וישחטו שעיר עזים | צפנת פענח: פרשת וישב [🔊]

(31) Then they took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the tunic in the blood. (32) They had the ornamented tunic taken to their father, and they said, “We found this. Please examine it; is it your son’s tunic or not?” (33) He recognized it, and said, “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him! Joseph was torn by a beast!”

(1) שעיר עזים A KID OF THE GOATS — its blood resembles that of a human being (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

(31) But they took the garment of Joseph, and killed a kid of the goats, because his blood is like the blood of a man, and they dabbled the garment in the blood.

(2) חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

§ With regard to the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: An old man from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem related to me: In this valley that lies before you, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, killed 2,110,000 people. And in Jerusalem itself he killed 940,000 people on one stone, until the blood of his victims flowed and touched the blood of Zechariah to fulfill what is stated: “And blood touches blood” (Hosea 4:2). The Gemara clarifies the details of what happened: Nebuzaradan found the blood of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, and saw that it was bubbling up from the ground, and he said: What is this? Those in the Temple said to him: It is sacrificial blood that had been poured there. He brought animal blood, compared it to the blood bubbling up from the ground, and saw that it was not similar to it. Nebuzaradan said to them: If you tell me whose blood this is, it will be well for you. But if not, I will comb your flesh with iron combs. They said to him: What shall we say to you? He was a prophet among us, who used to rebuke us about heavenly matters, and we rose up against him, and killed him (II Chronicles 24:20–22), and for many years now his blood has not settled.

שעיר עזים, “a male goat; ”according to Rashi they chose this animal as its blood most closely resembles the colour of human blood. When we read in the Talmud Gittin, folio 57, where the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan is reported of having tried to compare the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Jews he had slain in Jerusalem to that of the prophet of the prophet Zecharyah which had not stopped bubbling after having been stoned inside the Temple (he was also a priest) for having rebuked King Joash (about 150 years before the Temple was destroyed) and having failed to prove that that blood was human blood, we must assume that this was due to Zecharyah’s blood having become contaminated during all those years.

(18) Their heart cried out to the Lord. O wall of Fair Zion, Shed tears like a torrent Day and night! Give yourself no respite, Your eyes no rest.

And if you say that perhaps some of the bull’s blood might spill, yielding equal amounts of blood, there should still be no mistake, as this blood, that of the goat, is white and bright compared to the blood of the bull, and this blood of the bull is red and darker than the other. Rather, the reason must be that due to the High Priest’s weakness, these differences will not be on his mind. Here, too, the writing will not help, as due to the High Priest’s weakness the inscriptions will not be on his mind.

with regard to whether to leave in abeyance, i.e., to treat as uncertain, blood the color of water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, or the color of the liquid that drips from roast meat. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as those mentioned by Beit Shammai, are deemed impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, Beit Hillel maintain that blood of these colors is entirely pure. § The mishna states: Blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure. The Gemara asks: But does Akavya ben Mahalalel not accept the exposition of Rabbi Abbahu that the two verses: “Dameha” (Leviticus 12:7), and: “Dameha” (Leviticus 20:18), indicate that there are four types of blood here? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Akavya ben Mahalalel does not accept this opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as he maintains that there are more than four types of blood in a woman. And if you wish, say instead that Akavya ben Mahalalel accepts Rabbi Abbahu’s exposition, and the apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say, with regard to the black blood mentioned in the mishna, that it is actually red but its color has faded? Here too, with regard to the green mentioned by Akavya ben Mahalalel, one can say that it was initially red but its color faded and turned green. § The mishna states with regard to blood that is green: And the Rabbis deem it pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this opinion of the Rabbis identical to the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to whether to leave in abeyance blood that is green. According to the first tanna of the mishna there are five types of blood that are definitely impure, whereas other types, such as green, are impure due to uncertainty. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that green blood is entirely pure. § The mishna states that Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir accepted the opinion of Akavya ben Mahalalel and deemed green blood impure as blood of a menstruating woman. And as for his statement in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where a woman finds a green stain on an article of clothing you do not deem her ritually impure, as its greenness is an indication that it did not come from her body. But in a case where she actually sees green blood come from her body, she shall be impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: If so, why did Rabbi Meir say: Even if it does not transmit impurity due to the halakhot of a blood stain, it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as a liquid? According to the above explanation, he should have said: If the woman saw the emission of this blood, she is impure as a menstruating woman. Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Granted that in a case where the woman sees green blood from the outset you do not deem her ritually impure, but in a case where she sees red blood and then sees green blood, she shall be impure. This is just as it is with regard to the halakha of the fluids of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava]. All fluids emitted by a zav or zava, such as saliva and urine, are impure. Likewise, green blood that is emitted by this woman who has already emitted red blood should be impure. The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: They maintain that the impure fluids of a menstruating woman are only those that are similar to saliva: Just as when saliva leaves one’s mouth it is first gathered together and then expelled from the body, so too, all impure fluids are those that are gathered together and then expelled. This definition serves to exclude this green blood, which is not gathered together and expelled. The Gemara asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir, i.e., their answer is convincing. Why does Rabbi Meir deem green blood impure? Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Let green blood be at least like one of the seven liquids that render seeds upon which they fall susceptible to ritual impurity. Why is green blood deemed pure even with regard to this matter? And the Rabbis disagree because they require that every type of blood that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity be like that mentioned in the verse: “And drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24), i.e., the blood that flows at the time of death; and green blood is not the type that flows at the time of death. Therefore, it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara again asks: If so, the Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Meir. Why does he disagree with them? Rather, this is what Rabbi Meir was saying to the Rabbis: Learn this halakha that green blood renders food susceptible to ritual impurity from the following verbal analogy: It is written here, in a description of the beloved woman that alludes to her menstrual blood: “Your shoots [shelaḥayikh] are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song of Songs 4:13), and it is written there: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends [veshole’aḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10). This verbal analogy indicates that menstrual blood is similar to water in that both render food susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir, as they do not have a tradition that this is an accepted verbal analogy, and there is a principle that although a person may derive an a fortiori inference on his own, i.e., even though he was not taught that particular logical argument by his teachers, a person may not derive a verbal analogy on his own, but only if he received it by tradition. § The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this the same as the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is teaching us: Who is the first tanna? Rabbi Yosei. And the reason Rabbi Yosei’s name is mentioned is due to the principle that anyone who reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. § The mishna states: What is the red color of blood that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: As the blood that flows from a wound? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox. The Gemara inquires: But if so, let the tanna of the mishna say explicitly that it is as red as the blood of slaughter. The Gemara explains: If the tanna had said that it is as red as the blood of slaughter, I would say that it means as red as the blood that flows throughout the entire slaughter, and it would apply to the shades of all blood emitted during the process. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is as red as the blood that flows from a wound, i.e., as the blood that flows at the beginning of the slitting with the slaughtering knife. The Gemara cites other definitions of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. Ulla says: It is red like the blood that flows from a living bird that was wounded. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Ulla specified that the bird is living, did he mean that it was not dead, to exclude the blood of a slaughtered bird? Or perhaps he meant that the bird was healthy, to exclude the blood of a weak bird. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved. The Gemara cites another definition: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is red like the blood that comes from a squashed head louse. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna that discusses a stain found on a woman’s garment (58b): If a woman killed a louse and subsequently found a blood stain on her garment or body, this woman may attribute the stain to that louse, and she remains pure. The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring to a louse from all parts of her body, not just the head, as claimed by Rabbi Ḥanina? If so, the color of impure blood is like the color of the blood of a louse from anywhere on the body. The Gemara answers: No; this halakha is referring specifically to a louse that was on her head. The Gemara cites yet another definition of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Sage Ami of Vardina says that Rabbi Abbahu says: It is red as the blood that flows from the smallest finger of the hand, which was wounded and later healed and was subsequently wounded again. And this is not referring to the finger of any person, but specifically to the finger of a young man who has not yet married a woman. And furthermore, this does not mean any young man; rather, until what age must he be? Until twenty years old. The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned mishna (58b): If the woman’s husband or son suffered an injury, she may attribute a blood stain she finds on her garment to her son or to her husband, and she remains pure. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her son, you can find a case where this meets all the requirements specified by Rabbi Abbahu, i.e., he could be younger than twenty and unmarried. But with regard to the ruling that she may attribute it to her husband, how can you find a case where her husband is unmarried? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is possible in a case where this woman entered the marriage canopy but has not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. In such a situation, although he is her husband he is physically akin to an unmarried young man. Therefore, she can attribute the blood stain to his wound. Rav Naḥman says: This red is like the blood spilled in the process of bloodletting. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An incident occurred involving a blood stain found on a woman’s garment, and Rabbi Meir attributed

חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

The Sages disagreed over the interpretation of the rest of the verse: “And who descended and slew the lion in the pit on the snowy day.” Some say that this means that he broke blocks of hail and descended and immersed himself in the water to purify himself. Others say that he learned all of the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus of the school of Rav, on a winter’s day.

