הנה שוב הגעתי למקור- התחדשות יהודית

that it is satisfactory for her to have any kind of marital arrangement, and even had she taken into consideration the possibility of entering a levirate bond with this yavam who is afflicted with boils she still would have accepted betrothal to her husband. This is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says that women have a saying: It is better to sit as two bodies [tan du], i.e., to be married, than to sit lonely like a widow. § The mishna teaches: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. The Gemara quotes a baraita that records a dispute between tanna’im concerning this case. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:18): If the robber gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering, i.e., with the priestly watch of Joiarib; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say the opposite: They should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dispute? If we say that he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah during the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then this one acquired that which belongs to it and that one acquired that which belongs to it. Why would the court remove what was given lawfully to the priestly watch? Rava said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib during the priestly watch of Joiarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah also during the priestly watch of Joiarib, and the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda holds that since this is not the priestly watch of Jedaiah, we penalize Jedaiah; therefore, the priestly watch of Jedaiah must return the money in their possession to be with the guilt-offering held by the Joiarib watch. And the Rabbis hold that the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acted unlawfully when they accepted the guilt-offering before the robber paid the money, since payment for the robbery must be given before the guilt-offering can be offered. Therefore, we penalize them, and the guilt-offering in their possession returns to be with the money held by the Jedaiah watch. It is taught in a baraita on this topic (Tosefta 10:18): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, that if during the Joiarib watch the robber gave the guilt-offering to the Joiarib watch and the money to the Jedaiah watch, the money should return to the priestly watch of Joiarib, if the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib went first and sacrificed the guilt-offering before receiving the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah, then the robber should go back and bring another guilt-offering, and the members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who are already in possession of the money, should offer it, and those members of the priestly watch of Joiarib acquired that offering that is in their possession. The Sages say: For what purpose is that offering useful? It is a disqualified guilt-offering, since it was sacrificed before the payment for the robbery was given, and had to be entirely burned on the altar. Rava said: The baraita is referring to acquiring its hide, which the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib keep. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacri-fice it, then the priestly watch of Joiarib should return the guilt-offering to be with the money, and the priestly watch of Jedaiah will sacrifice it. The Gemara questions this: But Rabbi Yehuda holds that they should return the money to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of Joiarib exited at the close of their Temple service and they did not demand the money from the priestly watch of Jedaiah. And this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us this: That by doing so, the members of the priestly watch of Joiarib waived their rights to the money in favor of the priestly watch of Jedaiah. Consequently, they are required to give the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah to sacrifice. It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, if the guilt-offering is still extant, i.e., if the priestly watch of Joiarib did not already sacrifice it, the money must return to be with the guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? This is what Rabbi Yehuda holds explicitly; what novelty did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach? The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? With a case where it happened that the priestly watch of these and of those, i.e., both Joiarib and Jedaiah, exited at the end of their Temple service, and they did not demand of the other the item in possession of the other watch. Lest you say that they waived their rights in favor of each other, so that the money stays in possession of the Jedaiah watch, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches us that we say: Since the Jedaiah watch did not demand the guilt-offering from the Joiarib watch after the latter exited, let them go back to the first, standard scenario, returning the money to Joiarib to be with the guilt-offering. § The mishna teaches: For one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rava said: This is as the verse states: “But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). Learn by inference that the money must be returned first, before the guilt-offering is brought. Having understood that the inference is that the wording “besides the ram of the atonement” indicates that the ram must be brought after the money is given, one of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, then in a different verse, which states concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on the first day of Passover: “You shall offer these besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering” (Numbers 28:23), so too should one learn by inference that the additional offerings are brought first, before the morning burnt-offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that no sacrifice shall precede the daily morning offering? The verse states: “And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not be extinguished; and the priest shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and he shall prepare the burnt-offering upon it and shall cause the fats of the peace-offerings to go up in smoke upon it” (Leviticus 6:5). And Rava says: “The burnt-offering,” with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering, i.e., the