בירור מידת הכעס

The Gemara asks: When is the Holy One, Blessed be He, angry? Abaye said: God’s anger is revealed through animals. During the first three hours of the day, when the sun whitens the crest of the rooster and it stands on one leg. When it appears that its life has left him and he suddenly turns white, that is when God is angry. The Gemara asks: The rooster also stands that way every hour. What kind of sign is this? The Gemara answers: The difference is that every other hour when the rooster stands in that way, there are red streaks in his crest. But when God is angry, there are no red streaks in his crest. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic who was in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s neighborhood would upset him by incessantly challenging the legitimacy of verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi took a rooster and placed it between the legs of the bed upon which he sat and looked at it. He thought: When the moment of God’s anger arrives, I will curse him and be rid of him. When the moment of God’s anger arrived, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi slept. When he woke up, he said to himself: Conclude from the fact that I nodded off that it is not proper conduct to do so, to curse people, even if they are wicked. “His mercy is over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9) is written even with regard to sinners. Moreover, it is inappropriate to cause the punishment of another, as it is written: “Punishment, even for the righteous, is not good” (Proverbs 17:26), even for a righteous person, it is improper to punish another.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2) “When anyone explicitly vows […]”: This text is related (to Prov. 11:30), “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).” If a person is righteous, and does not occupy himself with Torah, even though he is righteous, he has nothing in his possession. Rather, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; this refers to the Torah. Because when one is a Torah scholar (literally, child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (npshwt), as stated (ibid.), “but a wise person acquires lives.” As if he makes a vow for the value of human beings, he would have learned what to do from the Torah. But if he does not have Torah in his possession, he has nothing in his possession. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter.¹⁶Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the Children of Ammon and made a vow at that time, as stated (in Jud. 11:30-31), “Then Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, [and said, ‘If You indeed give the Children of Ammon into my hand;] Then it shall be that whatever comes forth…, shall belong to the Lord, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me.” Hence He summoned his daughter to him. And why so much? So that all those that vow will learn the laws of vows and abnegations. [And the result was (in Jud. 11:34-35),] “and there was his daughter coming out to greet him [….] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes […].” But was not Phinehas there?¹⁷Since he was an outstanding Torah scholar, and an outstanding Torah scholar could have annulled the vow. And still he said (in vs. 35), “and I cannot retract?” However, Phinehas had said, “I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)?” [And] Jephthah said, “I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?”¹⁸Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished from the world; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the holy spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7), “and he was buried in the cities of Gilead.”¹⁹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. When he sought to sacrifice her, she cried in front of him. His daughter said to him, “My father, I came out to greet you in joy, and [now] you slaughter me? Is it perhaps that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that Israel offer the lives (npshwt) of people in front of the Holy One, blessed be He? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2), ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord from the beasts.’ ‘From the beasts’ and not from people?” He said to her, “My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31), ‘Then it shall be that whatever comes forth […].’ Is it possible that anyone who makes a vow does not have to fulfill his vow?” She said to him, “Behold, when our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22), ‘and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You’; when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him twelve sons, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah [do likewise], when she makes a vow and says (as reported in I Sam. 1:11), ‘And she made a vow and said, “Lord of hosts, if You will surely see… [then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life].”’ Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He?” All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. When she saw that he did not heed her, she said to him, “Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words.” Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37), “leave me alone for two months, so that I may go and come down to the mountains.” R. Zechariah said, “Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of ‘and come down to the mountains?’ These represent the Sanhedrin,²⁰Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2), ‘Hear, O mountains, the lawsuit of the Lord.’” She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow, because of the sin of those that he slaughtered from the tribe of Ephraim. So it is with reference to him that Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3), “A poor man who exploits the indigent is a torrential rain which leaves no bread.” “A poor man who exploits the indigent.” This is referring to Jephthah; since he was poor in Torah like a [mere] sycamore shoot.²¹The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) “Who exploits the indigent,” since he exploited the indigent, when he said [to the men of Ephraim] (in Jud. 12:6), “Say, ‘Shibboleth’; and he said, ‘Sibboleth,’ not being able to pronounce it correctly.” Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) “a torrential rain, and there is no bread,” in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.), “there is no bread,” in that the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the holy spirit proclaimed, “Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (npshwt) to Me, [lives] (according to Jer. 19:5), ‘which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered My mind.’” “Which I never commanded” Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” [This was] in order to make known Abraham’s love [of God] to the nations of the world, that he did not spare his only one from Me and carried out the will of his Maker. (Jer 19:5 cont.:) “Never spoke” to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to Me. Rabbi Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish [differed on the matter]. Rabbi Johanan says, “He was liable for money [in order to fulfill his vow], like the matter is written in Arakhin.” And R. Simoen ben Laquish said, “[He was liable for] nothing, as he made a stipulation about something that is impossible to sacrifice, and [so] there was no [liability] upon him.” “And which never entered my mind,” this is referring to Misha the king of Moab, about whom it is written that when he fell into the hand of the king of Israel (in II Kings 3:27), “And he took his firstborn son, who would become king in his stead, and offered him up as a burnt offering upon the wall.” What caused Misha to sacrifice his son?