Hush, so as not to mention the name of the Lord (see Amos 6:10). The child did not want to even hear the mention of the name of the Lord, which his father and his mother did not teach him. Immediately, the child removed his god from his bosom and began hugging it and kissing it, until his stomach burst from hunger, and his god fell to the earth and he fell upon it, in fulfillment of that which is stated: “And I shall cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). This incident demonstrates that the Jewish people engaged in idol worship for its own sake. The Gemara answers: This also occurred after the Jewish people became attached to idol worship. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, from the verse: “And they cried in a loud voice to the Lord their God” (Nehemiah 9:4). What did they say in that prayer? Rav Yehuda says, and some say it is Rav Yonatan who says: Woe, woe [baya, baya], this evil inclination for idol worship is what destroyed the Temple, and burned the Sanctuary, and murdered the righteous ones, and caused the Jewish people to be exiled from their land. And it still dances among us, i.e., it still affects us. Didn’t You give it to us solely for the purpose of our receiving reward for overcoming it? We do not want it, nor do we not want its reward. Evidently, the Jewish people were drawn to idol worship itself, and they did not worship idols only in order to engage in forbidden sexual relations. The Gemara answers: This also occurred after the Jewish people became attached to idol worship. The Gemara continues to relate the story of the prayer in the days of Nehemiah: The people fasted for three days and prayed for mercy. In response to their prayer a note fell for them from the heavens in which was written: Truth, indicating that God accepted their request. The Gemara makes a parenthetical observation. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Conclude from it that the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth. The form of a fiery lion cub came forth from the chamber of the Holy of Holies. Zechariah, the prophet, said to the Jewish people: This is the evil inclination for idol worship. When they caught hold of it one of its hairs fell out, and it let out a shriek of pain that was heard for four hundred parasangs [parsei]. They said: What should we do to kill it? Perhaps Heaven will have mercy upon it if we attempt to kill it, as it will certainly scream even more. The prophet said to them: Throw it into a container made of lead and cover it with lead, as lead absorbs sound. As it is written: “And he said: This is the evil one. And he cast it down into the midst of the measure, and he cast a stone of lead upon its opening” (Zechariah 5:8). They followed this advice and were freed of the evil inclination for idol worship. When they saw that the evil inclination for idol worship was delivered into their hands as they requested, the Sages said: Since it is an auspicious time, let us pray for mercy concerning the evil inclination for sin concerning sexual matters. They prayed for mercy, and it was also delivered into their hands. The Sages imprisoned it for three days. At that time, people searched for a one-day-old fresh egg for the sick but could not find one. Since the inclination to reproduce was quashed, the chickens stopped laying eggs. They said: What should we do? If we pray for half, i.e., that only half its power be annulled, nothing will be achieved, because Heaven does not grant half gifts, only whole gifts. What did they do? They gouged out its eyes, and this was effective in limiting it to the extent that a person is no longer aroused to commit incest with his close relatives. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: An incident occurred involving a certain gentile woman who was very ill. She said: If that woman, referring to herself, recovers from her illness, she will go and worship every object of idol worship in the world. She recovered from her illness and subsequently worshipped every object of idol worship in the world. When she arrived at Peor she asked the priests: How does one worship this idol? They said to her: One eats spinach, which causes diarrhea, and drinks beer, which also causes diarrhea, and defecates before it. The woman said: Better for that woman, referring to herself, to return to her illness, and not worship an idol in such a manner. Rav Yehuda adds: You, the house of Israel, are not like that woman who could not bear the repulsiveness of Ba’al-Peor. It is stated with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward idol worship: “That have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Ba’al-Peor” (Numbers 25:5), indicating a tight attachment, like a tightly bound cover [ketzamid patil] tied firmly onto a vessel. Yet with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward God it is stated: “But you who did cleave [hadevekim] to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 4:4), i.e., the connection between the Jewish people and God is like two dates that are lightly attached [hadevukot] to one another but are not tightly pressed together. This comparison was taught in a baraita but with the opposite conclusion: “That have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Ba’al-Peor” indicates a connection that is like a bracelet [ketzamid] on a woman’s arm, which is worn loosely. “But you who did cleave to the Lord your God” means they actually adhered to one another, i.e., there was a tight connection. The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Ba’al-Peor. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a Jew named Sabbeta ben Alas, who rented out his donkey and his services to a certain gentile woman. He was driving his donkey behind her, and when she arrived at Peor, she said to him: Wait here until I go in and come out. After she came out, he said to her: You too wait for me until I go in and come out. She said to him: Aren’t you Jewish? Why, then, are you worshipping idols? He said to her: And what do you care? He entered and defecated before the idol, and wiped himself with its nostril, as he wanted to demean the idol as much as possible. But he was unsuccessful, as the priests of Peor were praising him and saying: No person has ever worshipped it before with this excellent form of worship. Although he intended to demean Ba’al-Peor, he actually worshipped it. The halakha is that one who defecates before Ba’al-Peor is obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to demean the idol. Like-wise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring an a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it. The Gemara relates: Rav Menashe was going to a place called Bei Torta. The people there said to him: There is an object of idol worship situated here in this pile of stones. Rav Menashe picked up a stone and threw it at the idol to demean it. They said to him: It is Mercury, and it is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Rav Menashe said to them: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury as a manner of worship is liable, whereas I intended to demean it. Rav Menashe went and asked the Sages in the study hall whether his interpretation of the mishna was correct. They said to him: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable, which implies that he is liable even if he intends to stone it in order to demean it. Rav Menashe said to the Sages: If so, I will go and take back the stone I threw. They said to him: Both one who removes it and one who places it is liable, as each and every one of the stones taken away from Mercury leaves space for another stone. Taking a stone away from Mercury provides a place for other stones to be thrown at it. MISHNA: One who gives of his offspring to Molekh, for which one is executed by stoning, is not liable unless he hands over his child to the priests of Molekh and passes the child through the fire. If he handed over the child to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through the fire, or if he passed him through the fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands the child over to the priests of Molekh and passes him through the fire. GEMARA: The halakhot of one’s liability for idol worship are taught in the mishna above (60b), and the halakhot of one’s liability for the worship of Molekh are taught separately, in this mishna. Therefore, Rabbi Avin says: We learn this mishna according to the opinion of the one who says that the ritual of Molekh is not idol worship but is a form of witchcraft or superstition, as a dispute over this matter is taught in a baraita: Both one who transfers his child to the priests of Molekh and one who transfers his child for the purpose of worshipping other idols are liable. Molekh is cited merely as an example. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who transfers his child to the priests of Molekh is liable, but if he transfers him to another object of idol worship, not to Molekh, he is exempt. Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus said the same thing, i.e., they share the same halakhic opinion. The statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is that which we said. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus shares the same opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: For what reason does the Torah use the term Molekh? It is to indicate that if one passes his child through fire in the worship of any object that people enthroned [shehimlikhuhu] over them as their king, referring to it as Molekh, he is liable, even if it is merely a pebble, or even a toothpick. The baraita indicates that one who passes his child through fire in worship of an item that is not referred to as Molekh is not liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rava says: They do not share the same opinion, as there is a practical difference between their opinions in a case of a temporary Molekh. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, one is liable for passing his child through fire only if it is in worship of a permanent Molekh, whereas according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for worshipping even a temporary Molekh.

