, the total sum is somewhat more than was originally assumed. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that two kav is sufficient for eighteen meals. This can be explained either by saying that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one eats three meals on Shabbat, if you remove three meals for guests and wayfarers, or that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥidka, that four meals are eaten on Shabbat, in which case you must remove two meals for guests and wayfarers. In this manner, the mishna can be reconciled with all opinions. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. The Gemara asks: But does this indicate that it is only in Edom that they eat barley, whereas in the rest of the world they do not eat barley? This cannot be the case, as barley was eaten by the poor everywhere. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yosei is saying: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her a double amount of barley to that of wheat, since Edomite barley is bad, whereas elsewhere the barley is of a higher quality, and therefore the difference between barley and wheat is less marked. § The mishna further taught: And he must give her half a kav of legumes as well as oil and fruit. The Gemara comments: And yet wine is not taught in the mishna. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said:

what did the Elders, i.e., the Sages of that generation, do that was considered a sin? Rather, say: God will enter into judgment with the Elders because they did not protest the sinful conduct of the princes. The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters. And from where is it derived that this responsibility is incumbent upon the house of the Exilarch? As it is written: “House of David, so says the Lord: Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor, lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 21:12). The Exilarch is a direct descendant of the house of David. With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the members of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it. As Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Never did a promise manifesting a good attribute emerge from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and He later retracted it and rendered it evil, except with regard to this matter, as it is written: “And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry on account of all the abominations that are done in her midst” (Ezekiel 9:4). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel Gabriel: Go and inscribe a tav of ink on the foreheads of the righteous as a sign so that the angels of destruction will not have dominion over them. And inscribe a tav of blood on the foreheads of the wicked as a sign so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how are these different from those? He said to that attribute: These are full-fledged righteous people and those are full-fledged wicked people. The attribute of justice said to Him: Master of the Universe, it was in the hands of the righteous to protest the conduct of the wicked, and they did not protest. He said to that attribute: It is revealed and known before Me that even had they protested the conduct of the wicked, they would not have accepted the reprimand from them. They would have continued in their wicked ways. The attribute of justice said before Him: Master of the Universe, if it is revealed before You that their reprimand would have been ineffective, is it revealed to them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, retracted His promise to protect the righteous and decided that those who failed to protest would also be punished. And that is the meaning of that which is written: “Slay utterly old and young, both maid, and little children, and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). And it is written in that same verse: “Then they began with the elderly men who were before the house.” Rav Yosef taught: Read not: My Sanctuary [mikdashi], rather: Those sanctified to Me [mekudashai]. These are people who observed the whole Torah in its entirety from alef through tav. And immediately: “And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lies toward the north, and every man with his weapon of destruction in his hand; and one man among them was clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkwell by his side; and they went in and stood beside the bronze altar” (Ezekiel 9:2). The Gemara asks: Was there a bronze altar in the Temple in the time of Ezekiel? Already in the days of Solomon there was only a stone altar. Rather, this should be understood as a figure of speech. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Begin from the place where they recite songs of praise before Me. This is a reference to the Levites in the Temple whose musical instruments are made of bronze. And who are the six men mentioned here? Rav Ḥisda said: Fury, Wrath, and Rage, and Destroyer, and Breaker, and Annihilator, six angels of destruction. The Gemara asks further: And what is different about the letter tav,that it was inscribed on the foreheads of the righteous? Rav said: Tav is the first letter of the word tiḥye, you shall live, indicating that the righteous shall live. Tav is also the first letter of the word tamut, you shall die, indicating that the wicked shall die. And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word taḥon, will have mercy, indicating that due to the merit of the Patriarchs God will have mercy on the righteous. And Reish Lakish said: The letter tav is the last letter of the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: The seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth [emet], which ends with the letter tav. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: The letter tav teaches that these are people who observed the entire Torah from alef through tav. With regard to the statement that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased, the Gemara asks: From when did the merit of the Patriarchs cease? Rav said: From the days of the prophet Hosea, son of Beeri, as it is stated: “And now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hand” (Hosea 2:12). Israel will no longer be saved by the merit of the Patriarchs. And Shmuel said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hazael, as it is stated: “And Hazael, king of Aram, oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (II Kings 13:22). And it is written there: “And the Lord was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and turned toward them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and would not destroy them; neither has He till now cast them away from His presence” (II Kings 13:23). That was the last time that the merit of the Patriarchs was mentioned. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Elijah the Prophet, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at the time of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the Prophet came near and said, Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word” (I Kings 18:36). By inference: Let it be known this day and not afterward because the merit of the Patriarchs will cease today. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hezekiah, as it is stated: “For the increase of the realm and for peace without end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice; from now and forever the zeal of the Lord of hosts performs this” (Isaiah 9:6). That is to say, from this point on, the merit of the Patriarchs will not protect Israel, leaving only the zeal of the Lord. The Gemara continues its discussion of punishment in general and the relationship between a person’s actions and the punishments meted out against him in particular: Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity. The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death without sin, as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalms 89:33).

R. Joshua the son of Karha said: Whence do we know that if a disciple, sitting before his master, observes something that points out the innocence of the poor man and the guilt of the rich man, he must not keep silent? It is said: Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man (ibid.). This means that one should not refrain from speaking out because of any man. Witnesses must know against whom they are testifying and before Whom they are testifying and Who in the future will call them to account. As is it is said: Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord (ibid. 19:7). Judges must also realize, as they judge, before Whom they are judging and Who in the future will call them to account, as it is said: God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth (Ps. 82:1). Thus Jehoshaphat said to the judges: Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord (II Chron. 19:6). A man might say: What interest do I have in this argument? Therefore Scripture says: And He is with you in giving judgment (ibid.). Hence a judge must decide a case only in accordance with what he has witnessed (i.e., determined from the evidence) with his own eyes.