²²See the parallel text in Buber Tanchuma 10:7, which has the final question being about Jephthah, which fits much better with the continuation of the section. Because he was not a Torah scholar; for if he had read the Torah, he would not have lost his son, since it is written (in Lev 27:2-4) “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings (npshwt)] And the value of a male shall be […]. And if it is a female….” Ergo (in Prov. 11:30), “but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).”

Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah. The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: Its beginning consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3), and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: By inference: Under the sun is where man has no profit from his labor; however, before the sun, i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, he does have profit. Its ending consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this person. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This person is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say that Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this man, so that he will not be alone. And to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Its statements that contradict each other? It is written: “Vexation is better than laughter” (Ecclesiastes 7:3), and it is written: “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” (Ecclesiastes 2:2), which is understood to mean that laughter is commendable. Likewise in one verse it is written: “So I commended mirth” (Ecclesiastes 8:15), and in another verse it is written: “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the contradiction can be resolved. Vexation is better than laughter means: The vexation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, toward the righteous in this world is preferable to the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world by showering them with goodness. I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy, that is the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the World-to-Come. Similarly, “So I commended mirth,” that is the joy of a mitzva. “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” that is joy that is not the joy of a mitzva. The praise of joy mentioned here is to teach you that the Divine Presence rests upon an individual neither from an atmosphere of sadness, nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of idle conversation, nor from an atmosphere of idle chatter, but rather from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. As it was stated with regard to Elisha that after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15). Rav Yehuda said: And, so too, one should be joyful before stating a matter of halakha. Rava said: And, so too, one should be joyful before going to sleep in order to have a good dream.

It was taught: She had a false tooth [shen totevet], which disfigured her, and Rabbi Yishmael made her a gold tooth from his own money, thereby beautifying her. When Rabbi Yishmael died, a certain eulogizer began his eulogy about him like this: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael, who clothed you. § The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have given Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon your cooked food to taste, so they can see for themselves what a bad cook you are. She brought the food to them, and Rabbi Yehuda tasted it, without concern for his honor. He said: This is an a fortiori inference: And what can be seen, that in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My name, that is written in sanctity, shall be blotted out in the waters that curse, as the words written on a scroll, including the name of God, were blotted out during the ceremony of preparing the water that a sota would drink. And this is so even in a case of where it is uncertain if this will bring peace between them, as she may or not be guilty of adultery. I, all the more so, should waive my honor in order to bring peace to this couple. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon did not taste. He said: Let all the children of the widow die, and Shimon will not budge from his place. In other words, the husband can die and leave his wife a widow and his children orphans, and let them die too, rather than have people belittle the dignity of Torah scholars by taking such vows. And furthermore, there is another reason for my refusal: So that they should not become used to taking vows. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have spat on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. She came to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and spat on his clothing. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But this man intended the humiliation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is not achieved by spitting on his clothing. Ravina said to him: Spittle on the clothing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is a great humiliation for him, and she has thereby fulfilled the vow. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [yafeh] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman. He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her legs are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name. The Gemara cites another incident: There was a certain Babylonian who went up to Eretz Yisrael and married a woman there. He said to her: Cook two lentils, i.e., some lentils, for me. She cooked exactly two lentils for him. He grew angry with her. On the following day, so that she would not repeat what she had done, he said to her: Cook a se’a [geriva] for me, intending: A large amount. She cooked an actual se’a for him, far more than what one person could eat. He said to her: Go and bring me two butzinei, intending small gourds, as butzinei are small gourds in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She went and brought him two lamps [sheraggei], called butzinei in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael. In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava, intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta. MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows.