The names of the tribes were not divided on the stones of the ephod the same way that they were divided in the list found at the beginning of the book of Numbers (Numbers 1:1–15). Rather they were divided the way that they were divided in the second book, i.e., Exodus (Exodus 1:2–4). How were they written? On one stone, the names of the sons of Leah were written in the order of their birth: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. On the other stone the sons of Rachel were written. One, Benjamin, was written on this side, i.e., at the bottom of the list, and one, Joseph, was written on that side, i.e., at the top of the list. And the children of the handmaids, i.e., Bilhah and Zilpah, who were Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher, were written on the second stone in the middle. But rather, if their names were not written in the order of their births, then how do I establish the meaning of the phrase: “According to their birth” (Exodus 28:10)? It means that their names were written according to the names that their father, Jacob, called them, and not according to the names that Moses called them. On the stones it said Reuben, and not Reubenites; Simeon, and not Simeonites; Dan, and not Danites; Gad, and not Gadites. This baraita contradicts Rav Kahana’s opinion, as according to all of the opinions in the baraita, the division of the names on the ephod is not identical to the division of the tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. The Gemara confirms: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana is in fact a conclusive refutation. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is meant by the phrase: “And the half of them facing Mount Ebal” (Joshua 8:33)? It is taught in a baraita: The use of the definitive article in the verse indicates that the smaller half of the Jewish people was on Mount Ebal. The half that was facing Mount Gerizim was larger than the half on Mount Ebal, because the tribe of Levi was included in the group that was facing Mount Gerizim, and they remained on the bottom between the two mountains. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: On the contrary, because the tribe of Levi remained on the bottom they were fewer in number. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Although the tribe of Levi was on the bottom, the descendants of Joseph were among them, and the tribe of Joseph was numerous, as it is stated: “And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying: Why did you give me a single lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Lord has blessed me thus, and Joshua said to them: If you are a great people, you should go up to the forest” (Joshua 17:14–15). The Gemara explains that Joshua said to them: Go and hide yourselves in the forests, so that the evil eye will not have dominion over you, as you are such a large number of people. The tribe of Joseph said to him: The evil eye does not have dominion over the offspring of Joseph, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain” (Genesis 49:22), and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain [alei ayin]”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye [olei ayin], teaching that Joseph and his descendants are not susceptible to the evil eye. The Gemara cites an alternative source for the assertion that the evil eye holds no sway over Joseph and his descendants: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: Jacob blessed Joseph’s children and said: “And let them grow [veyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish [dagim] in the sea, waters cover them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, so too, with regard to Joseph’s descendants, the evil eye has no dominion over them. The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita that contradicts Rav Kahana’s opinion: Are these names of the tribes, which were written on the ephod, composed of a total of fifty letters? There are only forty-nine. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They added one letter to the name of Joseph [Yosef ] when it was written on the ephod, as it is stated: “He appointed it in Joseph [Yehosef ] for a testimony when He went forth against the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: We require the names to be written “according to their birth,” and Joseph was not called Yehosef from birth. Rather, the explanation is as follows: Throughout the entire Torah, the name of Benjamin is written without a second letter yod between the letters mem and nun, and here, where he is born, Benjamin is written in full, spelled with a second yod. As it is written: “But his father called him Benjamin” (Genesis 35:18). Therefore, his name was written on the ephod with a second yod, “according to his birth.” § Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in private, had one letter of the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, the letter heh, added to his name. Whereas in the case of Judah, who sanctified the name of Heaven in public [befarhesya] at the Red Sea during the exodus from Egypt, merited that his entire name is called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as the entire four-letter name of God can be found within Judah’s name. The Gemara explains: What is the situation where Joseph sanctified God’s name in private? As it is written: “And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work” (Genesis 39:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that both Joseph and Potiphar’s wife stayed in the house, as they intended to perform a matter of sin. With regard to the phrase “when he went into the house to do his work,” Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute with regard to its meaning. One says: It means that he went into the house to do his work, literally. And one says: He entered the house in order to fulfill his sexual needs with her. The verse continues: “And there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that in such a large and important house like the house of that wicked man that no one was in there? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That day was their festival day and they all went to their house of idol worship; and she told them that she was sick and could not go, as she said to herself: I have no day on which Joseph will attend to me like this day. The verse states: “And she caught him by his garment, saying: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:12). At that moment his father’s image [deyokeno] came and appeared to him in the window. The image said to him: Joseph, the names of your brothers are destined to be written on the stones of the ephod, and you are to be included among them. Do you desire your name to be erased from among them, and to be called an associate [ro’eh] of promiscuous women? As it is written: “But he who keeps company with harlots wastes his riches” (Proverbs 29:3), as he loses his honor, which is more valuable than wealth. Immediately: “And his bow abode [teishev] firm” (Genesis 49:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: This means that his bow, i.e., his penis, returned [shava] to its strength, as he overcame his desire. The verse about Joseph continues: “And the arms of his hands were made supple” (Genesis 49:24), meaning that he dug his hands into the ground and his semen was emitted between his fingernails. “By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24): Who caused his name to be etched onto the stones of the ephod? It was only the might of Jacob. “From there, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel” (Genesis 49:24) means: From there, because of Joseph’s ability to withstand this trial, he merited to become a shepherd [ro’eh] of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, who leads like the flock of Joseph” (Psalms 80:2). It is taught in a baraita: Joseph was deserving of having twelve tribes descend from him, the same as twelve tribes descended from his father Jacob, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). This implies that everything that happened to Jacob was destined to happen to Joseph. However, he did not merit this because his semen was emitted from between his fingernails. And even so, the offspring that were meant to descend from him descended from his brother Benjamin, who had ten sons. And they were all named after Joseph, as it is stated: “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). The Gemara explains how each name relates to Joseph: Bela was named after Joseph, who was swallowed [nivla] among the nations. And Becher received that name because Joseph was the firstborn [bekhor] of his mother, Rachel. And Ashbel received his name because God sent Joseph into captivity [shevao El] in Egypt. Gera was named after Joseph, who dwelled [gar] in a foreign land [akhsaneyut]. And Naaman was called that because Joseph was extremely pleasing [na’im]. Ehi and Rosh received these names, as Benjamin said: Joseph is my brother [aḥi] and my leader [roshi]. Benjamin named his sons Muppim and Huppim, as Benjamin said: Joseph did not see my wedding canopy [ḥuppa] and I did not see his wedding canopy. And Ard was named after Joseph, who descended [yarad] to the lands of the nations of the world. Some say that the name Ard means that Joseph’s face was similar in its beauty to a rose [vered]. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When Pharaoh said to Joseph: “And without you no man shall lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:44), Pharaoh’s astrologers said: You will appoint a slave whose master bought him for twenty silver coins to rule over us? He said to them: I perceive royal characteristics [ginnunei malkhut] in him and see that he was not initially a slave. They said to him: If that is so and he is a child of royalty, he should know the seventy languages that all kings’ children learn. The angel Gabriel then came and taught him the seventy languages, but he could not learn all of them. Gabriel then added one letter, the letter heh, to Joseph’s name from the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and then he was able to learn the languages, as it is stated: “He appointed it in Joseph [Yehosef] for a testimony, when he went forth against the land of Egypt, the speech of one that I did not know I heard” (Psalms 81:6). And the next day, when he appeared before Pharaoh, in every language that Pharaoh spoke with him, he answered him. Joseph then spoke in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, and Pharaoh did not know what he was saying. Pharaoh said to him: Teach me that language. He taught him, but he could not learn it. Pharaoh said to him: Take an oath for my benefit that you will not reveal that I do not know this language. He took an oath for his benefit. Years later, when Joseph said to Pharaoh: “My father made me swear, saying” (Genesis 50:5) that I would bury him in Eretz Yisrael, Pharaoh said to him: Go request the dissolution of your oath. Joseph said to him: And should I also request dissolution for the oath that I took for your benefit? And consequently, even though Pharaoh was not amenable to letting Joseph go, he worried that Joseph would then request dissolution for the oath that he had taken for his benefit, and Pharaoh therefore said to him: “Go up and bury your father according to what he made you swear” (Genesis 50:6). § What was the incident where Judah sanctified God’s name in public? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: When the Jewish people stood at the Red Sea, the tribes were arguing with one other. This one was saying: I am going into the sea first, and that one was saying: I am going into the sea first. Then, in jumped