daily morning offering, which is first both chronologically and in terms of importance. Rava said to him: I do not hold that the tanna derives this halakha from the wording of: “Besides the ram of the atonement,” but I hold that the tanna derives it from the phrase in the same verse: “Whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8), which is written in the future tense, indicating that he will achieve atonement in the future by bringing the ram of atonement, but as of now, when he is giving payment for the robbery, the offering did not yet atone for his sin. § The mishna teaches: If he gave the principal to him but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, his not giving it does not preclude sacrificing the offering. The Gemara now clarifies the source of this halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita on the topic of the guilt-offering brought by one who misuses consecrated property, which is accompanied by repayment of the value of the item and an additional fifth of its value: From where is it derived that if he brought his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property but did not bring his guilt-offering, or if he brought his guilt-offering but did not bring his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property, that he did not fulfill his obligation? The baraita continues: The verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering [ha’asham], and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:16). The baraita interprets the phrase: “The ram of the guilt-offering,” to be referring to two entities: The ram, i.e., the offering, and the payment, represented by the words “the guilt-offering”; this teaches that forgiveness and atonement are achieved only after both the ram of the guilt-offering is sacrificed and the restitution of the monetary payment is given. The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that if he brought his guilt-offering before bringing his payment for his benefit from misuse of consecrated property that he did not fulfill his obligation? The verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering,” indicating that the guilt-offering was already brought. The baraita continues: One might have thought that just as the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement, so too, payment of the additional one-fifth of the value precludes his achieving it. Therefore, the verse states: “With the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven,” which teaches that the ram and guilt-offering, i.e., payment, preclude his achieving atonement with regard to consecrated property, but the payment of the additional one-fifth does not preclude his achieving it. The Gemara clarifies: And let the halakha of misuse of consecrated property be learned from the halakha of common money, i.e., payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs, and let the halakha of common money be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property. In what manner? The halakha of misuse of consecrated property can be learned from the halakha of common money as follows: Just as the word “guilt” that is written there, in the context of robbery of a convert, is referring to the principal, i.e., the payment itself, so too, the word “guilt” that is written here, in the context of misuse of consecrated property, is referring to the principal. And the halakha of common money can be learned from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property as follows: Just as with regard to the halakha of misuse of consecrated property the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement, so too, with regard to the halakha of common money as well, the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude his achieving atonement. MISHNA: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or who left a stolen item to them and then died, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. But if the stolen item was something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, the heirs are obligated to pay. GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda says: If one robbed another, and the owners of the stolen item have not yet despaired of retrieving it, and another person came, took it from the robber and ate it, if the owner wishes he may collect from this one, i.e., the first robber, and if he wishes he may collect from that one, i.e., the second robber. What is the reason that he may collect from whomever he chooses? It is because as long as the owners did not despair of retrieving it, it remains the possession of its owner, so that when the second robber stole it from the first, he was in fact stealing from the original owner. Nevertheless, since the first robber was already obligated to return the item, his obligation remains in force and the owner may demand payment from him if he wishes. The Gemara questions this opinion based on what we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, or one who left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the victim of the robbery after their father’s death. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that one who steals from a thief is obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: When that mishna is taught, it is addressing a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav Ḥisda was referring to a case where the owners had not yet despaired. § The mishna stated that if one left a stolen item to his children as an inheritance, the children are exempt from paying the owner. Rami bar Ḥama said: That is to say that the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Just as an item that is purchased leaves the domain of the seller, an item that is inherited leaves the domain of the deceased and is considered the property of the heir. Since the owner has despaired of retrieving the item and the item has changed domains, it is entirely the property of the new owner, and he is exempt from payment. Rava disagreed and said that the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. Consequently, the item has not undergone a complete change of ownership and the heir would be required to return it. And as for the explanation of the mishna, here we are dealing with a case where they had already consumed the stolen goods, so there is nothing to return to the owner. The Gemara questions the opinion of Rava: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: If it was something that serves as a legal guarantee, and is, therefore, an existing commodity, the heirs are obligated to pay, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are also dealing with a stolen item that is extant. This is contrary to Rava’s statement that the mishna is discussing stolen goods that have been consumed. The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you that this is what the mishna is saying: If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay from that property, even if the stolen item is not extant. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach Rabbi Shimon, his son, that this mishna is not referring only to something that may actually serve as a legal guarantee, i.e., land? Rather, it is referring even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father. This indicates that the mishna is referring to stolen property that is extant, and not to land. Rather, Rava said: When I die, Rabbi Oshaya will come toward me from his place in heaven in order to greet me, as I explain the mishna in accordance with his opinion and thereby honor him. As Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: In a case of one who robs another and feeds the stolen goods to his children, the latter are exempt from paying the owner. If he left a stolen item to them as an inheritance, if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to return it to the owner; if it is not extant, they are exempt. If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are obligated to pay the owner. Rava explains the mishna as being consistent with the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya, although this explanation is not consistent with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation. The Gemara analyzes the baraita of Rabbi Oshaya. The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is not extant, the heirs are exempt from payment. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who says that heirs are obligated to pay for stolen goods that they consumed. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda could have said to you that when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a case where it is after the owners had already despaired of retrieving the item, whereas Rav Ḥisda was referring to a case in which the owners had not yet despaired. The Gemara continues: The Master said in the baraita that if the stolen item is extant, the heirs are obligated to pay. Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rami bar Ḥama, since according to his understanding, the heirs should be exempt from payment because the stolen item is considered to have changed ownership when they inherited it. The Gemara answers: Rami bar Ḥama could have said to you that when that baraita is taught,

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual’s straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, he dislodged the man’s neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him. Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, Rav read the following verse about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself. Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yoḥanan, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan for seven years. Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yoḥanan’s daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material. The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable. Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God’s will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yoḥanan stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty. Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yoḥanan removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥanan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush. Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥanan saw that Rav Kahana’s lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥanan. The next day, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan went up to Rav Kahana’s burial cave and saw that it was encircled by a serpent [akhna], which had placed its tail in its mouth, completely encircling the cave and blocking the entrance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to it: Serpent, serpent, open your mouth and allow the teacher to enter and be near the disciple, but the serpent did not open its mouth to allow him entry. He then said: Allow a colleague to enter and be near his colleague, but still the serpent did not open its mouth. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Allow the disciple to enter and be near the teacher, referring to Rav Kahana as his own teacher. The snake then opened its mouth for him to allow him entry. Rabbi Yoḥanan requested divine mercy from God and raised Rav Kahana from the dead. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Kahana: Had I known that this was the Master’s manner of appearance, I would not have been offended. Now let the Master come with me to the study hall. Rav Kahana said to him: If you are able to request divine mercy so that I will not die again, I will go with you, and if not, I will not go with you. The Gemara comments: Since the time decreed for his death had passed, it had passed. Rabbi Yoḥanan then completely awakened him and stood him up. Thereafter, he asked him about every uncertainty that he had, and Rav Kahana resolved each of them for him. And this is the background to that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says to his students on several occasions: What I said was yours is in fact theirs, i.e., I thought that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael were the most advanced, but in fact the scholars of Babylonia are the most advanced, as evidenced by Rav Kahana’s knowledge.

Elisha ben Abuyah said: He who learns when a child, to what is he compared? To ink written upon a new writing sheet. And he who learns when an old man, to what is he compared? To ink written on a rubbed writing sheet. Rabbi Yose ben Judah a man of Kfar Ha-babli said: He who learns from the young, to what is he compared? To one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks wine from his vat; And he who learns from the old, to what is he compared? To one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi said: don’t look at the container but at that which is in it: there is a new container full of old wine, and an old [container] in which there is not even new [wine].