Of his own will, he goes to die; and he does not fulfill the will of his household, and he goes empty-handed to his household; and if only his entrance would be like his exit. And when he saw a line of people [ambuha] following after him out of respect for him, he said: “Though his excellency ascends to the heavens, and his head reaches to the clouds, yet he shall perish forever like his own dung; they who have seen him will say: Where is he?” (Job 20:6–7). This teaches that when one achieves power, it can lead to his downfall. When they would carry Rav Zutra on their shoulders during the Shabbat of the Festival when he taught, he would recite the following to avoid becoming arrogant: “For power is not forever, and does the crown endure for all generations?” (Proverbs 27:24). § It was further taught: “It is not good to respect the person of the wicked” (Proverbs 18:5), meaning, it is not good for wicked people when they are respected in this world and are not punished their sins. For example, it was not good for Ahab to be respected in this world, as it is stated: “Because he humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days” (I Kings 21:29), and Ahab thereby lost his share in the World-to-Come. The opposite is also true. The complete verse states: “It is not good to respect the person of the wicked, to turn aside the righteous in judgment” (Proverbs 18:5), meaning: It is good for the righteous when they are not respected in this world and are punished in this world for their sins. For example, it was good for Moses that he was not respected in this world, as it is stated: “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me” (Numbers 20:12). The Gemara analyzes this: Had you believed in Me, your time still would not have come to depart the world. They said: Fortunate are the righteous because not only do they accumulate merit for themselves, but they accumulate merit for their children and their children’s children until the end of all generations; as there were several sons of Aaron who essentially deserved to be burned like Nadav and Avihu, as it is stated: “The sons of Aaron who were left” (Leviticus 10:16), implying that others were left as well although they deserved to be burned with their brothers. But the merit of their father protected them, and they and their descendants were priests for all time. On the other hand: Woe to the wicked, as not only do they render themselves liable, but they also render their children and children’s children liable until the end of all generations. For example, Canaan had many children who deserved to be ordained as rabbis and instructors of the public due to their great stature in Torah study, like Tavi, the servant of Rabban Gamliel, who was famous for his wisdom; but their father’s liability caused them to remain as slaves. Furthermore: Whoever accumulates merit for the public will not have sin come to his hand, and God protects him from failing; but whoever causes the public to sin has almost no ability to repent. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that whoever accumulates merit for the public will not have sin come to his hand? It is so that he will not be in Gehenna while his students are in the Garden of Eden, as it is stated: “For You will not abandon my soul to the nether-world; neither will You suffer Your godly one to see the pit” (Psalms 16:10). On the other hand, whoever causes the public to sin has almost no ability to repent, so that he will not be in the Garden of Eden while his students are in Gehenna, as it is stated: “A man who is laden with the blood of any person shall hasten his steps to the pit; none will support him” (Proverbs 28:17). Since he oppressed others and caused them to sin, he shall have no escape. § The Gemara returns to interpreting the mishna. It states there that one who says: I will sin and I will repent, I will sin and I will repent, is not given the opportunity to repent.The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to say twice: I will sin and I will repent, I will sin and repent? The Gemara explains that this is in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it becomes permitted to him? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it were permitted. Consequently, the sinner who repeats his sin has difficulty abandoning his sin, and the repetition of his sin is reflected in the repetition of the phrase. It is stated in the mishna that if one says: I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for my sins, Yom Kippur does not atone for his sins. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Yom Kippur atones for all transgressions of the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent. The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is different when it is on the basis of being permitted to sin. Even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that Yom Kippur does not atone for the transgressions one commits only because he knows that Yom Kippur will atone for them. § It was taught in the mishna: Yom Kippur atones for sins committed against God but does not atone for sins committed against another person. Rav Yosef bar Ḥavu raised a contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu: The mishna states that Yom Kippur does not atone for sins committed against a fellow person, but isn’t it written: “If one man sin against another, God [Elohim] shall judge him [ufilelo]” (I Samuel 2:25). The word ufilelo, which may also refer to prayer, implies that if he prays, God will grant the sinner forgiveness. He answered him: Who is Elohim mentioned in the verse? It is referring to a judge [elohim] and not to God, and the word ufilelo in the verse indicates judgment. Atonement occurs only after justice has been done toward the injured party by means of a court ruling. Rav Yosef bar Ḥavu said to him: If