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita with regard to betrothal, where, if she married another, she need not leave her husband; and what is different in the second clause with regard to divorce, where, if she remarried, she must leave her husband? Abaye said: Interpret the baraita in a case in which each testimony was given by one witness. If one witness says: She was betrothed, and one witness says: She was not betrothed, they are both testifying that she was unmarried. And that witness who says that she was betrothed is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. In the latter clause, if one witness says: She was divorced, and one witness says: She was not divorced, they are both testifying that she was a married woman. And that witness who says that she was divorced is one witness, and the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. Therefore, even if she remarried she must leave her husband. Rav Ashi said: Actually it is a case where there are two witnesses testifying that she is betrothed and divorced, and two testifying that she is not betrothed and divorced. And in order to explain the difference between the first and latter clauses, reverse the two rulings. In the first clause, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was betrothed, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was betrothed, this woman may not marry, and if she marries she must leave her husband. The Gemara asks: In that case, it is obvious that she must leave her husband, as testimony that we did not see her is not effective proof. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the woman and the witnesses reside in one courtyard. Lest you say: If it is so that she was betrothed, the matter generates publicity, and the fact that the neighbors did not see that she was betrothed indicates that she was not, therefore the baraita teaches us that people are prone to betroth a woman in private, with even their neighbors unaware of the betrothal. In the latter clause of the baraita, if two witnesses say: We saw her that she was divorced, and two witnesses say: We did not see her that she was divorced, this woman may not remarry, and if she remarries, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? In this case, too, the fact that the witnesses did not see the divorce proves nothing. The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the witnesses and the woman live in one courtyard and presumably the witnesses would know if she was divorced, their testimony proves nothing. The Gemara asks: This is identical to that novel element taught in the first clause, that neighbors are not necessarily aware of what transpires elsewhere in the courtyard. The Gemara explains that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say that it is with regard to betrothal that people are prone to betroth a woman in private; however, with regard to divorce, if it is so that she was divorced, it would generate publicity, as divorce is typically the culmination of a period of incompatibility that is often public. Therefore, the latter clause teaches us that people are prone to both betroth and divorce in private. Consequently, the fact that the witnesses did not see that she was betrothed and divorced proves nothing. § We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. Two cases were cited in the mishna, one with regard to a divorcée and one with regard to a woman taken captive, and to which of these cases this halakha is referring is a matter of dispute. Rabbi Oshaya taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was divorced. Rabba bar Avin taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, where the woman claims that she was taken captive and remained pure. The Gemara notes: The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, as, in general, with regard to the status of a captive woman, the Sages were lenient, because the prohibition is the result of suspicion and uncertainty as far as what transpired during her period of captivity. And with regard to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, however, in reference to the first clause of the mishna, no, he would not necessarily teach this halakha. The Gemara explains: Let us say it is with regard to the presumption of Rav Hamnuna that these amora’im disagree. The one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna and maintains that if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband, he holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, who said that a woman is not insolent in the presence of her husband, and therefore her claim that she was divorced is accepted. And the one who taught this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna and rules that the woman taken captive need not leave her husband the priest, while the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, he does not hold in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna. The Gemara rejects that explanation: No, actually everyone holds in accordance with the presumption of Rav Hamnuna, and here it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced must leave her husband, maintains that when the presumption of Rav Hamnuna was stated, it was stated specifically in a case where she was in his presence; however, when she is not in his presence, she is insolent. And one Sage, who holds that the woman who claims that she was divorced need not leave her husband, maintains that when not in his presence she is also not insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted. § We learned in the mishna: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband. The father of Shmuel said: Married does not mean actually married; rather, once the court permitted her to marry, although she has not yet married, she need not leave her husband. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: She need not leave, meaning that she need not leave her husband? The Gemara explains: That phrase in this context means that even if witnesses come, she does not emerge from her initial permitted status. The Sages taught that if she said: I was taken captive but I am pure, and I have witnesses who were with me throughout captivity who can testify that I am pure, the court does not say: We will wait until those witnesses come. Rather, the court permits her to marry a priest immediately. If the court permitted her to marry a priest, and witnesses came thereafter and said: We do not know whether or not she remained pure, this woman need not leave her husband, as she was already permitted to marry a priest on the basis of her original statement. And if witnesses that she was violated came and testified, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married. The Gemara relates: There were these captive women who came to Neharde’a with their captors so that the local residents would redeem them. Shmuel’s father posted guards with them to ensure that they would not enter into seclusion with gentiles. Shmuel said to him: Until now who guarded them? If there is concern about their status, it should be with regard to the possibility that they engaged in intercourse while in captivity before they were brought to Neharde’a. He said to Shmuel: If they were your daughters, would you treat them with contempt to that extent? They are no longer captives and deserve to be treated like any Jewish woman of unflawed lineage. The statement by the father of Shmuel was “Like an error that emerges from before the ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and it was realized. The daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and their captors took them up to Eretz Yisrael and sought to sell them or ransom them. Shmuel’s daughters left their captors standing outside, so that they would not come before the court, and the women entered the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina. This daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and that daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood. Ultimately, their captors came and entered, and it was clear that they were the captors of Shmuel’s daughters. However, since the daughters made their claim first and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood, this remained permitted to them. This is based on the halakha that if witnesses subsequently arrive, her initial permitted status need not be revoked. Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is clear from their actions that they are the daughters of great halakhic authorities, as they knew how to conduct themselves in order to retain their presumptive status of purity. The Gemara relates: Ultimately, the matter became clear, that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel. Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, who was a priest: Go out and tend to your relatives, the daughters of Shmuel who were taken captive, and marry one of them. Rav Shemen said to Rabbi Ḥanina: But aren’t there witnesses in a country overseas who knew before the daughters appeared in court that they were taken captive? Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Now, in any event, those witnesses are not before us. He then cited an adage: There are witnesses in the north [astan] side, i.e., in a distant place, and will the woman be forbidden? The Gemara infers from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement: The reason that their testimony may be ignored is because the witnesses did not come to court. However, were the witnesses to come to court, Shmuel’s daughters would be forbidden to priests. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Shmuel’s father say: Once the court permitted a woman to marry, even if she has not yet married, she remains permitted? Rav Ashi said: The discussion between Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav Shemen was stated with regard to witnesses who witnessed their violation. In that case, were the witnesses to come to court and testify, even if she has several children, she must leave the priest to whom she is married.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rabban Gamliel. Since it says that “He will give you mercy etc.”, let the following be a sign in your hand: Whenever that you show mercy, the Omnipresent will have mercy on you. If you do not show mercy, the Omnipresent will not have mercy on you. Rav said: If a person misbehaved towards another and asked for pardon but the other did not respond, let him assemble a row of people and ask for pardon, as it is written: “Form a row of men, etc.” If he does so, what is written there? “He redeemed his soul from the pit, not to go to destruction etc.” Rebbi Yose said, that is if he did not defame, but the defamer is never pardoned.