we will recite them both: God of thanksgivings, and: Abundant thanksgivings. § The Gemara cites statements in praise of rainfall. Rabbi Abbahu said: The day of rain is greater than the resurrection of the dead. The reason is that while the resurrection of the dead benefits only the righteous, rain benefits both the righteous and the wicked. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef said: Since rainfall is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, the Sages established its recitation in the second blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the resurrection of the dead. According to Rav Yosef, rainfall is the equivalent to, but not superior to, the resurrection of the dead. Similarly, Rav Yehuda said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine [likḥi] shall drop as the rain” (Deuteronomy 32:2), and lekaḥ means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I give you good doctrine [lekaḥ]; do not forsake My Torah” (Proverbs 4:2). Rava said: Rainfall is even greater than the day on which the Torah was given, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain,” and when one makes a comparison, which object is made dependent upon which? You must say that the lesser object is dependent upon the greater one. If Torah is compared to rain, it follows that rain is greater than Torah. The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse from Deuteronomy. Rava raised a contradiction: At the beginning of the verse it is written: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof] as the rain,” in a harsh manner, and yet later in the verse, it is written: “My speech shall distill as the dew,” in a gentle tone. He resolves this apparent contradiction as follows: If he is a worthy Torah scholar, the Torah flows through him like the dew, but if he is not worthy, it snaps his neck [orfehu] like the powerful rain. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Bena’a would say: Anyone who engages in Torah for its own sake, his Torah study will be an elixir of life for him, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18), and it says: “It shall be health to your navel” (Proverbs 3:8), and it says: “For whoever finds Me finds life” (Proverbs 8:35). And anyone who engages in Torah not for its own sake, e.g., for self-aggrandizement, his Torah will be an elixir of death for him, as it is stated: “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof ] as the rain,” and arifa means nothing other than killing, as it is stated: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck [arefu] there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Rabbi Yirmeya once said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and teach a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My heart is weak and I cannot strain myself over a halakhic discourse. Rabbi Yirmeya replied to him: In that case, let the Master tell us a matter of aggada, which does not require as much effort. Rabbi Zeira said to him that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man is a tree of the field” (Deuteronomy 20:19)? And is man actually a tree of the field? Rather, it is because it is written earlier in the same verse: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” and it is written in the next verse: “Them you may destroy and cut down” (Deuteronomy 20:20). This indicates that there are certain trees which may be cut down, while others may not be destroyed. How so? If a Torah scholar is worthy: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” but if he is not worthy: “He you may destroy and cut down.” The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Why are matters of Torah compared to fire, as it is stated: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29)? To tell you: Just as fire does not ignite in a lone stick of wood but in a pile of kindling, so too, matters of Torah are not retained and understood properly by a lone scholar who studies by himself, but by a group of Sages. And this is what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the boasters [habaddim], and they shall become fools [noalu]” (Jeremiah 50:36)? This verse can be interpreted homiletically: There is a sword upon the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars themselves, who sit alone [bad bevad] and study Torah. And not only that, but those who study by themselves grow foolish from their solitary Torah study, as it is stated: “And they shall become fools.” And not only that, but they sin, as it is written here: “And they shall become fools,” and it is written there: “For that we have done foolishly [noalnu] and for that we have sinned” (Numbers 12:11). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “The princes of Zoan have become fools [noalu]…they have caused Egypt to go astray” (Isaiah 19:13). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Why are Torah matters likened to a tree, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it” (Proverbs 3:18)? This verse comes to tell you that just as a small piece of wood can ignite a large piece, so too, minor Torah scholars can sharpen great Torah scholars and enable them to advance in their studies. And this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said: I have learned much from my teachers and even more from my friends, but from my students I have learned more than from all of them. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “To him who is thirsty bring water” (Isaiah 21:14), which indicates that the one who has water must bring it to the thirsty person, and it is written elsewhere: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), from which it may be inferred that the thirsty person must seek out water himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that if he is a worthy student the teacher must seek him out, as in “to him who is thirsty bring water,” but if the student is not worthy, then “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” i.e., this student must seek out a teacher himself. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama raised another contradiction. In one verse it is written: “Let your springs be dispersed abroad” (Proverbs 5:16), whereas in the next verse it is written: “Let them be your own” (Proverbs 5:17). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama explains: If the student sitting before you is worthy, then “Let your springs be dispersed abroad,” as you should teach him, but if he is not worthy, then “Let them be your own.” And Rabbi Ḥanina bar Idi said: Why are matters of Torah likened to water, as it is written: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1)? This verse comes to tell you: Just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too, Torah matters are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly, i.e., a humble person. And Rabbi Oshaya said: Why are matters of Torah likened to these three liquids: To water, wine and milk? As it is written with regard to water: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water,” and it is written in the same verse: “Come, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” This verse comes to tell you: Just as these three liquids can be retained only in the least of vessels, e.g., clay pots, but not vessels of silver and gold, as they will spoil, so too, matters of Torah are retained only by one whose spirit is lowly. The Gemara cites a related incident: This is as the daughter of the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who was an ugly man: Woe to glorious wisdom such as yours, which is contained in an ugly vessel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her, in a seemingly unrelated response: Does your father keep his wine in simple clay vessels? The emperor’s daughter said to him: Rather, in what, then, should he keep it? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her: You, who are so important, should put it in vessels of gold and silver. The emperor’s daughter went and said this to her father. He put the wine in vessels of gold and silver and it turned sour. When his advisors came and told the emperor that the wine had turned sour, he said to his daughter: Who told you to do this? His daughter responded: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya. The emperor summoned him and said to him: Why did you say this to her? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to him: Just as she said to me, so I said say to her, to demonstrate to her that fine material is best preserved in the least of vessels. The emperor said to him: But there are handsome people who are learned. Rabbi Yehoshua replied: Had they been ugly, they would have been even more learned. Alternatively, the Torah is likened to water, wine, and milk because just as these three liquids are spoiled only by diversion of attention, so too, are Torah matters forgotten only through diversion of attention. If water, wine and milk are guarded, they will not spoil or have dirty objects fall into them. § The Gemara returns to the issue of rain. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the heavens and earth were created, as it is stated: “Drop down, heavens, from above, let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open that they may bring forth salvation, and let it cause righteousness to spring up together; I, the Lord, have created it” (Isaiah 45:8). The Gemara explains that the verse does not say: I have created them, in the plural, but: I have created it. In other words, the verse is referring to rain, rather than to the heavens and the earth, which indicates that rainfall is as important as the creation of the world. Rabbi Oshaya likewise said: The day of rain is great, as rain even facilitates salvation, which is fruitful and multiplies on that day. It is a time of God’s favor, when salvation is brought forth into the world, as it is stated: “Let the earth open that they may bring forth salvation” (Isaiah 45:8). Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said: Rain falls only if the Jewish people’s transgressions have been forgiven, as it is stated: “Lord, You have been favorable to Your land; You have turned the captivity of Jacob; You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people; You have pardoned all their sin. Selah” (Psalms 85:2–3). This chapter proceeds to discuss rainfall: “And righteousness has looked down from Heaven” (Psalms 85:12), in the form of rain. The Sage Ze’iri from the town of Dihavat said to Ravina: You learned this idea from here, whereas we learned it from here, a different verse: “When heaven is closed up, and there is no rain, when they sin against You, if they pray toward this place and confess Your name and turn from their sin, when You afflict them, then You, hear in heaven and forgive the sin of Your servants and of Your people Israel, when You teach them the good way in which they should walk, and send rain upon Your land, which You have given to Your people as an inheritance” (I Kings 8:35–36). Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya of village of Akko, said: The rains are withheld only if the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people, have been sentenced to destruction for their sins, as it is stated: “Drought and heat will steal the snow waters; to the grave those who have sinned” (Job 24:19). According to this interpretation, snow water will be stolen by drought, i.e., there will be none available, when people have sinned to the point that they deserve the grave. Ze’iri from Dihavat said to Ravina: You learned this idea from here; we learned it from here: “And the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will close up the heavens, and there will be no rain, and the earth will not give its fruit, and you will perish quickly” (Deuteronomy 11:17). Rav Ḥisda said: The rains are withheld only due to the sin of the nullification of teruma and tithes, as it is stated: “Drought and heat will steal the snow waters” (Job 24:19). The Gemara asks: From where in the verse may this idea be inferred from the verse? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Due to matters that I have commanded you to do in the summer, e.g., take teruma and tithes from the summer produce, and that you did not do, the snow waters will be stolen from you in the rainy season. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: The rains are withheld only due to the sin of those who speak slander, as it is stated: “The north wind brings forth rain, but a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance” (Proverbs 25:23). This verse indicates that if the countenance of the heavens is angry, with neither clouds nor rain, it is due to slanderous speech. Rav Salla said that Rav Hamnuna said: The rains are withheld only due to impudent people, as it is stated: “Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no last rain, yet you had a harlot’s forehead, you refused to be ashamed” (Jeremiah 3:3). And Rav Salla said that Rav Hamnuna said, with regard to the same verse: Any man who is insolent will ultimately stumble over the transgression of prostitution, as it is stated: “Yet you had a prostitute’s forehead.” Rav Naḥman said: The verse does not mean that he will commit a sexual transgression in the future; rather, it is known that he has already stumbled over this transgression, as it is stated: “You had,” in the past tense, and it is not stated: You will. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With regard to any man who is insolent, it is permitted to call him wicked to his face, as it is stated: “A wicked man makes his face insolent” (Proverbs 21:29). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is permitted to hate him, as it is stated: “And the insolence of his face is changed” (Ecclesiastes 8:1). Do not read it as: “Is changed [yeshunne]”; rather, read it as: Is hated [yissane], as the two words are spelled the same way in Hebrew, albeit with different vocalization and pronunciation. Rav Ketina said: The rains are withheld only due to the sin of dereliction in the study of Torah, as it is stated: “By slothfulness the rafters [hamekare] will sink in [yimakh], and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Due to slothfulness that was present amongst the Jewish people, that they did not occupy themselves with Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He, a euphemism for God Himself, has sunk. And sunk [makh] means nothing other than poor, as it is stated: “But if he is too poor [makh] for your valuation” (Leviticus 27:8). And “rafters [mekare]” means nothing other than a reference to the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Who lays the beams [hamekare] of Your upper chambers in the water” (Psalms 104:3). Rav Yosef said that this idea is derived from here: “And now that men do not see the light, it is bright in the skies, but the wind passes and cleanses them” (Job 37:21). And “light” means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For a mitzva is a lamp and Torah is a light” (Proverbs 6:23). According to this interpretation, the verse means that when “men do not see the light,” i.e., when they are not occupied with Torah, “it is bright in the skies,” as there are no rainclouds. With regard to this verse, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Even when the sky is comprised of bright clouds that serve to bring down dew and rain, no rain will fall, as “the wind passes and cleanses them.” Rabbi Ami said: The rains are withheld only due to the sin of robbery, as it is stated: “He covers His hands with the light, and He has commanded it due to imploring” (Job 36:32). This means that due to the sin of stealing hands, God has covered the light and no rain will fall. And Rabbi Ami adds that the term “hand” means nothing other than a sin of violence, as it is stated: “And from the violence that is in their hands” (Jonah 3:8). And “light” means nothing other than rain, as it is stated: “He spreads abroad the cloud of His light” (Job 37:11). What is the remedy of one who has caused the rain to be withheld? He should increase his prayers, as it is stated in the same chapter: “And He has commanded it due to imploring” (Job 37:12), and “imploring” means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “Therefore, do not pray you for this nation, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither implore Me” (Jeremiah 7:16). And Rabbi Ami said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If the iron is blunt, and does not whet the edge” (Ecclesiastes 10:10)? If you see a sky that is blunt as iron, in that it does not bring down dew and rain, this is due to the deeds of the generation, which are corrupt, as it is stated: “And does not whet [kilkal] the edge [panim].” Panim, which also means face, is often used in reference to the leaders of a generation, while the term kilkal is similar to the word for corrupt, mekulkalin. What is their remedy? They must increase their prayers for mercy, as it is stated in the same verse: “Then must he increase his strength, but wisdom is profitable to direct” (Ecclesiastes 10:10). This verse hints that rain will fall if one increases his strength, i.e., his prayers for mercy. The last part of the verse means that, all the more so, if their deeds had been righteous and direct from the beginning, the rains would not have been withheld. The Gemara cites a different interpretation of the same verse. Reish Lakish said: If you see a student