so, say the following with regard to the latter clause of the verse: “But if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat [yitpallel] for him?” (I Samuel 2:25). This is difficult, since it has been established that the root pll is interpreted in this verse as indicating judgment, and therefore the latter clause of the verse implies that if one sins toward God there is no one to judge him. Rabbi Abbahu answered him: This is what the verse is saying: If one man sins against another, God [Elohim] shall forgive him [ufilelo]; if the sinner appeases the person against whom he has sinned, he will be forgiven. But if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat [yitpallel] for him? Repentance and good deeds. The root pll is to be interpreted as indicating forgiveness rather than judgment. § Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who angers his friend, even only verbally, must appease him,as it is stated: “My son, if you have become a guarantor for your neighbor, if you have struck your hands for a stranger, you are snared by the words of your mouth…Do this now, my son, and deliver yourself, seeing you have come into the hand of your neighbor. Go, humble yourself [hitrapes] and urge [rehav] your neighbor” (Proverbs 6:1–3). This should be understood as follows: If you have money that you owe him, open the palm of [hater pisat] your hand to your neighbor and pay the money that you owe; and if not, if you have sinned against him verbally, increase [harbe] friends for him, i.e., send many people as your messengers to ask him for forgiveness. Rav Ḥisda said: And one must appease the one he has insulted with three rows of three people, as it is stated: “He comes [yashor] before men, and says: I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not” (Job 33:27). Rav Ḥisda interprets the word yashor as related to the word shura, row. The verse mentions sin three times: I have sinned, and perverted, and it profited me not. This implies that one should make three rows before the person from whom he is asking forgiveness. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Anyone who asks forgiveness of his friend should not ask more than three times, as it is stated: “Please, please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did evil to you. And now, please forgive” (Genesis 50:17). The verse uses the word please three times, which shows that one need not ask more than three times, after which the insulted friend must be appeased and forgive. And if the insulted friend dies before he can be appeased, one brings ten people, and stands them at the grave of the insulted friend, and says in front of them: I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and against so-and-so whom I wounded. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya insulted Rabbi Abba, causing the latter to have a complaint against him. Rabbi Yirmeya went and sat at the threshold of Rabbi Abba’s house to beg him for forgiveness. When Rabbi Abba’s maid poured out the dirty water from the house, the stream of water landed on Rabbi Yirmeya’s head. He said about himself: They have made me into a trash heap, as they are pouring dirty water on me. He recited this verse about himself: “Who lifts up the needy out of the trash heap” (Psalms 113:7). Rabbi Abba heard what happened and went out to greet him. Rabbi Abba said to him: Now I must go out to appease you for this insult, as it is written: “Go, humble yourself [hitrapes] and urge your neighbor” (Proverbs 6:3). It is related that when Rabbi Zeira had a complaint against a person who insulted him, he would pace back and forth before him and present himself, so that the person could come and appease him. Rabbi Zeira made himself available so that it would be easy for the other person to apologize to him. It is further related that Rav had a complaint against a certain butcher who insulted him.The butcher did not come before him to apologize. On Yom Kippur eve, Rav said: I will go and appease him. He met his student Rav Huna, who said to him: Where is my Master going? He said to him: I am going to appease so-and-so. Rav Huna called Rav by his name and said: Abba is going to kill a person, for surely that person’s end will not be good. Rav went and stood by him. He found the butcher sitting and splitting the head of an animal. The butcher raised his eyes and saw him. He said to him: Are you Abba? Go, I have nothing to say to you. While he was splitting the head, one of the bones of the head flew out and struck him in the throat and killed him, thereby fulfilling Rav Huna’s prediction. The Gemara further relates: Rav was reciting the Torah portion before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

There is room for concern. Perhaps they will remove you from office just as they removed Rabban Gamliel. He said to her, based on the folk saying: Let a person use an expensive goblet one day and let it break tomorrow. In other words, one should take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself and he need not concern himself whether or not it will last. She said to him: You have no white hair, and it is inappropriate for one so young to head the Sages. The Gemara relates: That day, he was eighteen years old, a miracle transpired for him and eighteen rows of hair turned white. The Gemara comments: That explains that which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am as one who is seventy years old and he did not say: I am seventy years old, because he looked older than he actually was. It was taught: On that day that they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as they dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter. Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. As Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside, his thoughts and feelings, are not like his outside, i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, will not enter the study hall. The Gemara relates: On that day several benches were added to the study hall to accommodate the numerous students. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed this matter. One said: Four hundred benches were added to the study hall. And one said: Seven hundred benches were added to the study hall. When he saw the tremendous growth in the number of students, Rabban Gamliel was disheartened. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I prevented Israel from engaging in Torah study. They showed him in his dream white jugs filled with ashes alluding to the fact that the additional students were worthless idlers. The Gemara comments: That is not the case, but that dream was shown to him to ease his mind so that he would not feel bad. It was taught: There is a tradition that tractate Eduyyot was taught that day. And everywhere in the Mishna or in a baraita that they say: On that day, it is referring to that day. There was no halakha whose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explain and arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion. And even Rabban Gamliel did not avoid the study hall for even one moment, as he held no grudge against those who removed him from office and he participated in the halakhic discourse in the study hall as one of the Sages. As we learned in a mishna: On that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came before the students in the study hall and he said to them: What is my legal status in terms of entering into the congregation of Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman? Rabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Wasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Do Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and, through his policy of population transfer, scrambled all the nations and settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, as it is stated in reference to Sennacherib: “I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And although it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: Anything that parts from a group parts from the majority, and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:6) and they have already returned to their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: That is no proof. Wasn’t it already stated in another prophecy: “And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), and they have not yet returned? In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. They immediately permitted him to enter the congregation. This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse. Rabban Gamliel said to himself: Since this is the situation, that the people are following Rabbi Yehoshua, apparently he was right. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to go and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. When he reached Rabbi Yehoshua’s house, he saw that the walls of his house were black. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua in wonderment: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a blacksmith, as until then he had no idea that Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to engage in that arduous trade in order to make a living. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Woe unto a generation that you are its leader as you are unaware of the difficulties of Torah scholars, how they make a living and how they feed themselves. Rabban Gamliel said to him: I insulted you, forgive me. Rabbi Yehoshua paid him no attention and did not forgive him. He asked him again: Do it in deference to my father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was one of the leaders of Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He was appeased. Now that Rabbi Yehoshua was no longer offended, it was only natural that Rabban Gamliel would be restored to his position. They said: Who will go and inform the Sages? Apparently, they were not eager to carry out the mission that would undo the previous actions and remove Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from his position as Nasi. This launderer said to them: I will go. Rabbi Yehoshua sent to the Sages to the study hall: The one who wears the uniform will continue to wear the uniform, the original Nasi will remain in his position so that the one who did not wear the uniform will not say to the one who wears the uniform, remove your uniform and I will wear it. Apparently, the Sages believed that this emissary was dispatched at the initiative of Rabban Gamliel and they ignored him. Rabbi Akiva said to the Sages: Lock the gates so that Rabban Gamliel’s servants will not come and disturb the Sages. When he heard what happened, Rabbi Yehoshua said: It is best if I go to them. He came and knocked on the door. He said to them with a slight variation: One who sprinkles pure water on those who are ritually impure, son of one who sprinkles water shall continue to sprinkle water. And it is inappropriate that he who is neither one who sprinkles nor son of one who sprinkles will say to one who sprinkles son of one who sprinkles: Your water is cave water and not the running water required to purify one exposed to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and your ashes are burnt ashes and not the ashes of a red heifer. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Yehoshua, have you been appeased? Everything we did was to defend your honor. If you have forgiven him, none of us is opposed. Early tomorrow you and I will go to Rabban Gamliel’s doorway and offer to restore him to his position as Nasi. The question arose what to do with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? They said: What shall we do? Remove him from his position. That is inappropriate as we learned a halakha through tradition: One elevates to a higher level of sanctity and does not downgrade. Therefore, one who was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin cannot be demoted. Let one Sage lecture one week and the other Sage one week, they will come to be jealous one of another, as they will be forced to appoint one as the acting head of the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rabban Gamliel will lecture three weeks and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya will lecture as head of the yeshiva one week. That arrangement was adopted and that is the explanation of the exchange in tractate Ḥagiga: Whose week was it? It was the week of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. One final detail: That student who asked the original question that sparked this entire incident was Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. We learned in the mishna: And the additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Nevertheless, one who postpones his prayer excessively is called negligent. The Rabbis taught in a baraita: If the obligation to recite two prayers was before him, one, the additional prayer and one, the afternoon prayer, he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, because this, the afternoon prayer, is recited on a frequent basis, and this one, the additional prayer, is recited on a relatively infrequent basis. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter, because this, the additional prayer, is a mitzva whose time soon elapses, as it may only be recited until the seventh hour and this, the afternoon prayer, is a mitzva whose time does not soon elapse as one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is that he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara cites additional sources relating to this issue: When Rabbi Zeira would tire of his studies, he would go and sit in the doorway of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi’s study hall. He said to himself: When the entering and exiting Sages pass, I will rise before them and be rewarded for the mitzva of honoring Torah scholars. Rabbi Natan bar Tovi himself emerged and came to where Rabbi Zeira was seated. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Who just stated a halakha in the study hall? Rabbi Natan bar Tovi said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan just said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say this halakha? Rabbi Natan said to him: Yes. He learned this statement from him forty times, etching it into his memory. Rabbi Natan said to him: Is this halakha so dear to you because it is singular for you, as it is the only halakha that you learned in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, or is it new to you, as you were previously unaware of this ruling? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It is somewhat new to me, as I was uncertain whether this halakha was said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan or in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Now it is clear to me that this halakha is in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: With regard to anyone who recites the additional prayer after seven hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are destroyed [nugei] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of destruction? As Rav Yosef translated the verse into Aramaic: Destruction comes upon the enemies of the house of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, for they have delayed the times of the Festivals in Jerusalem. This proves both that nugei means destruction and that destruction comes upon those who fail to fulfill a mitzva at its appointed time. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: Regarding anyone who recites the morning prayer after four hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are in sorrow [nugei] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of sorrow? As it is written: “My soul drips in sorrow [tuga]” (Psalms 119:28). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The proof that nugei indicates suffering is from here: “Her virgins are sorrowed [nugot] and she is embittered” (Lamentations 1:4).

GEMARA: The Sages taught: After Rabbi Meir’s death, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here, into the house of study, because they are vexatious and they do not come to study Torah, but they come to overwhelm me with their halakhot. Nevertheless, Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, forced his way and entered the house of study. When they reached the topic of the mishna, Sumakhos said to them: Rabbi Meir taught me like this: A nazirite shaves for becoming impure from these following sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk from a corpse. Rabbi Yehuda grew angry and said to his disciples: Didn’t I say to you like this: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here because they are vexatious? He explained his annoyance. The clause: For a corpse, is unnecessary, as, if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk from a corpse, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? Rabbi Yosei said: Now they will say: Meir is dead, Yehuda is angry, and Yosei remained silent and did not respond. If so, what will become of the Torah? Rabbi Yosei therefore said: It is not necessary to teach that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse, but only that he must shave even for impurity imparted by a corpse upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh. The Gemara asks: But one could still say: If he must shave for impurity imparted by a limb from a corpse, even if it is less than an olive-bulk, as stated in the mishna, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by all of a corpse, even if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh?